No Stars seen from Space?

reply to post by GaryN


HUH?

And the company that now maintains and processes data from the instruments observing the Sun, is owned by the Vatican.

WoW!

The most amazing unsubstantiated claims that one can see run across here on ATS. Simply stunning......

What in the BLAZES are you talking about?

Millions of people have taken pictures of the sun! Using solar filters, film cameras, digital cameras, and yes even telescopes.

From Earth, yes, it's easy. Show me one from in orbit, or from space. The fancy images from those space based INSTRUMENTS, not normal cameras or telescopes, do not count.

The most amazing unsubstantiated claims that one can see run across here on ATS. Simply stunning......

Do some research. I heard it from this guy, it checks out. Go to 4:00 Minutes.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by GaryN


I'm sorry, but I have to LMAO at this:

I heard it from this guy, it checks out. Go to 4:00 Minutes.

I mean, come on! No one is this gullible.....can't be!

Nassim Haramein is a crackpot. Simple as that. He displays his ignorance (or insanity, take your pick) in those first 4 minutes.

He claims that sunspots are ejecting water. Untrue. What he has done is completely misunderstood the spectral analysis results that determined that water vapor does form in the relatively "cooler" areas on the Sun' surface that we call "sunspots". But, "cool" is certainly a misnomer......because they are around 3,000° to 3,200° K. ( °K follow the same graduation scales as °C, but the Kelvin scale begins at "absolute zero".....about -273°C).

It is not surprising that water vapor exists, since the Sun is primarily Hydrogen (the most abundant element in the Universe), and it only needs one Oxygen atom for every two Hydrogen to make a water molecule.

Since the main activity of the Sun is fusion.....the Sun makes its own Oxygen atoms.

But, that water vapor is not "spewing" out of the sunspots. The work done in Solar spectroscopy merely adds to the overall knowledge of the Sun, and the many aspects of its behavior. And, this confirms that in addition to the abundance of Hydrogen, the Universe is also well-stocked with water, in various forms. This adds to the excitement over the search for life (as we know it) elsewhere besides the Earth.


He claims that we can build a spaceship, and enter a singularity. Untrue. He seems to have taken a purely theoretical concept proposed regarding "black holes" (a type of singularity) that postulates that such objects might have a counterpart of some sort (dubbed a "white hole")....this is all conjecture.

In any case, the gravitational shearing forces in a singularity are so great that anything entering one is utterly destroyed. Well, to be absolutely technically correct, matter cannot be "destroyed" according to the semantic definition, but it can be converted to other forms....usually described as "energy".

This is a matter of physics;

Some see it as a philosophical question, though. .but as an absolute in the scientific sense, Nassim Haramein simply does not know what he's talking about. Might as well be getting a lecture from "Borat".....

This is fantasy of the highest order.

(edit)...and oh yeah....his claim that the Vatican "controls" all of the Solar Observatories? Utter BS.
Mind you....I am NO "fan" of any religion. I would prefer to see that scourge of Human folly erased from the planet. SO, this is not a "defence" of Catholics....it is a simple truth that Nassim Haramein is, to put it bluntly, off his rocker.

Is this thread still going if we had the specs of the camera that takes video/pictures that always helps but exposure is always the answer to the no stars BS in pictures.

As for astronauts not seeing stars they are surrounded by terrain lit by the sun so have a look are for an idea how long it can take for your eyes to fully dark adapt if they hid the the shadow of the lander.

usasam.amedd.army.mil/dl/Flight%20Provider%20Refresher/Lesson%203%20Aeromedical%20Physiology/Lesson%203%20part%20G,%20Night%20Vision.pdf

From above

On an average it takes 30 to 45 minutes for your rods to be fully dark adapted to night vision.

