Just a quirk we can see the cosmos, as it's quite invisible

[out_there]

I have held this belief rather strongly for quite some time but many would argue. I claim that we can see the "heavens" i.e. the cosmos only because Earth's atmosphere diffracts and "twinkles" the light from distant stars and galaxies. Thus, when you look up from the moon you will see only blackness. The light coming from heavenly bodies is just too distant and so too "pinpoint" to be spotted by the naked eye or by plain photography. I seem to recall photos taken by our few moon landers showing nothing in the skies. Others have argued against me, claiming that the cameras used were somehow substandard; but I stand by my belief that the universe is totally invisible to viewers situated on stations without a substantial dense atmosphere. What say you?

 

[Space Ponder]

" The cameras used were somehow substandard" The camera used were far from substandard, they were using professional high grade Hasselblad, which are incredibly powerful cameras even till to this day. The simple reason as to why no stars were visible in photographs from the moon is this: exposure. The exposure was exposed for the moon, not the sky. If they exposed for the sky, they had needed to expose for around 15 seconds. It's simple exposure in photography. I hope this helps.

 

[Space Ponder]

" The cameras used were somehow substandard" The camera used were far from substandard, they were using professional high grade Hasselblad, which are incredibly powerful cameras even till to this day. The simple reason as to why no stars were visible in photographs from the moon is this: exposure. The exposure was exposed for the moon, not the sky. If they exposed for the sky, they had needed to expose for around 15 seconds. It's simple exposure in photography. I hope this helps.

Giant Space Slug is correct.

 

[out_there]

I mentioned the unaided eye and "plain photography". If you lengthen the exposure time, exponentially, to 15 full seconds then sure, I suppose stars would eventually be captured. But as to the unaided eye it's still a no, eh?

 

[Space Ponder]

I mentioned the unaided eye and "plain photography". If you lengthen the exposure time, exponentially, to 15 full seconds then sure, I suppose stars would eventually be captured. But as to the unaided eye it's still a no, eh?

You would be able to see the stars very clearly with the unaided eyes.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have held this belief rather strongly for quite some time but many would argue. I claim that we can see the "heavens" i.e. the cosmos only because Earth's atmosphere diffracts and "twinkles" the light from distant stars and galaxies. Thus, when you look up from the moon you will see only blackness. The light coming from heavenly bodies is just too distant and so too "pinpoint" to be spotted by the naked eye or by plain photography. I seem to recall photos taken by our few moon landers showing nothing in the skies. Others have argued against me, claiming that the cameras used were somehow substandard; but I stand by my belief that the universe is totally invisible to viewers situated on stations without a substantial dense atmosphere. What say you?

I'm afraid it's just the opposite. Our atmosphere dampens or decreases our sensitivity and spectrum for observation with the naked eye. And our instruments. The air scatters, distorts and filters the light. The naked eye would see much more without the atmosphere. But only for a short time. Your eye needs it.

The question is, if I were standing on the moon in daylight, and stood in a shadow and looked up.......would I see the MW?

Or does one have to go to the dark side? Let's ask the next person to go there. Or someone that has. That would have been one of the first things I would have done, unless it was obvious that the MW was there in daylight. Part of the daylight decor.

 

[out_there]

yeah ok thnx

 

[out_there]

Okay, it's finally come to me, eureka, and you guys voiced some chatter. I realize that our astronauts only visited moon during it's daylight hours so OF COURSE no stars would be visible! And the sky isn't blue there, it's black. I certainly leave my mind open now to the presumption that if walking on moon when and where it's night then you could see the heavens, and also snapshot them. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[billslugg]

Stars are just as visible day or night on the Moon. On the day side, all you must do is get into a shadow. With no air to scatter the light it must be a very good view. I have stargazed at 10,000 feet in the Andes. Pretty awesome.

 

[out_there]

Stars are just as visible day or night on the Moon. On the day side, all you must do is get into a shadow.

Awesome!

 

[out_there]

Stars are just as visible day or night on the Moon. On the day side, all you must do is get into a shadow.

Now, just to clarify a tad if you would, on the Moon, during daylight, I'm supposing that even without ducking into the shade you would see some of the stars that are well away from the Sun, and that from the shade you would see more i.e. a denser array of stars. No matter.

 

[billslugg]

The number of stars you can see during daylight on the Moon is dependent upon how much scattered light your eyes must deal with. If you could take your helmet off, and there was no scattered light inside your eyeball, you could see stars right next to the Sun. Wearing a helmet, though, allows for sunlight to scatter off of the plexiglass shield and wipe out the stars. Remenber, the stars are just as bright as the Sun per unit area, they are just much smaller.

 

[out_there]

thanks

 

[out_there]

So, I am yet confused because earlier in this thread Space Ponder said the astronauts' camera would require a full 15 seconds exposure - hundreds of times longer than normal - in order to pickup the view that billslugg now attributes can be gleaned quite instantly by the naked eye. Arggh.

 

[billslugg]

So, I am yet confused because earlier in this thread Space Ponder said the astronauts' camera would require a full 15 seconds exposure - hundreds of times longer than normal - in order to pickup the view that billslugg now attributes can be gleaned quite instantly by the naked eye. Arggh.

The Hassleblad large format cameras carried film that could catch action in full sunlight. This would normally mean an exposure duration of 1/60 second or faster. If the film speed was 100 ASA, in full sunlight you can expect to shoot with a lens of, say, f8 at 1/125 second. So, on the Moon they would be at f16/60th. To use such film at night trying to catch stars, you would leave the lens open for about 15 seconds. Stars are just as bright as the Sun, per unit area, but they are exceedingly small. No regular mirror telescope can resolve one, it takes special techniques. Being so tiny, it takes a long while for a star to put enough photons into a silver atom to expose a grain.

Your eyes are much much faster than 100 speed film. Eyes can glance at a star on the Moon in daylight and see it. Only problem is scattered light from the Sun.

 

[out_there]

Roger. Our eyes are hundreds of times faster than 100 speed film. Again, my many thanks.