• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Great pics from space shuttle astronauts

Doc said:
Great pics from space shuttle astronauts. These pics are phenomenal. Boat Doctor on Net Boat Talk found them and shared them with us over there.
Stop by and take a look. You'll be glad you did.

http://www.netboattalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=825&posted=1#post825

(I fixed it so that you don't have to join to view the pics)
Click to expand...


It is neat that you can't see the stars in outerspace without a scope. The air on the earth distorts the light wave and makes them visible on the ground and "Twinkle".
 
fogtender said:
It is neat that you can't see the stars in outerspace without a scope. The air on the earth distorts the light wave and makes them visible on the ground and "Twinkle".
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you can see the stars in space without a telescope. The reason they don't show in the pictures is because of the short exposure time of the camera due to the brightness of the foreground subject (the shuttle, and that big blue thing in some of the pictures).

You are correct though, they do not twinkle because the twinkling is caused by the atmosphere.

Bonus points: What "stars" do not twinkle, and why? (As observed from the surface of Earth.)
 
DaveNay said:
I'm pretty sure you can see the stars in space without a telescope. The reason they don't show in the pictures is because of the short exposure time of the camera due to the brightness of the foreground subject (the shuttle, and that big blue thing in some of the pictures).

You are correct though, they do not twinkle because the twinkling is caused by the atmosphere.

Bonus points: What "stars" do not twinkle, and why? (As observed from the surface of Earth.)
Click to expand...

From space, the points of light from the stars are so fine, they are not visible to the human eye. It is when the light hits the atmosphere (Lens affect) that they distort an spread out and then you can see them. The "Twinkle" is from the distortion in the air. From space the beam of light is so fine and has traveled billions (or more is some cases) of miles and spreads out as it travels, it gets weaker after each mile.

The waves of light are like throwing a rock in a pond, it is sharp at the point of impact, but as the waves spread out, the wave weakens. At one point in a big pond, the waves disappear unless you can measure them with an instrument that can detect movement measured in million's of an inch.

The sun (our personal star) doesn't "Twinkle" because we are so so close. The "distortion" is so fine, it is like we are at the center of the rock being thrown into the pond, no problem in seeing the spash. As light pollution renders the sky less interesting, some objects become all the more prominent. Some of the brightest "stars" in the sky are planets. Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn routinely rival or outshine the brightest stars, depending on where they are on their orbits around the Sun in relation to the position of Earth.



Here is a site that may help:

http://www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_15.htm
 
Last edited:
fogtender said:
Here is a site that may help:

http://www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_15.htm
Click to expand...

You link to a moon landing hoax conspiracy web site as a point of reference? That page reads like it was written by alanejackson. :yum:

Here is the answer straight from the people who actually go in to space (NASA).

Why can't you see stars or galaxies in the photographs that show the curvature of the Earth and part of the black background of space?The reason you can't see stars in high oblique photos is that the film speed is too slow and the shutter speed is too fast. Most of the films used are 100 ASA color positive. Fast shutter speeds are used to eliminate blur from the motion of the spacecraft. These films and shutter speeds would not be suitable for photographing stars from the Earth either. One exception to this rule is when astronauts use films and camera settings specifically to photograph features such as the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis. In these cases stars also show up in the photograph. The photos are also slightly blurry because very long exposures are needed to capture these dim nighttime features.
Click to expand...

This is an example of a picture taken with a different technique that shows stars:

STS039-342-25.jpg
 
Last edited:
DaveNay said:
You link to a moon landing hoax conspiracy web site as a point of reference? That page reads like it was written by alanejackson. :yum:

Here is the answer straight from the people who actually go in to space (NASA).



This is an example of a picture taken with a different technique that shows stars:

STS039-342-25.jpg
Click to expand...

There is quite a difference in real time and time elapse photography that may be shot over seconds or minutes that can capture light so faint that the human eye can't see. Since they don't list the time exposure of the picture you showed, I can't take that as evidence that you can see stars with the human eye. The photo could have been exposed for ten min's to get that much light to print the photo. Photographers sometimes have open camera shutters on the Northern Lights for ten min's or more to get the needed light from the ground, the photos appear to be much brighter than what you can see in real time. I would assume that the photo you showed was also a time delayed to the point where stars were visible to the human eye in the photo. Having seen the Northern Lights from the ground almost nightly when the sky is clear, they are not that blurred as the photo shows which leads me to believe that is a time exposed shot.

You clearly didn't read the web site that was listed, it was referring to those that used that fact that there were no stars visible in the moon landing shots to claim that was the reason they believed in the hoax theory, it was not the claim of the author, he was only explaining why there were no stars visible.

But if you believe that there are stars visible in space, then more power to you.

That is what I was informed by when listening to the Astronauts when they are being asked questions by kids, and they give the answers. Having not been in space myself, I will have to go with the statements that were made by those that were there. But when they say it is dark, I don't see any reason why they would lie about it... unless of course the moon landing was a fake....and there is a massive NASA cover up! But I kinda doubt it...

Sorry about your paying any attention to Mr. Jackson, I haven't read any of his posts of late, they are a bit too far left from reality for me, but it appears that some do tend to follow his posts a tad bit too much which is OK, just doesn't appeal to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top