Of course there are stars!

The surface of the moon is bright.

Where the heck do you get that from?? Just because it looks bright from the Earth? Read some NASA mission reports, study the cameras and lenses and exposure times and the film speed, and to anyone with any understanding, it is obvious the light is extremely poor. They had a difficult time especially with the video cameras, read about their development and what they had to do to get even the crappy video they did. Albedo 0.7 for the most part, one or two areas where it gets to .12, but still as dark as a blacktopped car park, it is NOT bright! According to NASA figures the light averaged that of a location on Earth at about the position of Houston, Texas, 15 minutes AFTER sundown!! The Russians and the USA gave up trying to video the far side of the Moon, their most sensitive TV cameras and the f/0.7 high speed lenses couldn't do it, and any video you might see claiming to be of the far side of the Moon uses laser altimeters and IR and UV spectography. All the information is out there, so either nobody wants to believe it because Hollywood has them fooled, they don't understand the technology used, or as I have long suspected, ATS is a total disinfo site.
I doubt I'll be back, eh? :-)

In case anyone is interested in Albedo and what it is:

Albedo ( /ælˈbiːdoʊ/), or reflection coefficient, derived from Latin albedo "whiteness" (or reflected sunlight), in turn from albus "white", is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.

Albedo



note: albedo can be expressed in percentages or decimal. An albedo of 17% is the same as 0.17

Here in the Earth, the albedo varies:

Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4.[7] The average albedo of the Earth is about 0.3.[8] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.

Albedo of the moon differs from the Earth's albedo however:

The overall albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, but it is strongly directional and non-Lambertian, displaying also a strong opposition effect.[18] While such reflectance properties are different from those of any terrestrial terrains, they are typical of the regolith surfaces of airless solar system bodies.

A Lambertian Reflectance is:

the property that defines an ideal diffusely reflecting surface. The apparent brightness of such a surface to an observer is the same regardless of the observer's angle of view. More technically, the surface's luminance is isotropic, and the luminous intensity obeys Lambert's cosine law. Lambertian reflectance is named after Johann Heinrich Lambert.

Just in case anyone needed to understand albedo, what it is, and how it's different everywhere depending on surface, air (or lack of), clouds (or lack of), etc.

Originally posted by GaryN

The surface of the moon is bright.

Where the heck do you get that from?? Just because it looks bright from the Earth? ...

... According to NASA figures the light averaged that of a location on Earth at about the position of Houston, Texas, 15 minutes AFTER sundown!!

If you are you referring to this publication...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

...then you missed the point about the lighting conditions in Texas 15 minutes after sunset. This study does NOT say that the lit part of the Moon is like the lighting conditions on earth 15 minutes after sunset -- it says the NIGHT side of the Moon (the dark part of the Moon) can sometimes be similar to Texas 15 minutes after sunset due to earthshine.

read this excerpt:

ABSTRACT
An investigation into the levels of ambient lighting on the lunar surface indicates
that for most nearside locations, illumination will be adequate throughout most of the
lunar night to conduct extravehicular activities (EVAs) with only minor artificial illumination.
The maximum lighting available during the lunar night from Earthshine will be
similar to the light level on a July evening at approximately 8:00 p.m. in the southern
United States (approximately 15 minutes after sunset). Because of the captured rotation
of the Moon about the Earth, the location of the Earth will remain approximately constant
throughout the lunar night, with consequent constant shadow length and angle.
Variations in the level of Earthshine illumination will be solely a function of Earth phase
angle. Experience during the Apollo Program suggests that EVA activities conducted
during the period around the lunar noon may be difficult due to lack of surface definition
caused by elimination of shadows.

This states that because of the Earthshine, the near side of the moon on a lunar night could sometimes be about as bright as it is on Earth a little after sunset.

This study was done in order to find out if the available window for Moon exploration operations could be extended by allowing the LEM to be landed during the lunar night, lit only by earthshine. Other studies were done concerning the idea that If astronauts were to spend extended periods of time on the moon (more than a few days at a time) they may need to contend with the darkness of the lunar night.

