Amazing Photo Captures Robot Cargo Ship's Space Station Arrival

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

My mother-in-law's next door neighbor is up on the ISS right now, Donald Pettit. He's a really nice guy, fixed one of her broken sprinkler heads before he left for lift off in Baikonur.

How can that be since according to some the whole space program is a hoax.

No seriously that is pretty cool to be able to talk to him when he returns,bet he has some cool pics from up there..
Maybe you can see if he will talk to us if he gets a chance would love to hear what he has to say about being up there.

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by ajay59

 

Yet your observation failed to see the second post above yours.

Meaning what? I see NO signs of stars period. Can you point them out? I could care less what excuse you would us e, exposure, blur or whatever have you. Stars should be easily discernible!

You also lack basic light imaging knowledge.

reply to post by Illustronic


It couldn't hurt to have a thread dedicated to explaining the basics of photography when applied to space missions on ATS.
So many folks claim fake if there are no stars in certain space images.

Its all about the camera and its settings!
A camera does not record everything visible all the time.

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Very well done. Now show me the vast array of stars in the video in question please.

its been explained twice within 8 posts that the videos frame rate is too quick to show the stars. why are you so closed minded?

edit on 7-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

I did see stars in both photos presented in the post. What was the point? I see absolutely no stars in the video. Whom is closed minded?

I'm afraid you are. Close Minded that is.

I (and others) who are educated in the field of photography have explained to you why there are stars in the one photo, but not in the video. The same thing can be said of photos from the moon: the exposure time was too short, because the sun was up and both the surface of the moon, the objects in the camera were reflecting a LOT of light, so exposure times had to be short.

Star light is faint. It takes longer exposure times to image stars, because their light is so faint.

Again, you DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE US! You can do your very own test yourself!

As a mater of fact, I challenge you do to this, and prove us wrong. Instead of sitting in your chair and just saying that you think we are wrong, or do not believe us.

Get up off of your bottom, and actually exercise your mind, by conducting repeatable experiments using cameras. You can even try to use your cell phone camera, and if you have a video cam (you'll be disappointed as you can't make exposure times long enough on those, but it still proves what we are saying is true: exposure time maters).

So again, before you try to prove a point, actually try doing these things yourself, instead of just sitting there. You'll learn something, maybe have a new hobby, and if nothing else, you'll actually learn the physics of film imaging and CCD chips.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


The simple fact that it is a video means the imaging rate has to be less than the frame rate per second. 30 frames per second is normal video rate today, IMAX and later 1080p uses 60 frames per second. Even at the antiquated 24 frames per second should indicate the exposure per frame is at most 1/24th of a second, at least, who knows depending on the average field of view light intensity, (for auto adjust exposures). So we can clearly see the stars on the still image are not dots, thus have an exposure time greater than 1/24th of a second at worst, or more. Like I said a simple tripod shot of a crescent moon with stars in the field of view will trail. Here's a poor example I took years ago, no star is a dot and the exposure was less than 2 seconds I can confirm.

Simple Sony Cybershot 2001 vintage.

Short


Medium


Longer

hopefully ajay? understands now....
it's a very basic photography/ videography reason as to why there are no stars present in the video vs photo.
it's been explained clearly and concisely for everyone who questioned it, to understand.

cool pics BTW! needed a little noise reduction though...lol Photoshop on the ISS space station...lol!

reply to post by Grifter81


someone must have flushed the toilet. See any turds floating around?

If any one wants to know about the stuff coming out of thrusters and how it behaves...

www.vgl.org...

I learned that the thrusters never generate any light while operating, but they always emit a small cloud of unburned propellant just before the thruster fires and a much larger cloud immediately after the thruster shuts down. The post-burn cloud may be visible, but only when reflecting sunlight. The pre-burn cloud is never visible to the human eye but might be detected by a light-sensitive camera.

Another angle:


Lucky catch for the thrusters usually only fire momentarily and would be hard to photograph.
Mystifying toxic gunge anyway.

Here's an animated .gif that was made by using 70 hi res still images:



And Ajay, these 70 still images were long exposures, which is why the stars appear. This isn't from a typical video recording.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
And great technology-the ESA module is unmanned,and re usable.

Actually it's not reusable at all, unfortunately.

I wonder if the greenish haze on our planet's horizon is part of an aurora?

It could be, but it may also be just the atmosphere/ozone layer.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I'm looking forward to visiting with him when he returns, I'm not sure when it will be, but he won't be home too soon after he lands.

After being in space for any lengthy period of time, there is a recovery period that has to be endured before normal activity can resume.

As for him being able to answer questions, NASA actually has to approve and "official" appearances any astronaut makes. I found this out when looking to have him speak at my kids' schools in the past. I'll see if he can tell me anything "off the record" or has any photos to share.

My godmother-in-law, was head librarian of the Lunar Planetary Institute before she retired and her and my brother-in-law actually saved many of the iconic moon photos that are world famous from NASA dumpsters. If it weren't for the two of them, most of those photos would be lost to landfills.

I inherited her personal library when she passed away a few years ago and am still combing through the books for anything of interest. Not that anything of earth shattering import would ever be published, but some of the scientific and technical books are interesting in their own right and many of them are signed by the authors and she is listed in the acknowledgments sections of several.

I also have (well my mother-in-law has them in a climate controlled storage space) some pictures from various space programs. When I get the time I will see if I can dig any of them up and post a thread with them and such.

Also have several of the original mission enamel pins and possibly some mission patches. I'll include pic of these if I ever get around to making the above referenced thread.

Some fun Donald got to have up in space: