Why are there no stars in space footage?

[lppa2006]

Okay look guys I am not posting this because I am a conspiracy theorist, in actuality I am trying to disprove someones insistence on a conspiracy theory regarding the lack of stars in photographs and video taken from space... I know there has to be some logical reason for this phenomenon, and it certainly can't be because the entire space program is a conspiracy...

Basically we have some guy (using that term loosley) claiming the ISS and Moon Landing and Astronauts going into space is impossible because.

A) There are no stars in videos/photos taken with said objects in space

B) Claims that due to the temperatures in our upper atmosphere that no Astronaut would survive the trip into space (which of course is the most ridiculous claim, as technology/ingenuty is why they don't burn up)

The guy clearly does not know what he's talking about, but he keeps bringing up the lack of stars in said video/photo footage and frankly I don't know the reason for this as it is something i can honestly say i haven't seen in any space footage as of yet... My educated guess is possibly due to space absorbing light or a result of exposure within the camera/video settings

Id really love to provide this individual with a sound educated response, anything to disprove his "conspiracies"...

 

[matt.o]

Simply tell him to go outside, take a photo of the night sky and see if there are any stars visible in the photo. My bet is there won't be!

 

[lppa2006]

ha matt.o.. thanks... that one is such a simple answer that I think even his simple mind can grasp the concept..

I don't know why I didnt actually think of that earlier on, as i have tried on a few occasions to capture night sky photos... The best i can pull off is only a bright planet like Venus, which resembles a star and even then unless its a really nice camera its hard to capture on film/video.

Like I was just telling him maybe it has something to do with how many light years the stars are from us.. Again I don't know for sure, and I certainly hope someone gives a detailed explanation, cause I love knocking down ignorance with an educated response :-)

 

[Chronos]

This conjecture appears to originate from a Mr. Overstreet, whose fifteen minutes of fame included this revelation:

"I am just a senior in high school, and about the only thing that I know professionally is how to run movie projectors. . . ."

For additional discourse, see

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

 

[lppa2006]

Thank you Chronos... That is just the kind of information i was looking for.. I kinda figured it had something to do with "exposure".. Which I can only assume holds true for all of the current space footage we have...

Just curious though I am wondering if anyone has space shots with stars in them, this guy "challenged" me to find one saying that there aren't any... I would think there are some, but i personally don't have the time or patience to look through a lot of space footage when i already know most of the footage is starless and i mean of all the space footage past to present day..

Anyway thanks again, and keep all good information coming.. We'll make this guys head spin till he stops arguing with nonsense :)


NOTE: Just so you all understand how this originated, it all started over the movie The Astronaut Farmer, which i found to be a very good movie even though much of it was improbable/impractical but not totally impossible. And i say that as an amateur rocketeer into high power rocketry, so there is some actual possibility an "average" (very wealthy) citizen could launch themselves into space (orbit).. Anyway I am pretty sure you all can see where the whole argument that the moon landing, ISS, and space travel in general was impossible according this guy.. Heck I even brought up SpaceshipOne and the X-prize and was told that's a "conspiracy" too.. LOL.. This guy I am debating with is a character, to say the least

 

[Janus]

Good luck with this guy, but don't hold out too much hope of convincing him. The trouble with people like this is that they are immune to reason.

His argument about no stars in space shots is a prime example. Not only doesn't he understand that there shouldn't be stars in the shots, but he doesn't even consider the fact that if there should have been stars in the photos, those who where supposed to be faking them would have simplyput stars into the photos.

As far as his second argument goes, this is due to a common misconception on the difference between temperature and heat content. The air at high altitude has high temp, but because it is so thin it contains little heat.

 

[russ_watters]

ha matt.o.. thanks... that one is such a simple answer that I think even his simple mind can grasp the concept..

I don't know why I didnt actually think of that earlier on, as i have tried on a few occasions to capture night sky photos... The best i can pull off is only a bright planet like Venus, which resembles a star and even then unless its a really nice camera its hard to capture on film/video.

Try this: take a flash picture of an object outside at night and see if you get any stars. See, that's the issue - when you take a picture of a brightly lit object (like the Earth, from the space shuttle), the exposure length is so short (on the order of 1/1000th to 1/100th second), you can't get any stars in it. If you point any camera at the blank sky, it will adjust the exposure to 1/2 second (a common maximum) and will get a few bright stars.

Honestly, though, conspiracy theorists don't put even an ounce of thought into their ideas: You shouldn't either. It is a waste of time.

