Netyjnd

In Aliens, how many people were on LV-426 before the Marines arrived​?

What does "Four-F." mean?

What does Jesus mean regarding "Raca," and "you fool?" - is he contrasting them?

Worshiping one God at a time?

Is it insecure to send a password in a `curl` command?

Comment Box for Substitution Method of Integrals

Why didn't Héctor fade away after this character died in the movie Coco?

Suggestions on how to spend Shaabath (constructively) alone

How can an organ that provides biological immortality be unable to regenerate?

Generic TVP tradeoffs?

How do hiring committees for research positions view getting "scooped"?

In what cases must I use 了 and in what cases not?

What does "^L" mean in C?

Is it possible to stack the damage done by the Absorb Elements spell?

How to terminate ping <dest> &

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

Could Sinn Fein swing any Brexit vote in Parliament?

Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?

I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?

Recruiter wants very extensive technical details about all of my previous work

What is the English word for a graduation award?

Does .bashrc contain syntax errors?

Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?

How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?

Why are there no stars visible in cislunar space?

How do scientists know there are about 300 billion stars in a galaxy and there are about 100 billion galaxies?Why are most lunar maria on the visible side?Space objects visible from earthRealistic space environmentsWhy nuclear fusion is a controlled process in stars?Are there any sounds in space?Why are nearby stars like Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star not visible to the naked eye?Is it practical to build a giant telescope in Moon? (Considering the fact that the atmosphere of moon is very rare)Why is the moon more visible during the winter?Vacuum of space

4

$begingroup$

It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.

Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?

the-moon earth space star-systems

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
  $endgroup$
  – uhoh
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
  $endgroup$
  – uhoh
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.

Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?

the-moon earth space star-systems

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
  $endgroup$
  – uhoh
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
  $endgroup$
  – uhoh
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.

Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?

the-moon earth space star-systems

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

share|improve this question

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

asked 7 hours ago

AutodidactAutodidact

21418

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

6

$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.

If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).

One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
  $endgroup$
  – Anders Sandberg
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
  $endgroup$
  – Mark
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30026%2fwhy-are-there-no-stars-visible-in-cislunar-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

6

$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.

If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).

One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
  $endgroup$
  – Anders Sandberg
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
  $endgroup$
  – Mark
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.

If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).

One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
  $endgroup$
  – Anders Sandberg
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
  $endgroup$
  – Autodidact
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
  $endgroup$
  – Mark
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.

If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).

One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411

answered 6 hours ago

Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,199411