So no -- NASA does NOT say that the lit part of the Moon is like Texas after sunset. They say the DARK part can have those lighting conditions on occasions of bright earthshine.

By the way, You and I had this discussion 4 months ago on this very same thread (back on page 4).

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


He forgot, he may have had a senior moment or he has went through all is excuses and has arrived back at the start, here we go again

reply to post by GaryN


Even with low albedo, the lunar surface under the blazing sunlight is still very bright, compared to the blackness of space. Also keep in mind that the astronauts had tinted visors.

reply to post by GaryN

Originally posted by GaryN

The surface of the moon is bright.

Where the heck do you get that from?? Just because it looks bright from the Earth? Read some NASA mission reports, study the cameras and lenses and exposure times and the film speed, and to anyone with any understanding, it is obvious the light is extremely poor.

YOU are really starting to look an idiot you said this

Originally posted by GaryN
ISO 50 | f/13 | 1/8000sec | 10 stop ND filter (that makes f/23)

That alone shows you dont have a clue what you are talking about YOU never did answer how you got to f23
You claim you have a Nikon looks like it must be a point & shoot because a DSLR/SLR would be wasted on you!

Apollo film magazines




You have a Nikon you will understand what that means?


A link to Apollo 11 film index lots of info regarding the pictures taken.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The film types are listed in above index and below is a link to Kodak Film types.
www.taphilo.com...

Here is a nice Moon image
www.pbase.com...

Here is the exif details if anyone cant see the image
Canon
Model Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Flash Used No
Focal Length 560 mm
Exposure Time 1/160 sec
Aperture f/11
ISO Equivalent 200

LOOKS bright enough to me!!!

I read this from an interview with Chris Hadfield, recently retired Canadian astronaut. It seems quite unequivocal, he does not make excuses about tinted visors, or dark adaptation, so do we take his word at face value?

The contrast of your body and your mind inside ... essentially a one-person spaceship, which is your spacesuit, where you're holding on for dear life to the shuttle or the station with one hand, and you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions. It's like a huge yawning endlessness on your left side and you're in between those two things and trying to rationalize it to yourself and trying to get some work done.

reply to post by GaryN


It's awfully dishonest of you (and against site rules as well) to not include a link back to the source of your quote. I know why you did that though, you'd knew I'd find this:

On what it's like to do a spacewalk
[astronauts have lights on their helmets which are on during space walks while they're on the night side of earth so that they can illuminate whatever is in front of them - this normally prevents dark adaptation even while on earth's night side]
...
[He talks about the darkness of the sky you mentioned, but he goes on LATER in the interview to describe having to shut his lights off in order to dark adapt, something you lied in claiming he never mentioned]
I was coming across the Indian Ocean in the dark. I was riding on the end of the robot arm ... [and] I thought, "I want to look at Australia in the dark," because everyone lives along the coast, starting with Perth and across and it's like a necklace of cities. So I shut off my lights, and I let my eyes completely adjust to the darkness...

www.npr.org...
Now, he didn't specifically talk about looking at the stars after dark adapting, but that's not what he was talking about at that time, he was talking about looking for the city lights in Australia but ended up seeing aurora instead, something he would have missed if he had not deliberately dark adapted himself as he specifically says in the interview, reinforcing the fact that you DO have to make a deliberate effort to view dim phenomenon like that.

Cherry picking quotes is not an honest way to have a debate. Go ask an astronaut yourself. I have. I talked to Barbara Morgan about seeing stars from the flight deck of the shuttle. When they shut the lights off while on the night side and deliberately allow themselves to dark adapt, they can see a huge canvas of stars all over the sky, more vivid than anything they've seen on earth, she told me so herself.

Hadfield?

The guy who took this?

twitter.com...

