No Stars seen from Space?

Absolutely correct, Zorgon! Thanks for denying ignorance (again).

Virtually all, if not, indeed, all spacecraft, including those manned, use stars for navigation. If anyone looks at an image of a planet and expects to see stars shining beyond the edges, they are expecting too much. The starlight will be under-exposed almost every time. Phobos is an excellent example. It is one of the darkest bodies known and camera settings are adjusted to obtain faint light reflections, but even at that, images of it rarely display stars--even though the probes position themselves by starlight.

Going to raw images of space bodies such as Phobos on NASA sites will frequently display stars. But just making judgments from the images churned out for public consumption is a poor way to a determination.

Typo corrections







OK. ATS, we have a problem. How do you do corrections (Sorry, folks)

reply to post by Chadwickus

EDIT: Just noticed the image was taken with a down looking camera...

why

is that funny ?

reply to post by easynow

There seem to be a lot of stars on the surface of the Earth as well as in space.

It looks to me like the "stars" are the result of a dirty scan.

Stars in the hanger?
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by easynow

 

There seem to be a lot of stars on the surface of the Earth as well as in space.

It looks to me like the "stars" are the result of a dirty scan.

Stars in the hanger?
www.nasa.gov...

edit on 9/11/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

i suppose that's a possibility but in my opinion,

what you say are stars on the surface don't look the same.

reply to post by easynow


I was laughing at my mistake.

The article mentioned a top mount camera to take photos of stars, then the caption stated it was from a bottom mount camera.

Give this one a whirl. I am an avid telescope user so I am quite used to the difference between eyes/camera/telescope. And the different view achieved between any combination of all three,

www.astropix.com...

reply to post by jaynkeel

Just to clarify; that is a composite image. A properly exposed photograph of the full Moon would not show any stars.

This image is a composite of a short 1/400th second exposure for the Moon, and a longer 1/25th second exposure for Antares.

www.astropix.com...

reply to post by Phage


Yeah I realized I should have included a snippet in there like
"This image is a composite of a short 1/400th second exposure for the Moon, and a longer 1/25th second exposure for Antares. Antares was recorded in the 1/400th second exposure, but when reduced in size for display on this web page, it was only one pixel in size and nearly invisible.

This is an example of how the eye is much better at accommodating a large brightness range than a film or digital camera is."

Which is the one thing I wanted to point out, the last sentence. Which is why you can actually watch the moon occult stars, via telescope or naked eye.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by easynow

 

There seem to be a lot of stars on the surface of the Earth..

Yep! Paris Hilton, Nicole Kidman, Lisa Kudrow, Megan Fox and so on! Not that I'm star struck! But Zorgon is! If he can't get to see any stars in space why the heck doesn't he come down to mother Earth? I mean literally!

Originally posted by darkraver
the main problem is: are any stars visible from moon surface...
right?
I believe they are,but then again NASA claims they aren't
astronauts officialy claimed they aren't

nobody cared to ask someone like Mitchell yet for an opinion?

it's not about the camera settings but all about what does a human astronaut really see up there

ONLY longitudinal waves travel in a vacuum, so you can not see stars from space, or from the surface of the moon, or from the surface of any planet with no atmosphere unless you use a diffraction grating, which Hubble does. So, if you were in space, or on the Moon, could you see the Sun??

Originally posted by GaryN=\-
ONLY longitudinal waves travel in a vacuum, so you can not see stars from space, or from the surface of the moon, or from the surface of any planet with no atmosphere unless you use a diffraction grating, which Hubble does. So, if you were in space, or on the Moon, could you see the Sun??

So... you have been in space to test this theory of yours? If ONLY longitudinal waves travel in space, then how do the other waves GET to the Hubble so it can use its diffraction grating? Better rethink your 'science' eh?


OMNI: What's the best part of being in space?

Musgrave: The view of the heavens: the stars are brighter and you see the entire celestial sphere. On an EVA, your helmet is fairly panoramic. But if you don't think about having these experiences they won't happen to you.

So I guess Astronaut Story Musgrave is lying then huh?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon

 

The statement on APOD (a PR site) is not exactly correct, though it does say "something like". If you go to the source of the image it says this:

A total solar eclipse is the only time you could glimpse other stars in the sky with the Sun.

www.astropix.com...
That is true. But have you ever seen Venus in daylight? I have.

Yeah but you NEGLECTED the part,,, the FIRST part where it says "If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this..."

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by zorgon
I have heard all the arguments why no stars appear in certain NASA photos, yet I was never satisfied with the answer...

Orion and other constellations clearly visible from space.
Credit: NASA - STS-35.

NICE!!! See? there ya go... Never A Straight Answers says "no stars" in one story then shows us star. Such comedians those NASA guys... a billion laughs on our dime

www.youtube.com...


what do you think of this vid? i dont know anything about this stuff, so cant realy say if its bs or not.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by zorgon
I have heard all the arguments why no stars appear in certain NASA photos, yet I was never satisfied with the answer...

Orion and other constellations clearly visible from space.
Credit: NASA - STS-35.

NICE!!! See? there ya go... Never A Straight Answers says "no stars" in one story then shows us star. Such comedians those NASA guys... a billion laughs on our dime

Ah zorgon still trying to keep the myth going, EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE 3 times just to make sure it sinks in.

Obviously photography as a subject is to TECHNICAL for some of the youngsters on here and a LOT of the silver surfer members (older members) eh zorgon!

reply to post by zorgon

Yeah but you NEGLECTED the part,,, the FIRST part where it says "If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this..."

Yes, but you neglected the part where it says "today's daytime sky MIGHT look something like this." In other words, the point of the photograph is to show where the sun is in relation to the stars, not illustrate the effect of Rayleigh scattering. You have great skill in selective reading comprehension.

reply to post by zorgon

NICE!!! See? there ya go... Never A Straight Answers says "no stars" in one story then shows us star. Such comedians those NASA guys... a billion laughs on our dime

You keep repeating "no stars" like a mantra. Where, exactly, has NASA, whoever that individual is, actually say that no stars are visible in space. In real life, stars are used for navigational purposes in space, and are observed by satellites in a wide range of wavelengths. Astronauts have always reported seeing stars when their eyes were properly light adjusted and there are numerous photographs taken from space which have been taken with appeopriate exposures that show stars. Who is this NASA of whom you speak, and where does s/he ever say there are no stars in space?

Here's more...


Long-exposure photo taken from the surface of the Moon by
Apollo 16 using a special ultraviolet camera. It shows the Earth
with the correct background of stars.
NASA

Originally posted by DJW001
You keep repeating "no stars" like a mantra. Where, exactly, has NASA, whoever that individual is, actually say that no stars are visible in space.

Here for one... I think their names are Niel Armstrong and Mike Collins





Mantras are useful... repeat them often enough and many people will hear them and ask questions

reply to post by zorgon

Mantras are useful... repeat them often enough and many people will hear them and ask questions

Repeat them enough and people will believe them without question. It's called "brainwashing."