 

[russ_watters]

His argument about no stars in space shots is a prime example. Not only doesn't he understand that there shouldn't be stars in the shots, but he doesn't even consider the fact that if there should have been stars in the photos, those who where supposed to be faking them would have simplyput stars into the photos.

Good point - conspiracy theorists are often two steps removed from reality. It almost takes effort to be wrong twice at the same time!

 

[turbo]

Anyone who has ever dabbled in photography (at least before the cameras were so automatic that they did most everything for you), has heard of the "sunny 16 rule". That rule tells you that on a sunny day, you can shoot a well-illuminated object at an aperture of f:16 using a shutter speed that is a reciprocal of the film speed. So using ASA 100 film, the astronauts could stop the lens down to f:16 and shoot at 1/100 sec exposure. On the moon, those lenses were likely stopped down even further, since there is no atmospheric attenuation of sunlight. If you are taking pictures of another astronaut gathering soil samples or planting a flag, etc, there is NO way you could capture images of stars in the background. Go outside any night and take some pictures of the night sky with your camera's lens set at f:16 and with an exposure of 1/100 second and see if you can capture any stars.

 

[cheesetastic]

This has been debunked already.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

This man worked for nasa, he knows what he is talking about.

 

[turbo]

This has been debunked already.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

This man worked for nasa, he knows what he is talking about.

Phil knows what he is talking about. I was simply trying to put things in the simplest terms that any shutterbug could understand. Just the bare nuts and bolts, that MIGHT (somehow) convince the conspiracy nuts that there is a really understandable, provable, reason why stars don't gleam through the blackness in brightly-lit Apollo photos. If they understand the basics of photography and film/sensor sensitivity, they can try to photograph stars with exposure times and apertures appropriate to bright day-time photography to see if they can capture any stars. They will not be able to do so. Argument over.

 

[lppa2006]

thanks guys... I think i have enough to bust this guys chops.. as a matter of fact he hasn't even bothered to reply to my 3 posts of answers to his 1 post of NO STARS theory...

:-) I love it when that happens

Who knows maybe he's actually convinced now he's wrong.. lol.. but i doubt it

Like i told him in my final post..
"Im giving you a free education, make something useful of it."

Also guys don't think I came on here solely to win a debate, well it sort of stared out that way but since I am into high power rocketry I am sure Ill be back in the Physics thread asking questions at some point in the future, this forum received a prestigious "My Bookmarks" reward, ;-)

 

[mgb_phys]

This man worked for nasa, he knows what he is talking about.

But then he might be in on the conspiracy

The best evidence for faked moon landings comes from the Northern line on London underground - how is it that they can put men on the moon but can't make escalators work? The only logical explanation is that the moon landings were faked!

 

[mgb_phys]

This might only be funny for those of us brought up on UK telly -
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

 

[Strattos]

I've had this discussion with a few different people. All of them are incredibly hard to convince. I have been a photographer for many years and I know how cameras work with light. It's usually ignorance of the devices used to obtain such an image. It seems silly that everyone assumes they know how a camera works because they've used one before.
One of them did come around when I showed him a picture of http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01/image/a/format/large_web/. It took 10 days for them to obtain this image of the heavens and it came from a few hundred photographs. Just explaining the length of time it took to get this image made him grasp the concept.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

thanks guys... I think i have enough to bust this guys chops.. as a matter of fact he hasn't even bothered to reply to my 3 posts of answers to his 1 post of NO STARS theory...

:-) I love it when that happens

Who knows maybe he's actually convinced now he's wrong.. lol.. but i doubt it

Like i told him in my final post..
"Im giving you a free education, make something useful of it."

Even if you dispel his myths about one subject another million will appear through the cracks in his logical ability. This personality type are dreamers and rather obsessive in my experience, what if is much better than what is.

Don't hold your hopes up, it's the same with Creationists, who of course have God on their side not little green men or Morlocks or lizard men or evil Zionist Illuminati, same difference:what I like to broadly describe as "fairies at the bottom of the garden", none of them exist, or at least they have never seen them . Impervious to science and reason

Also guys don't think I came on here solely to win a debate, well it sort of stared out that way but since I am into high power rocketry I am sure Ill be back in the Physics thread asking questions at some point in the future, this forum received a prestigious "My Bookmarks" reward, ;-)

This place is pretty awesome.

