If the MOON reflects sunlight, why are the moon landing photos so DARK?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Why can't they just hold the camera up to the window instead of doing an EVA? They've probably already done this.

The only window they can see out of is the Cupola, and because of the way the ISS is oriented, they can only have a very limited view, mostly of the Earth of course, but they can catch the Sun and Moon as they travel through the atmosphere around the earth. There are no uncovered 'back windows' they can go look out into deep space through, and they have to do an EVA to remove the CBM port covers. From forums.nasaspaceflight.com:

"The only portholes on unused CBM ports that are currently NOT covered with a CBCS flap are the Node 2 nadir and zenith ports - so these are the only CBM hatch portholes that the crew can "see" out of (and there isn't really much to see out of the Node 2 zenith porthole - except the blackness of space)."

So, the only way to look into deep space is from an EVA. They do now have external HD video cameras, but they obviously can not, or don't want to turn them to video the Moon. I asked the Urthecast people and they said they would be able to point their telescope at the moon, so that should answer the question. No date given.

This is an intriguing idea, Gary. And you’ve made an interesting observation here — one of our plans is to, at times, flip the camera around to look back into space. This way, when cloud cover is extremely dense, we hope to capture imagery of outer space. And perhaps, the moon : )

@wmd_2008

This photo was taken on September 5, 2012 using a Nikon D2Xs.

1/500 ƒ/11 ISO 200 10.5 mm

You have no idea of the orientation of the camera, and with the ionosphere being at least 1000km deep, unless it was pointing out into deep space, they will be looking through a deep column of the ionosphere, around 6000km if they were looking sideways, i.e. tangentially to the Earth surface.
And I'd like you to go out with your digital camera (on full auto) and point it at an overhead Sun, which will have the least atmospheric light attenuation (there should be no attenuation in space, right?) and tell me what exposure settings your camera uses to take a shot. Then set it on manual to the same figures as used in the NASA shot, and post the result. And no, I will not pay for any damage that may occur! The only way to get a good image of the Sun would be to use a neutral density filter, and that is in response to a enquiry to the NPS in Monterey, and they should know what they are talking about. They have never taken an ND filter into space on a manned mission, so how can they ever get a good shot?

The Venus transit only caught about the first quarter of the action, which was when it was visible from the Cupola, and within Earths ionosphere as seen from the ISS. One of those images showed a badly distorted Sun, flattened at one side, just as some of the Moon shots show a distorted Moon, meaning it was very close to the crescent Earth. There are no shots of the transit later on. I modelled the whole thing in Celestia and made a video to prove that the only way they could have seen the later parts of the transit was from a back window, which they don't have.

reply to post by GaryN


You are talking total and UTTER BS they only way to get a shot of the Sun is not with a ND filter, also I notice you avoid taking about the fact that the Earth was pictured traveling to the Moon , that docking procedures when in orbit around the Moon were photographed and also that the Earth was photographed from great distance with NO atmosphere by various probes.





Photo Uploaded: Feb 26 2008 18:13:20 GMT
Taken: 2008:02:16 12:32:43
Manufacturer: Canon
Camera: Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Aperture: F11
Shutter: 1/400 sec
ISO: 100
Flash: No (Turned off)

Now put your DAFT theory in file 13 (the bin) were it belongs!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Well, maybe the light reflected off the Earth becomes visible after it has been in the atmosphere, making the Earth visible from far away in space.

You can come up with any explanation, since it's an alternative to mainstream science.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Just so as you know what the Sun should look like. You show me a white starburst effect with the Sun nowhere near overhead and think that's proof of something? When NASA can show me the Sun looking like this, with the same setup, then I'll believe they can see the Sun from orbit.

Sun Spots. 30 Sept 2011. 1203hrs

200mm | ISO 50 | f/13 | 1/8000sec | 10 stop ND filter

mcalisterium.files.wordpress.com...

Can you find me images of sunspots from the ISS, or a nice conjunction? Thanks.

@nataylor
Exposure details: 1/180 sec, f/6.7, ISO 100. Taken 5/23/2010 at 8:53:35 PM with a Nikon D2Xs with 17-35mm f/2.8 lens @ 35mm.

Thanks for that.

reply to post by GaryN


Let me show you what you said

Originally posted by GaryN

The only way to get a good image of the Sun would be to use a neutral density filter,

WRONG if you want to show SURFACE detail you use a ND filter.

The picture shown had a perfectly good image of the Sun!!!!!

YOU also said this

Originally posted by GaryN

Can you find me images of sunspots from the ISS, or a nice conjunction? Thanks.