A little info on rods

Rod cells, or rods, are photoreceptor cells in the retina of the eye that can function in less intense light than can the other type of visual photoreceptor, cone cells

Do you think they had that long to spend doing that just to keep some people on earth with a POOR understanding of light,optics,photography,physics and biology happy

reply to post by ProudBird


I think a lot of Harameins work is rubbish too, singularities, black holes, all nonsense. And H2O is found all over the place, like you say, in one form or another, but not liquid by the bucketful for sure. However, you can research company info and see who owns what companies, you don't have to just take his word for it.
And isn't it just a tad suspicious that I have never found a solar filter for any of their cameras, on any mission, including the ISS, listed in inventory?
The filter manufacturers assure me their filters would work fine in space, we know the cameras work fine, but I don't get a reply from NASA when I ask them if they could just take a snap of the Sun from up there so I can believe it is possible. You don't need to worry about long exposures taking Sun photos.
And while we're at it, I have never seen a colour picture of the far side of the Moon, through a regular camera. The Russians tried it in 1959, the image came back all but black. The US tried it with a multimillion dollar, f0.7 lens attached to a 3 tube colour camera. Have you ever seen a vid of the Lunar far side? And somehow, Kubrick ended up with that lens. And Kubrick was pretty close to Roger Waters, and what do you hear a voice say on the DSOTM album?
"There is no Dark side of the Moon. Matter of fact it's all dark".

reply to post by GaryN

And isn't it just a tad suspicious that I have never found a solar filter for any of their cameras, on any mission, including the ISS, listed in inventory?

No, I don't. Not really. What would be the scientific benefit? There are more sensitive and sophisticated devices already sent up, on missions to study the Sun. And, it's certainly bright enough that any ground-based photo through a filter would be identical to one taken from LEO.

The filter manufacturers assure me their filters would work fine in space, we know the cameras work fine, but I don't get a reply from NASA when I ask them if they could just take a snap of the Sun from up there so I can believe it is possible.

Sorry? I'm confused.....I never for one second would have bothered to ask if a normal solar filter for an SLR camera would or would not "work fine" in space. Of course it would! Common sense, really.

Now, you say "...so you can believe it is possible". Really? Little wonder you didn't get a reply....I mean, not to be rude but....it's a rather moot and silly question, actually.

And while we're at it, I have never seen a colour picture of the far side of the Moon, through a regular camera. The Russians tried it in 1959, the image came back all but black.

Well, of course there isn't a whole lot of color (colour) on the Moon, from orbital distances, to begin with. It's a rather bland blend of a brownish gray.....but, the exact hue will depend a lot on the film's color (colour) temperature rating, the lenses, the actual ambient lighting conditions, etc.

For Apollo-era missions, you have to consider the planning for the actual landings. They timed it so that all of the landings occurred in the early Lunar "morning"....so you can visualize for yourself where the two terminators would have been, on the Moon's surface, and which portion of the hemisphere was day-lit. (You aren't going to get a very good photo of the dark Lunar "night" side, are you?).

The Moon rotates counter-clockwise ("anti-clockwise") when viewed from above, looking 'down' at its North pole....the same as Earth's direction of rotation. So, the Apollo LMs made their descent from the Lunar East, to keep the Sun behind them.....not only did they not have the Sun in their eyes for the landings, the long shadows due to the low angle of the Sun gave good depth perception....vital in such an alien landscape, with no familiar references that pilots are used to using.

The CMP, who remained on-board the CSM on orbit, would have been taking photos. And, a portion (at least) of the far side would have been in sunlight, since the near side was not in "Full" phase....which wojuld equate to Lunar "noon".

This is a link to the Apollo Image Gallery

You might try searching there. Of course, took me only a few moments, and the very famously iconic photo was found:



It is image AS11-44-6547. It is labelled "Earthrise sequence - Earth emerges over lunar horizon"

This was taken prior to the landing descent. It was the crew's first look after Lunar Orbit Insertion, as they loped 'round back from behind the Moon.

You must agree, some of the landscape below is "far side", just from looking at the geometry and angle, yes?

The US tried it with a multimillion dollar, f0.7 lens attached to a 3 tube colour camera. Have you ever seen a vid of the Lunar far side? And somehow, Kubrick ended up with that lens.

Well, first things first.....actually, here is the story of the Zeiss lens(es):

Glass Curiosities: A NASA lens becomes a filmmaker’s obsession

Building on research into nighttime infrared optics by the Nazis in World War II, Zeiss developed a special 50 mm planar lens for a NASA project to photograph the dark side of the moon.

Of course, the one NASA launched to the Moon never came back to Earth. There were ten of the Zeiss lenses made, in total:

There were were only 10 of these Zeiss lenses ever produced. Three are owned by Kubrick, six by NASA and one can be found at the German Movie Museum in Frankfurt.