This might only be funny for those of us brought up on UK telly -
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

Thanks I see what you mean about UK. I think I just LMAO, Clangers! Ah I used to watch them, takes me back.

 

[ZapperZ]

This issue is practically settled, I'm sure. But just in case more of these conspiracy theory pops up, I would also suggest going to another site that I've mentioned earlier that debunked many of these conspiracy theories to pieces in meticulous detail. Go to

www.clavius.org

The issue regarding the lack of stars in the photography has been smashed to pieces already in there. However, as with the issue of "Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", these people either are totally in bliss with their ignorance, or simply refuses to learn. It means that the same issue will keep coming up, in one form or another. So it is always handy to have a site that addresses practically all of these silly "theories".

Zz.

 

[mattex]

Moon hoax? Please help me debunk this!

http://nasascam.bravehost.com/

I know this sounds silly, but I read through this page & it kind of puzzled me. In the photos the background hills are identical, although supposedly shot from different locations, kilometers apart.

Also, there is a point made about the moon buggy's final resting place, 5km from the Lunar Module. Did they really walk back that distance?

Is this page just all-made-up? Are these photos really what this guy say they are, all Apollo 17 pics?

Then I get bombed with all these bizarre photos supposedly from "Langley, Virginia" -

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/

Of course I think it's all rubbish, but maybe some of you can just ease my mind a little, because on the face of it, I find this almost...well...not quite, but almost "convincing"!? There's stuff here I want to be able to refute with the utmost self-assurance!

Help?

 

[ZapperZ]

http://nasascam.bravehost.com/

I know this sounds silly, but I read through this page & it kind of puzzled me. In the photos the background hills are identical, although supposedly shot from different locations, kilometers apart.

Also, there is a point made about the moon buggy's final resting place, 5km from the Lunar Module. Did they really walk back that distance?

Is this page just all-made-up? Are these photos really what this guy say they are, all Apollo 17 pics?

Then I get bombed with all these bizarre photos supposedly from "Langley, Virginia" -

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/

Of course I think it's all rubbish, but maybe some of you can just ease my mind a little, because on the face of it, I find this almost...well...not quite, but almost "convincing"!? There's stuff here I want to be able to refute with the utmost self-assurance!

Help?

You should at least have looked at the existing threads in this page of the sub-forum, because you would have found your answer.

I am merging your thread into an existing one (I hope you don't mind, Ivan), because if you read the post that I just made right before you made your post, you would have found a website that has ALL of the answers to your question, and even a few that you never anticipated. Please read it.

Zz.

 

[mattex]

The clavius.org site is very good, but it doesn't specifically address any of the points raised by this hoax-page which I had posted the link to -

http://nasascam.bravehost.com/

The page needs to be read in its entirety (you may skip the opening preamble). I simply want somebody to help me refute the claims made in this particular webpage - for instance, the identical backdrops in all the photos (from different locations, kilometers apart)?

Also, it is claimed that the moon buggy was abandoned at Station 8, 5km from the LM. Is this true? Because here you can see the abandoned moon buggy right near the LM!?

These were the main issues I gleaned from this hoax-page, and which I'd appreciate some help clearing up in my head.

 

[D H]

Please, not again. There is a name for the idiots who spout this nonsense: cultural vandals (kudos Jim Oberg). Regarding mattex's post: Perspective. The moon has no atmosphere. The blurring of distant objects that we see on the Earth does not occur on the moon. The cited website has lost perspective. Whoever claimed that the moon buggy was abandoned at station 8 has also lost all perspective. Gene Cernan fell down at station 8. The moon buggy survived his fall and proceeded to station 9 and then back to the LM without a hitch.

 

[mattex]

Hey, I'm not defending this hoax theory! Like I said, I just want the issues cleared up in my head!

Because here it clearly says the LRV was abandoned at Station 8!

Here is a traverse map of the mission. You can see that Station 8 is roughly 4km from the LM!

Did they walk all that way back to the LM? And why is the LRV in the same photo as the LM here, just before take-off?

Is it possible the lunar rover in the above picture is in fact 4kms distant? It seems very unlikely, but...? Who knows.

Also I found the identical hilly background in all the photos on that hoax page unusual...?

Anyway, whatever, I suppose none of this convinces me of a "moon hoax", but I just thought the issues raised were interesting all the same, and required some authoritative explanation.

 

[russ_watters]

Then I get bombed with all these bizarre photos supposedly from "Langley, Virginia" -

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/

OF COURSE the did simulations of the lunar landing. You can't wing that. But do you honestly believe that the pic of the simulated site looks anything like the real thing? It looks terrible to me.