I ALREADY had. (from page 6)



1/1250 ƒ/16 ISO 400 1200 mm

[EX]ISS031-E-088541 (5 June 2012) --- Earth's planetary neighbor Venus passes across the face of the sun on June 5, 2012, seen here from the International Space Station. Expedition 31 crew members aboard the orbital outpost had cameras set up in several locations to record the rare event.[/EX]

Or are YOU just the type that ignores links given when they pee on your parade!!!!

Still waiting for your comments on the fact YOU said this!!!!

Originally posted by GaryN

Most 'light' I believe is travelling in the vacuum as planewaves, which our eyes can not see, at any wavelength. It requires gratings to convert the wave fronts to the transverse EM our eyes, or a regular camera that mimics our eyes can see, but in the case of being able to see stars from Earth, it is the ionosphere which provides the method of creating the transverse waves.

SO how could the Astronauts see the Moon when traveling towards it and the Earth when they looked back or stars on the way to the Moon YOUR theory is just another of the many many WACKJOB ones thought up or supported by members on here.


Cant wait for your next excuse for the question above!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

This image demonstrates just how close to the crescent Earth the Sun was at the time the photo was taken. You only see this kind of distortion when the Earths dense lower atmosphere is involved. Also note the NIR 762nm filter which is used mainly for detection of ionised oxygen or N2, just what I'd expect them to do. Pettit knows what he is doing, and it is another example of NASA 'staging' their shots to fool the masses. And for some reason, they have flipped and mirrored the image.

farm8.static.flickr.com...

Pettit describes the camera system: "I'll be using a high-end Nikon D2Xs camera and an 800mm lens with a full-aperture white light solar filter."

He used the 800mm lens, but the red images are the IR filter, don't see info on the bluish one, but looks like a Mylar job.

In this Video you can see the field of view he had, and it does not allow him to see much other than the region close to the Earth, he can not look out into deep space.
www.youtube.com...

You can see my video of the first orbit of the two when the transit would have been visible at this link, which illustrates how they would have needed to look through a back window, which they dont have, or been on an EVA, which is too expensive. And the ND filter is the ony one you could use to get a true image of the Sun as it attenuates all wavelengths equaly, whereas the filters they used seem to have been bandpass filters.
12 Meg ogg download, view full screen to see Venus better.
docs.google.com...

SO how could the Astronauts see the Moon when traveling towards it and the Earth when they looked back or stars on the way to the Moon

That's easy, the stars are 10 times brighter when you are in deep space.
Watch the first couple of minutes.
www.youtube.com...

Anyway, seeing as you, as usual, have scared everyone off with your rude and arogant comments, I doubt this thread will last much longer, but I'll gladly continue to try and answer questions from those members who might still be interested.

Originally posted by GaryN

SO how could the Astronauts see the Moon when traveling towards it and the Earth when they looked back or stars on the way to the Moon

That's easy, the stars are 10 times brighter when you are in deep space.

But you maintain that the human eye cannot see light outside of an atmosphere or ionosphere. So how could the astronauts see the stars, Earth and the Moon?

reply to post by wildespace

But you maintain that the human eye cannot see light outside of an atmosphere or ionosphere. So how could the astronauts see the stars, Earth and the Moon?

Thanks to the solar wind, I'd reckon. After all, if you're just going to make science up as you go along, why not?

reply to post by wildespace

But you maintain that the human eye cannot see light outside of an atmosphere or ionosphere. So how could the astronauts see the stars, Earth and the Moon?

Well, someone is making things up, and seeing as I haven't been into outer space, it must be me I suppose. Still, it will be good to get confirmation of just how bright the heavens are from those lucky first space tourists. I can just imagine them in the Star View Lounge, sipping their Moonwalk cocktails under the light of a romantic full Moon, or maybe catching some rays in the Solar Tanning Cubicles. Sigh...

reply to post by GaryN


Sorry I was so flippant in my last post, but I do have some questions about your theory. First, scalar waves seem to be treated as sine functions with either zero or infinite amplitude. In order for these waves to "wrap around" matter to form normal transverse waves, they would either need to instantaneously acquire amplitude, suddenly going from a two dimensional phenomenon with one dimension of extension and one temporal dimension, to at at least a three dimensional phenomenon with two spatial and one temporal dimensions. If they have zero amplitude, where does this extension suddenly come from? If they have infinite amplitude, how does the information that the wave has begun to interact with matter travel to infinity? What velocity is required for the peak at infinity to zoom through the universe to form the transverse wave? Would that not be an even greater paradox than the wave-particle duality that the theory was trying to make go away?

Next, if scalar waves have frequency but not amplitude, they would not be capable of destructive interference. They would, however, be subject to "wavelength addition." Imagine a black body radiating in the infra-red at frequency h. If it radiates constantly, there is the possibility that it will radiate another wave at frequency h offset by 1/2 cycle. This means that the combined wavelength, which seems to equate to energy, would have a frequency of 1/2 h. You can see where this is going. So long as the body continued to radiate at a constant rate, the frequency would rapidly grow shorter, until the black body was giving off radiation that appears to be in the gamma range; a black body would produce more energy the longer it radiated.