(Of course, at least one of the six owned by NASA is likely fragmented into millions of pieces somewhere on the Lunar surface).



As to videos, that would most likely be from the Japanese Kayuga.



(Slightly trite soundtrack).


AND:

Originally posted by GaryN
...And while we're at it, I have never seen a colour picture of the far side of the Moon, through a regular camera....

As ProudBird pointed out, there are in fact color pictures of the far side of the Moon taken from the Apollo CM.

I took a quick look at one of the color film magazine thumbnails. This is magazine "R" from Apollo 12, which was color, and included images of the far side from orbit (along with images of the near side). The far side images in the link below are

AS12-51-7518 though AS12-51-7529
and
AS12-51-7554 through AS12-51-7564

www.lpi.usra.edu...



I've looked at the pictures from other Apollo missions, and they do include additional color images of the far side.

Here is a link to Apollo13 film magazine "L". There are several color images of the far side in this link (such as the many images of Tsiolkovskiy Crater). Apollo 13 was almost lost and needed to abort its landing, but it did swing around the far side of the Moon once.

Apollo 13, Film Magazine "L":
www.lpi.usra.edu...


There are other color images of the far side, taken during other Apollo missions. They exist, and are there for you to see.

I can't believe people keep saying that there would be no interest in seeing the Sun, and Sunspots from orbit. But OK, I'll go with it for now. The same goes for the Moon then, and conjunctions? Not one astronaut, some of who were astronomers, has ever wanted to take a picture of anything from orbit, apart from the Earth? And why do that when there are satellites with much better optics/detectors orbiting the Earth, though they may be military and the images not available.
And to have those f0.7 lenses built, means you are expecting extremely low light conditions. A well lit far side should have needed an f16 at 1/100 (maybe even 1/250) with ISO 100. The images taken with the SO-368 film do not tell a true story. The film had a maximum sensitivity at 368nm, which is the wavelength of a 'black' light, so you would not see it by eye. It is also produced by fluorescence of some minerals when they are bombarded by x-ray or extreme UV plane-wave E/M radiation from the Sun. When NASA produces an image and says it is a picture, you need to examine all aspects of the 'photo'. The Selene 'camera' was also not an off-the-shelf unit, and the images returned may well have used multi-band near-infrared data. Sure with the right instruments and equipment you can image things our eyes can not see, but I insist on seeing images a regular camera, or our eyes could see. Otherwise, to us, it would be black.

Aristarchus actually glowed in some Apollo images, showing likely UV emissions from accelerated electrons. The craters are electrical in formation.
oi52.tinypic.com...

reply to post by GaryN

I can't believe people keep saying that there would be no interest in seeing the Sun, and Sunspots from orbit.

I'm not sure what your issue is. Solar observations require specialized instruments that were not necessary for the sort of research required in the early crewed space missions. The Apollo Applications Project, "Skylab," more than made up for this with observations made with its Apollo Telescope Mount Solar Observatory. You can skip to Chapter 6 for the best piccies:

history.nasa.gov...

During Apollo proper, the chief emphasis was on observing the Moon, as that's where they were. Ditto early Earth orbital flights; they tended to photograph the Earth. Some Apollo missions did attempt to photograph the Gegenschein, or Zodiacal Light. These images might give you some idea why there was no point in attempting useful stellar photography from anything other than a dedicated astronomical satellite:







www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by GaryN


Wouldn't they need to mount the camera on tracking equipment?

The space station moves very fast. For each orbit it's only in "daylight" for 45 minutes at a time (then 45 minutes of "night"). The Sun will appear to be tracking across the sky relatively quickly, and any picture of more than a fraction of a second exposure would require the camera to be mounted on a motorized tracking mount or else the image would be blurry. And that tracking mount would need to be custom-built and have a variable computer-controlled movement because the space station could be in almost any position relative to the Sun. It's not like a back-yard astronomer's tracking mount here on Earth, where the movement of the Earth is a relative constant.

I think the exposure time WILL be more than a brief fraction of a second, considering the dark filters needed to be put on the lenses of the camera (less light = longer exposure time).

I suppose this camera and tracking equipment could be mounted to the outside of the space station, but now you are getting into some expense. If instead you want the camera and tracking mount inside the station with an astronaut taking these pictures, then wouldn't the space station need to have a window that often faces the Sun? (the space station has only a few windows).