Apollo took lots of pictures of stars, it's just that not many people know about them. I do:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

They used specialist lenses and films and techniques to do most of them, but occasionally Venus is so bright you can see it in 'ordinary' photographs from the surface.

reply to post by ngchunter

It's awfully dishonest of you (and against site rules as well) to not include a link back to the source of your quote. I know why you did that though, you'd knew I'd find this:

Well that's what copy and search is for, so rather than just me pointing to a specific site, you can find all the relevant sites.

but ended up seeing aurora instead, something he would have missed if he had not deliberately dark adapted himself

The Aurora are quite bright enough to see without dark adaptation from Earth, as are the stars, and I've been through this before. Stare at a bright light until your eyes hurt, go out and look up. You will see stars, not as many as if you dark adapt for sure, but still lots of the brighter ones.

I talked to Barbara Morgan about seeing stars from the flight deck of the shuttle. When they shut the lights off while on the night side and deliberately allow themselves to dark adapt, they can see a huge canvas of stars all over the sky, more vivid than anything they've seen on earth, she told me so herself.

Can you provide a link to those comments?

@onebigmonkey

The guy who took this?

Using the atmosphere around the Earth again, not a deep space view, which is where Hadfield said he could not see anything. I'll find his EVA times, punch them into Celestia, and bet I'll find he should at least have been able to see a planet or two during that time. The planets should be very easily visible, especially Venus.

onebigmonkey

They used specialist lenses and films and techniques to do most of them, but occasionally Venus is so bright you can see it in 'ordinary' photographs from the surface.

Thanks for that link, hadn't seen that before, I'll take a closer look. But, they are using a very sensitive film, and long exposures. One is the KODAK HAWKEYE Surveillance Film, the other a UV sensitive film. You can not see UV, so those shots can be discounted. With the 2485, the long exposures can collect more photons of course, which your eye can not do. Hubble can take hours to collect enough photons for its images, The whole point is that the stars would not be visible by eye, there are just not enough photons available per second for vision to occur. The eye may be very sensitive indeed, but visual consciousness is not dependant on seeing one photon alone.

GaryN
The Aurora are quite bright enough to see without dark adaptation from Earth, as are the stars, and I've been through this before.

How many stars do you see during a typical football game under the lights on a friday night? In my experience, generally none. Sometimes a bright planet like Venus or Jupiter. Aurora? Not a chance, it would have to be an exceptionally bright aurora to stand any chance at all.

From a hoax standpoint, it would be convenient to black out the sky above the fake moon sirface because this would allow you to ignore star positions when doing your hoax. This way you don't have to fake the star positions. Having to keep track of the time and position and orbit of the moon and thus the exact place where the stars would rise and fall would complicate it. If you made an error people in the future would catch it. Even a normal desktop user can nowadays load up planetarium software and know exactly which stars will be visible at which time and whatever place on the moon for the past hundreds or thousands of years. In the 1960's I don't think they had the technology to fake something like that.

I definitely don't believe we faked the moon landings. Alls I'ma saying is by blacking out the sky it'd make hoaxing the moon landings easier.

A previous commenter posted this and it shows some apollo pictures which include stars/planets:
onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Has anybody verified those images using planetarium software somehow?

reply to post by jonnywhite


Interesting viewpoint johhnywhite, but I for one DO believe they went to the Moon, and took photos, and onebigmonkey has the best resource I have seen for such images. Strange that even after all these years, some images are still not available, but I think there is a good reason. As with all the work that went into obtaining and decoding the images from the FUVC device, I am now certain (well, pretty certain) that these images, put in the proper context, support the (my) idea that it is the density of the atmosphere surrounding a moon or planet that will determine the star visibility from its surface.
The Moon does have an atmosphere, very thin, and consisting mostly of free electrons, an ionosphere. So some conversion of my longitudinal EM 'light' beams from the stars will occur, but not enough for human eye detectability, or conscious awareness of them anyway. With fast film and long exposure they will be detectable. The same applies to the ISS and Shuttles, as there is still a thin atmosphere out there, more than on the Moon for sure, so the idea of stars being visible from a shuttle, with the lights out, and enough time for full dark adaptation, makes sense.
On Earth, the atmosphere is thick enough that you don't need to dark adapt to see a good many stars, but more if you do. The conversion efficiency of the (UV) starlight is greater when the electrons are bound, not free, which is the case with Earths lower atmosphere. If this model is correct, then the view of the stars from Mars should require a longer exposure time than from Earth, but much less than from the Moon or in low orbit. I don't know if exposure times are given for the shots of the stars from the rover, will check it out.
Anyway, thanks again onebigmonkey, I think I'll sleep better tonight, as this issue has been puzzling me for a long time, and now I'm pretty sure you have provided the information I needed to fill in some blanks.