If that were not bad enough, let's throw this into the mix: space is not a perfect vacuum. If interacting with particles collapses scalar waves into transverse waves, at some point, every scalar wave will become a transverse wave. The light that bounces off the Moon will, of necessity, be converted into transverse waves. These transverse waves can then be immediately perceived by the human eye without the necessity of an intervening atmosphere.

Would you care to explain? It's quite possible I didn't understand the material.

reply to post by DJW001

Would you care to explain?

I'm absolutely not saying I understand what 'light' is, nobody does. We do understand how it behaves, well enough at least to utilise it in some pretty amazing devices, but there is much still unknown. I'm leaning to all EM radiation, electricity, magnetism, light, heat, being different configurations of an Aether, the Aether having a density of unimaginable proportions, sufficient to transfer information or energy at an infinite number of frequencies simultaneously, across the vastness of space. We can soon move more into philosophy than science, but sticking with accepted science, I think the OP made a valid observation about the light levels on the Moon, and what I have read, by way mainly of NASA documents, indicates all their preparations for the Moon landing were made with the low levels of light in mind. Nowhere do they talk about the blindingly bright conditions you would expect on the surface, even with the Sun at a low elevation as there is no dense atmosphere to 'soften' the morning Sun.
Rather than getting into QED, I'm looking more for accepted scientific processes that would allow a longitudinal EM wave (in an Aether) to interact in the ionosphere to produce the transverse waves.
en.wikipedia.org...
If a lens is used to rerconstruct the wavefront, then we would need a lens in the ionosphere, so what have we got to work with? Ionospheric boundary layers, Gausian plasma lensing?
en.wikipedia.org...
And to bring the wavelengths to visible? Compton shifting? Fluorescent re-emissions?
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Anyway, with the OPs original question in mind, I think it worth looking at some NASA items, one about the video cameras that indicates they had great difficulty getting a good picture, and they eventually had to go with some classified technology to do that, technology intended for very low light level imaging.

At the time the SEC tube had a DOD security classification as befitted such a device. Since
there were no other device that could possibly meet the Apollo TV camera mission requirement
to operate unattended at both lunar day and lunar night and survive all phases of the Apollo mis-
sion, the DOD was asked to allow Westinghouse to use the SEC tube for the Apollo TV Camera
program.

From: Apollo Television.(12 meg pdf)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

A couple of papers on the low light surface conditions. Maybe they were in bright sunlight some times, but I haven't found any papers about problems with bright light conditions.

NASA CONTRACT NAS 9-14413. FINAL REPORT. APOLLO EXPERIME]NT S-211. LOW BRIGfHTNESS, ASTRONOMICAL...(pdf)
www.google.ca...

An Investigation of Earthshine Lighting Conditions for Lunar-Surface Operations.(pdf)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Also, though not about Lunar surfce brightness, there were some Gemini reports about the Gemini Gegenschein experiments where they described the astronauts being in TOTAL darkness for hours during the experiments, with the camera fastened to a window bracket and covered with a 'tent' to keep stray light out. They said that light somehow still got in and affected the experiment, even though the astronauts could visibly detect no light at all.
So, fully dark adapted, when they removed the window tent, you would think they could have seen the stars, but not a word in the report about that. I haven't been able to access the full document, but searching GEMINI V EXPERIMENTS ON ZODIACAL LIGHT AND GEGENSCHEIN brings up a lot of hits, maybe the full version is available somewhere not behind a paywall.
Anyway, NASA could sure save me a lot of head scratching if they'd just take an image of the Moon, or Sun through an ND filter, from the ISS, but I still think they never will, because they can't.

reply to post by GaryN


If you look at any of the Apollo photographs, films or videos taken on the sunward side of the Moon, you can see that they are just as brilliantly lit as on Earth. There were experiments in low light photography from lunar orbit, chiefly because that would allow them to survey the night side of the Moon. I honestly don't understand where you get the idea that you can't see stars and planets without an atmosphere. Good luck with your research.

reply to post by DJW001

There were experiments in low light photography from lunar orbit, chiefly because that would allow them to survey the night side of the Moon.

What about the far side of the Moon? Looking into the instruments used to 'image' the far side, it appears they all use IR and UV spectography and a laser altimeter, therefore are not photos. I was going to ask why there are no videos of the far side, but it seems there are! MoonKAMs were sent up on the GRAIL mission craft, and will be used so school students can pick a feature to observe when the camera is in the right place, including the far side. So that blows my theory you might say, but I still have one bullet left in my gun. How does the MoonKAM work? There is some info, but no details, and I believe the devil is in the details of this camera. Or maybe I should say the Military is in the details, as the only possible technology that I think could get the video would rely on Quantum Optics, yes, a sci-fi idea that seems like it really does work.