 

[D H]

Because here it clearly says the LRV was abandoned at Station 8!

You are reading too much into this. The astronauts parked at multiple locations at station 8. This photo (AS17-146-22367) is of the final parking spot at station 8. The astronauts drove the LRV from this parking spot to station 9 and then back to the LM.

Here is a timeline of Apollo 17: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_17i_Timeline.htm. Notice that the astronauts left station 8 at 164:55:33. No mention of doing this on foot.

The Apollo 17 astronauts did eventually abandon the LRV, but right at the landing site. They couldn't bring it back to Earth.

Also I found the identical hilly background in all the photos on that hoax page unusual...?

Many Earth-bound visual clues regarding distance simply do not pertain to lunar operations. A distant mountain on the Earth looks fuzzy because the Earth's atmosphere scatters light. A distant mountain on the Moon remains crystal clear because the Moon has an extremely tenuous atmosphere. There is nothing unusual here (in the sense of a hoax, that is.)

 

[mattex]

Thanks DH! I knew there wasn't a conspiracy, but I just needed an explanation for myself. That timeline helped me out. I would, however, say that the caption for AS17-146-22367 photo is a trifle misleading...but oh well.

Re: the background hills. Yes I can appreciate that they look closer than they really are, due to no atmosphere, thus, they would look the same even from different Stations, because of their distance.

I wonder why there are people out there who cannot accept that humans walked on the Moon? Gee, if anything they've been secretly sending people back and forth all through the 80s, 90s & 00s! :tongue2: And Mars too!

 

[jostpuur]

Then I get bombed with all these bizarre photos supposedly from "Langley, Virginia" -

http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/

What is the official reason for those large spheres on which they painted the moon surface?

 

[russ_watters]

There is a picture there of an astronaut flying a simulator next to that sphere, jostpuur...

Nice of these guys to provide their own debunking!

 

[rcgldr]

In one of the Apollo missions they left an array of mirrors shaped like cube cut diagonally, and laser beams have been shot from the Earth and bounced off those mirrors and it was shown on TV several times in the 1970's. Also, Apollo 13's Lunar Module is at the bottom of an ocean, but if someone retrieved it, they'd could use the nice plutonium button / thermal couple power source and cut down on their electric bill.

Then again, for the conspiracy theorists, you should watch the movie Capricorn 1 which explains how all this stuff was faked.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294

There were other hoax based movies as well, in the very excellent movie "3 Days of the Condor", there is a reference to a conspiracy to invade the middle east, which is just ridiculous.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073802

 

[mattex]

They are good movies!

Hey, the Apollo 17 astronauts were on the moon for a considerable amount of time - over 70-odd hours!

Did they sleep in the cramped LM? Or did they take amphetamines? I have read on the internet that astronauts were indeed prescribed "speed" to keep them awake & alert through their mission!

Is this true? Because perhaps it would explain the bizarre behaviour of Lisa Nowak.

Astronauts on "ice"? Hmm...

 

[russ_watters]

It is generally frowned-upon to cite popular movies as source material, but you really should watch the HBO mini-series "From the Earth To the Moon". It tells the story in a more "real" way than any other I've seen.

Yes, of course they slept in the LEM (or tried to). Again, this is one of those obvious things that really shouldn't generate conspiracy theory. With all the billions of dollars of engineering behind the project, it is absurd to believe that they wouldn't have figured out how to do it. The answer is simple: hammocks.

I don't know why anyone would think NASA would drug their astronauts. Landing on and exploring the moon requires functional pilots/engineers/scientists.

 

[mattex]

I don't know why anyone would think NASA would drug their astronauts. Landing on and exploring the moon requires functional pilots/engineers/scientists.

Hence the dexadrine! Are you saying astronauts (early or otherwise) were NOT given any kind of stimulant whatsoever? A quick google will pull up many "credible" sites that say otherwise!

Russ, why were you so quick to deny any administration of drugs to astronauts, when in fact it appears to be the case that they WERE given stimulants? And probably still are - tho' this would of course be kept "low-key" by NASA in today's anti-drugs hysteria!

My question is simply, in keeping with the Apollo 17 theme, DID those astronauts really sleep while on the moon? I don't know, I'm just questioning... I'm thinking, well, millions of dollars per minute while on the moon, hmm, sleep seems such a waste!