GaryN
Strange that even after all these years, some images are still not available,

Exactly which images are not available?

On Earth, the atmosphere is thick enough that you don't need to dark adapt to see a good many stars,

The atmosphere has nothing to do with it, and you do have to dark adapt to see stars.

hellobruce

Exactly which images are not available?

Actually some aren't - for example there are the low light long exposures taken using the 16mm DAC in Apollo 14 which don't seem to be available anywhere except in a dusty drawer in a cellar somewhere. US citizens may have more luck requesting them from NASA than I have.

My gut feeling is that this is probably for the same reason not much is published about the other low light stellar imagery: they don't actually show much that's all that interesting to the lay person. I've managed to find some cool bits (for example the one of Venus, Mars an Saturn viewed from the CSM window and the 3 images of Jupiter that show its movement over 51 hours), but otherwise it's just "um, yeah, stars".

The UV images are of scientific interest, and as a result you find more about them in the scientific literature, but they aren't really all that spectacular and because of their nature don't show many recognisable constellations. The most famous image - a colourised view of Earth in UV) - is widely circulated (I have a copy in a National Geographic from the time), but that's about all.

There are also the stellar images taken by the mapping cameras used on Apollos 15, 16 and 17, which were used to fix the position of the CSM when it was taking photographs of the ground. They would be interesting to see, but again wouldn't really show anything Earth shattering.

My personal view is that neither NASA nor its astronauts actually thought it was such a big deal, and I imagine their general reaction is "so what?". They didn't not take pictures of stars on purpose, they just went there to photograph other stuff - mostly the sources of geological samples and other experimental work, and the occasional tourist shot of the scenery. The cameras that did photograph stars didn't show anything wild and exciting, so no-one bothered much other than the handful of astronomers who were interested.

The question over the lack of stars in general photographs is, to my mind, one that shows the lack of understanding on the part of the questioner and also general laziness. It's the easiest one in the world to prove to yourself, and yet no-one in the conspiracy world seems capable of doing it: Go out, with a camera, and take photographs of stars.

GaryN must have some exceptionally good eyes if he can blind himself with bright light, walk out, and see stars immediately, without the need for dark adaptation. I envy him.

Hadfield's quote is, of course, about doing a spacewalk; and when you're looking at the sunlit Earth and the ISS or the Shuttle, and then look away into space, you will only see blackness. Stars are faint, and need dark adaptation, this is a well-known fact and something that we all (apart from GaryN, apparently) have experienced.

While living and working in space was a tremendous experience, it also presented us with many challenges. Some of which aren’t so obvious. Photographically speaking, there were a number of hurdles. The dynamic range of the subject was potentially huge. The darkest darks you can imagine along with the brightest highlights. With no atmosphere, there is probably another stop or two of light on bright subjects. I would guess that the dynamic range of some scenes approaches 16 or 17 stops. Here’s a shot of Rick Mastracchio outside during one of the space-walks the sunlit EVA suit and thermal blankets is a huge difference from the blackness of the background.