It's not as simple as "just put a filter on a camera and take pictures".

These images might give you some idea why there was no point in attempting useful stellar photography from anything other than a dedicated astronomical satellite:

If you look at the images from the FUVC device, you will see that the Moon would make an excellent astronomy platform. Some of the exposures are 30 minutes before streaking is really noticeable, and the FUVC had no tracking ability.
www3.telus.net...
If you examine the details of this device you will perhaps realise why NASA didn't make it easy to decode the data.

The space station moves very fast.

This vid from the ISS explains how the movement of the ISS is at times almost zero WRT the stars. Orbital mechanics makes my head spin, but I kind of understand what's going on. The ISS was determined to be an excellent astronomy platform by the designers, but I guess they just have better stuff to do. If you search astrophotography from the international space station you will see very little has been done.
www.youtube.com...
What isn't obvious from the images of stars they show is that those stars are just above the Earths crescent, so they are looking sideways through the Earths ionosphere. If you look at all the images from the ISS, you will notice that the Moon, Venus, and stars all show a crescent Earth, or in some cases it is just out of shot. If they tried to look away from the Earth into deep space, they would see nothing. I'd bet on it.

I think the exposure time WILL be more than a brief fraction of a second, considering the dark filters needed to be put on the lenses of the camera (less light = longer exposure time).

Here are some typical settings. I took a picture, on full auto of the Sun through some dark green welding goggles, and it the camera showed 1/1000 @ f8, why should it be any different from the ISS?

www.astronomy.no...

For operational reasons the station maintains a horizontal orientation, and it turns its solar arrays to track the sun as it moves across the sky at about 4 degrees per minute [360 degrees every 90 minutes]. There are LOTS of windows on the ISS, most spectacularly in the cupola, which is Earth-facing because that's where the scenary is. Excellent optically-flat windows are also in the Russian Segment and the US Lab [look up WORF], also Earth-facing. Smaller windows are mounted in other directions, mostly from docking ports to be able to see stuff coming towards you, or in Kibo to observe robotic ops on the exterior science platform. There are small windows in the docked Soyuzes, looking sideways and forward. But I think you're right to point out there really isn't any 'space-facing' picture window for full sky observations -- that never seemed like a pressing need during design and assembly. Those views at night are best seen during EVAs -- when there is very little time for sight-seeing!

reply to post by JimOberg


The solar arrays don't track the sun in the precise manner that a camera would need to. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it isn't as easy as putting a filter on a camera and snapping photos.

The copula, by the way, looks down toward the earth. Due to the movement of the station, there is not a window that has a long-time view of the sun that would make it "easy" to have an astronaut photographing the Sun for research purposes.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Wouldn't they need to mount the camera on tracking equipment?

On the three shuttle ASTRO-Spacelab missions they had a very precise pointing platform for exactly this reason. You can look them up.

The issue of precise long-term pointing is the key criterion for mission strategy selection.

What Hubble showed, was that contrary to earlier expectations, it was possible using very precise orientation systems -- mostly gyros -- to hold inertial attitude in free space for extended periods -- tens of hours, for some long exposures of distant, dim targets.This simply had never been thought possible until Hubble performed it.

That's why the Moon had been suggested as a telescope mount in the early space age days -- just to give the telescope the basement stability required for very long exposures. But now that the moon is known to have electrostatic-levitated dust and other environmental problems of its own, and is HARD to get down onto and operate in its thermal extremes, the early interest in putting telescopes there has all but vanished, except RADIO telescopes to make use of 2000 miles of rock shielding from Earth's radiobuzzing. And they can take advantage of that shielding while not needing to go all the way down onto the surface -- they can do it from high orbit over the back side.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by JimOberg

 

The solar arrays don't track the sun in the precise manner that a camera would need to. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it isn't as easy as putting a filter on a camera and snapping photos.

The copula, by the way, looks down toward the earth. Due to the movement of the station, there is not a window that has a long-time view of the sun that would make it "easy" to have an astronaut photographing the Sun for research purposes.

Exactly. When Skylab ran the Apollo Telescope Mount, the entire station was pointed solar-inertial and held attitude.

While the ISS could also be operated for brief periods in that manner, there's nothing on board that requires it.