Quantum camera a sophisticated new way of taking pictures
"With some elegant implementations, the ghost image [is] indistinguishable from a photograph," said Meyers, who has been involved in the field since 2006, when he produced the first ghost image of a remote object at the Army Research Lab.

articles.baltimoresun.com...

Maybe you can find a more conventional description of the MoonKAM and prove me wrong, but that's OK, I need to have my ideas bashed around as at least I learn something along the way!

Originally posted by GaryN
A couple of papers on the low light surface conditions. Maybe they were in bright sunlight some times, but I haven't found any papers about problems with bright light conditions.

The sunlight was apparently bright enough to burn out the Apollo 12 video camera:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The TV camera was removed from the LM for deployment on the surface. However, during the transfer, the camera was accidentally pointed at the Sun or the Sun's reflection on the descent stage and the vision tube apparently burned out. This ended the TV coverage of the lunar surface activities.

That could be called a problem, right?

I'm only following the kindergarten version of this theory, but how would we get any pictures from space? Like the ones sent back from probes of the outer planets? Or Hubble?
And wouldn't images taken through other spectrum's still be considered 'light'?

reply to post by GaryN


First as usual with YOU guys avoid the answer to the question!

You claimed no picture of the Sun etc could be taken from orbit from the ISS but when shown that was wrong you change the subject!

You also now claim stars are 10x brighter in space TOTAL AND UTTER RUBBISH!!!!

Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars.

If what you claimed about the stars was true what about the Moon how much brighter should that be when seen from space.

If what you claimed was true some stars would show up on pictures like this.



You are just typical of the HB type on here when all the evidence shows YOU are wrong change the subject!!!

Originally posted by GaryN

What about the far side of the Moon? Looking into the instruments used to 'image' the far side, it appears they all use IR and UV spectography and a laser altimeter, therefore are not photos. I was going to ask why there are no videos of the far side, but it seems there are! MoonKAMs were sent up on the GRAIL mission craft, and will be used so school students can pick a feature to observe when the camera is in the right place, including the far side. So that blows my theory you might say, but I still have one bullet left in my gun. How does the MoonKAM work? There is some info, but no details, and I believe the devil is in the details of this camera. Or maybe I should say the Military is in the details, as the only possible technology that I think could get the video would rely on Quantum Optics, yes, a sci-fi idea that seems like it really does work.

Funny isn't it that the LRO can take pictures of the far side because it gets it's fair share of sunlight like all parts of the Moon

Oh and that also has a Laser Altimeter amongst a host of other instruments!!!

Here is an Apollo 11 picture (click on loaded image for full size)



Please explain this images using your theory of light, what was it again you need an atmosphere to see the light and so does a camera and stars are 10 x brighter in space so please explain or will you change the subject as usual!!!

Originally posted by GaryN
What about the far side of the Moon? Looking into the instruments used to 'image' the far side, it appears they all use IR and UV spectography and a laser altimeter, therefore are not photos.

There are lots of photos of the far side, taken by the Apollo astronauts using Hasselblad cameras. Here's a few examples:

Daedalus crater (Apollo 11)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Chaplygin crater (Apollo 13)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Distant view of the Moon: www.hq.nasa.gov...
Distant (and spectacular!) view of the Earth: www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by GaryN
The only window they can see out of is the Cupola, and because of the way the ISS is oriented, they can only have a very limited view, mostly of the Earth of course

Just wanted to point out something: there are lots of windows on the ISS. Most of them face the Earth, but at least 4 of them (2 in Kibo and 2 in Zvezda) face sideways, offering a wider view of space.

Kibo porthole
Another image through a porthole

We did go to the moon, and other places too, there is a secret space program and it doesn't use rocket fuel. But, some of the photos were staged to hide what they didn't want us to see, and they did have training for the astronauts.

This is just some kind of serfdom they're trying to promote. It still takes free will so don't give up the knowledge ever and give in to this nonsense.

The difference is sunlight doesnt just bounce of a mirror or polished glass like surface, which it could be argued the moon is quite polished under a lot of dust. It rings like a bell too.

Light interacts with and bounces off atmosphere. That means John Lear is right, there is a kind of atmosphere there.

www.space.com...

The moon apparently does have water, it has an atmosphere of sorts as well.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Saturn's moon has sloshing water (under ice).

news.discovery.com...

This moon looks like an earth. Our moon doesn't look like that of course.

Little bits of truth leaked out in dribbles.

www.space.com...
'Significant Amount' of Water Found on Moon