www.luminous-landscape.com...

~~~

P.S. this looks like a "thread resurrection week".

The surface of the moon is bright.

GaryN

Where the heck do you get that from?? Just because it looks bright from the Earth? Read some NASA mission reports, study the cameras and lenses and exposure times and the film speed, and to anyone with any understanding, it is obvious the light is extremely poor. They had a difficult time especially with the video cameras, read about their development and what they had to do to get even the crappy video they did. Albedo 0.7 for the most part, one or two areas where it gets to .12, but still as dark as a blacktopped car park, it is NOT bright! According to NASA figures the light averaged that of a location on Earth at about the position of Houston, Texas, 15 minutes AFTER sundown!! The Russians and the USA gave up trying to video the far side of the Moon, their most sensitive TV cameras and the f/0.7 high speed lenses couldn't do it, and any video you might see claiming to be of the far side of the Moon uses laser altimeters and IR and UV spectography. All the information is out there, so either nobody wants to believe it because Hollywood has them fooled, they don't understand the technology used, or as I have long suspected, ATS is a total disinfo site.
I doubt I'll be back, eh? :-)

Do you actually KNOW what the settings were used for taking pictures on the Moon's surface well in case YOU and others dont



Have a look shutter speed 1/250th of a second aperture of between f5.6 and f11 depending on the position of the sun, the film was rated at asa 64 (iso 64)

PLEASE EXPLAIN from those settings why you think the light is poor????? This answer I really can't wait for!!!!


As for all your BS re albedo on the next sunny day I will take a picture of a blacktopped (tarmac) surface I will set my camera to its lowest iso 100 and the lens at f5.6, f8 and f11 I will use aperture priority first and the camera will select the shutter speed I will then use it on manual using 1/250th of a second with the above apertures the exif (exposure data) will be recorded with the picture file. Lets see what detail shows on the pictures!!!!

reply to post by onebigmonkey

They didn't not take pictures of stars on purpose

The FUVC device was huge and very heavy, the cost to NASA to get it to the moon would be huge in terms of fuel per pound. You can not say that they did not take pictures of stars on purpose. They knew from the results of the experiment that visible light astronomy in space was a waste of time, and that spectral imaging was the future. The CCD and then the Schack-Hartmann optics sciences completely revolutionised space based astronomy. The reason NASA has made certain images and experiment results difficult to obtain is that if you do your homework it means that away from a planet or moon with a considerable atmoshere, humans will not be able to see the stars, which means that light does not travel as we now think it does, and that means that the whole of present day astronomy is junk. The distances to the celestial objects, and even what those objects are is cast into great doubt, as all their calculations are based on a conventional model of how light travels in space. Eric Dollard was right, that if the stars are not visible in space, when we can clearly see them from Earth, then everything has to change, even the existing models of what the Sun is and how it works.
If Chris Hadfield said he could not see stars from orbit while looking into deep space, you'd better believe him, he was there, and he is a smart guy who thought about that fact, about "our planet and how it reacts with the energy from the sun and how our magnetic field works and how the upper atmosphere works". How the upper atmosphere works is very important, and if stars are not visible there, then "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". Very rotten.

@wildespace

Did Chris Hadfield ever come out and say "of course, I couldn't see stars because I wasn't dark adapted"? Or "well, we can see the planets and moons ok because they are much brighter"? Not that I can find.

GaryN must have some exceptionally good eyes if he can blind himself with bright light, walk out, and see stars immediately, without the need for dark adaptation. I envy him.

Well I certainly don't need to shut myself in a dark room for long periods before I can see plenty of stars. Have you tried the light experiment yourself? Just be careful if you do, I burned a white spot into my eyes that took about half an hour to completely fade, but even straight away I could see enough stars to know that they should be visible to someone in space. The pupilliary light reflex speed is initially pretty fast, both for constriction and dilation, so long dark adaptation time is only required to see REALLY dim objects, but on Earth it should only takes a couple seconds for a normal eye to dilate enough to see the stars. Maybe you need your eyes checked?

GaryN

The FUVC device was huge and very heavy, the cost to NASA to get it to the moon would be huge in terms of fuel per pound. You can not say that they did not take pictures of stars on purpose.

I think you have misunderstood my point - I was referring to the general photography programme in Apollo. The low light stellar photograpy and UV photography were obviously deliberate.

They knew from the results of the experiment that visible light astronomy in space was a waste of time, and that spectral imaging was the future.

The UV and visible spectrum photography during Apollo were contemporaneous for Apollo 16, and visible spectrum stellar photography continued in Apollo 17. Unless you're speaking about post-Apollo.

The CCD and then the Schack-Hartmann optics sciences completely revolutionised space based astronomy.

And ground based astronomy for both professional and amateur alike.

The reason NASA has made certain images and experiment results difficult to obtain is that if you do your homework it means that away from a planet or moon with a considerable atmoshere, humans will not be able to see the stars,

This is completely and utterly untrue. The Apollo astronauts (and forgive me for harping on about this programme when other missions are also discussed in this thread, but it is my area of expertise) from every lunar bound mission navigated using stars to fix positions. They also saw them when on the moon once they were out of direct sunlight - the lunar atmosphere is negligible and has no influence on the light from the stars.

The stellar images I found for Apollo are not difficult to find because they have been hidden, they have just not been interesting enough for people so they are not on the front page so to speak. They were not so difficult to find that I was unable to get them after a short bit of intelligent googling.

which means that light does not travel as we now think it does, and that means that the whole of present day astronomy is junk.

I'm sure all the astronomers who look through telescopes every day will be devastated that they wasted all that time.

The distances to the celestial objects, and even what those objects are is cast into great doubt, as all their calculations are based on a conventional model of how light travels in space.

A model that has worked just fine for much longer than you have been considering this topic.

Eric Dollard was right, that if the stars are not visible in space, when we can clearly see them from Earth, then everything has to change, even the existing models of what the Sun is and how it works.

He isn't.

If Chris Hadfield said he could not see stars from orbit while looking into deep space, you'd better believe him, he was there, and he is a smart guy who thought about that fact, about "our planet and how it reacts with the energy from the sun and how our magnetic field works and how the upper atmosphere works". How the upper atmosphere works is very important, and if stars are not visible there, then "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". Very rotten.

Chris Hadfield took photographs of stars in space. He has described seeing them in space (he did so, if I recall correctly, on the recent BBC Stargazing live).

Why stick at Hafield, how about Sally Ride:

teacher.scholastic.com...

What do the stars look like from space? Are they bigger?
The stars don't look bigger, but they do look brighter. When you're on Earth, if you go to the top of a mountain, the stars look much brighter than they do at sea level. And because the space shuttle is above Earth's atmosphere, it's like being on a very, very high mountain. So they look brighter, but not bigger

or Anoushah Ansari

www.anoushehansari.com...

But that is not the best part. The best part and by far my favorite view up here is the view of the universe at night. The stars up here are unbelievable… It looks like someone has spread diamond dust over a black velvet blanket. The Milky Way is easily visible… like a rainbow of stars over the entire earth… I cannot keep my eyes off of them I put my head to the window and stay there until the coldness of the glass gives me a headache… then I pull my head back a little and continue gazing out.

You can watch the videos here - in one showing stars one of the ISS crew describes how he got the images

eol.jsc.nasa.gov... pecial.htm

Astronauts, cosmonauts, Shuttle and ISS crews all see stars in space.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

like a rainbow of stars over the entire earth…

Yes, he is looking out of the viewport, facing Earth, which restricts the field of view to the Earth and a small band of atmosphere surrounding the Earth. So he is viewing stars through an atmosphere, not the vaccuum. Chris Hadfield was out on an EVA and he turned to look into deep space, with no atmosphere, and could not see stars.

Why stick at Hafield, how about Sally Ride:

Sally Ride was never on an EVA, she was limited to a view through the Earth facing viewport. There are no uncovered viewports on the ISS that face deep space.

You can watch the videos here - in one showing stars one of the ISS crew describes how he got the images

They all rely on a view through Earths atmosphere. Lets see what is visible looking AWAY from Earth.

I'm sure all the astronomers who look through telescopes every day will be devastated that they wasted all that time.

They certainly will. I'd bet a few would top themselves if this was ever accepted, which is why, IMO, they will do everything they can to prevent it being known, like by not doing some very simple experiments, which they claim are 'frivolous'. One day someone will get a video camera into space and try taking some footage of the Moon, and then it will be game over. If I had any money, I'd bet on it.