The Boring Sun

[fosborn_]

So you can't resist low hanging fruit?

More NASA misinformation.

Hmmm. The misinformation disseminated in this thread far exceeds anything you accuse them of.IMO.
You ever get the consensus opinion reference, about the GoPro camera CCD burning up in only a few seconds of direct sun light?

Yes, the Node 2 Zenith hatch faces away from Earth, but I find no reference to portholes in the hatch. And if there is, then you would not be seeing part of the ISS in view.

Looks like a hatch window to me, Node 2

ISS_DragonHatch1.png (46.52 KiB) Viewed 14589 times

https://youtu.be/Vzet3f5q7YM?t=400
Seems like they are of a transient nature. Depending what ports are docked by equipment or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSKlDGJLUY ( first one)
Published on Mar 12, 2015
This video was made just a few days after the completion of the work as was mentioned. Nothing has been posted that I'm aware of. So your probably right. But it will be good fodder for this thread when it is.

He's talking about the star tracker/navcam. Yes, it will see the moon from outside of the atmosphere, it's what they are using to image 67P and Ceres too, even though they are so dark that your eyes would see nothing.

NASA's misinformation? wow.

The latest navcams are using the APS sensors, similar to those used in the Sony A7S, but I have yet to look into how they are being used.

You shoot yourself in the foot with statements like these.IMO
Yet you pronounce such certainty, that they don't have a high priority need for brightness of Stars, for position to be accurately measured as Dr Vic states ?
Hmmmm..

[GaryN]

even though they are so dark that your eyes would see nothing.

Albedo of the Moon and 67P, cropped from the full image at following link:

Images of Enceladus, the Earth, the Moon, and Comet 67P/C-G, with their relative albedos scaled approximately correctly.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014 ... _4_new.jpg
NAVCAM’s shades of grey
http://rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/news/navcam ... hades-grey

Of course, I claim there is no visible Sunlight for there to be an albedo, and the light source is being generated around the comet by solar radiation interacting with material in the coma.

This image of comet 67P/C-G was taken with ESO's Very Large Telescope on 11 August 2014

The latest navcams are using the APS sensors, similar to those used in the Sony A7S, but I have yet to look into how they are being used.

You shoot yourself in the foot with statements like these.IMO

They don't make it easy to keep up with what is going on with these devices, but here is one explanation of recent developments, although the Military may be years ahead of what we get to know about.
A pdf about developments in CMOS sensors and their use for sun, star, and attitude sensing.
ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/outgoing/Marco ... onnini.pdf

STAR1000 is the APS sensor in the Rosetta Navcam.
Star1000 datasheet.
http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-p ... R1000.html

Yet you pronounce such certainty, that they don't have a high priority need for brightness of Stars, for position to be accurately measured as Dr Vic states ?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[fosborn_]

In contrast, the coal-dark moon reflects only 12% of the sunlight falling on it and fresh asphalt just 4% – smack in the middle of the 2-6% range of most known comets.

http://www.universetoday.com/114034/wha ... in-common/

The attachment 67P-comet-albedo-panel_S_sm.jpg is no longer available

but appear light only because the sun illuminates them against the blackness of outer space.

Comets are as dark as charcoal but appear light only because the sun illuminates them against the blackness of outer space.

67P-comet-albedo-panel_S_sm.jpg (21.59 KiB) Viewed 14545 times

Photo of Comet 67P/C-G taken by Rosetta on August 6, 2014. Against the blackness of space, it appears whitish-grey. Credit: ESA

Wow, I guess with out the hazy light in our atmosphere and, in the pure darkness of space it really would appear much brighter

Apollo astronauts reported that a true full Moon is about 30% (0.2 magnitudes) brighter than what we see here on Earth.

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm

A pdf about developments in CMOS sensors and their use for sun, star, and attitude sensing.

ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/outgoing/Marco ... onnini.pdf
From a functional point of view, the Sun sensor is the simplest application, mainly for the huge quantity of optical radiation with which it has to cope and for the accuracy needed.

Optical radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_radiation
Wikipedia
Optical radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is subdivided into ultraviolet radiation (UV), the spectrum of light visible for man(VIS) and infrared .

on left Albedo of the Moon and 67P, .......on right;Credit: Galileo Mission, JPL and NASA

[fosborn_]

Hmmm, If I was to fix the last FUBAR post;

Wow, I guess with out the hazy light in our atmosphere and, in the pure darkness of space it really would appear much brighter
Apollo astronauts reported that a true full Moon is about 30% (0.2 magnitudes) brighter than what we see here on Earth.

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm

GaryN>>>A pdf about developments in CMOS sensors and their use for sun, star, and attitude sensing.

ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/outgoing/Marco ... onnini.pdf

From a functional point of view, the Sun sensor is the simplest application, mainly for the huge quantity of optical radiation with which it has to cope and for the accuracy needed.

And Fix this too;

Optical radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_radiation
Wikipedia
Optical radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is subdivided into ultraviolet radiation (UV), the spectrum of light visible for man(VIS) and infrared .

energy from the sun is distributed by wavelength and photon energy

http://solarcellcentral.com/images/solar_spectrum_2.jpg

[GaryN]

the Sun sensor is the simplest application, mainly for the huge quantity of optical radiation with which it has to cope and for the accuracy needed.

Seems totally counter-intuitive to me to be using such an advanced and sensitive sensor to detect what is supposedly such a big, bright and hot object as the Sun, when a much simpler device should suffice.
This still is not going to help determine what is visible to our eyes in space though. When you have two EVA astronauts going topside, with an unobstructed view of the Void, than it is absolutely insane that NASA has never allowed a few minutes for the astronauts to take a look, during the night portion of their orbit, and report what they can see.

What does NASA have to say about the subject? Not much, just one comment from one of their lackeys.

Can You See Stars in Space?
Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth?

No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

Dr. Eric Christian
(July 2001)

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html

He hears, but does not have any scientific proof. Not good enough. I don't believe we can see our own Sun in space, let alone all the other supposed stars, which likely aren't stars anyway.

[fosborn_]

GaryN Wrote; NASA has never allowed a few minutes for the astronauts to take a look, during the night portion of their orbit, and report what they can see.

This thread is so long, a little review helps give some context on misinformation. IMO

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Astronaut ... -trip.html
Mike Melvill, SpaceShipOne "Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing."5

http://interviewly.com/i/chris-hadfield-dec-2012-reddit
Have you ever gone into the shadow of the ISS or another space ship while on a space walk? If so what was it like? Is it total darkness? Edit: Thanks for the response! And good luck up there! I'll watch you every night you pass over Chicago!

When in space, if you look away from the Sun, it is total darkness. It's because there is no air to reflect and refract the light around you.

You can even take a picture looking at the Sun. The bright Sun will be blown out in the image, but space around it will be black.
The only light becomes the glow of the Earth and starlight. Very cool.

Reddit;
Do the pictures of space do any justice to the real thing?
[–]BuzzAldrinHere[S]
Yes, they do. They recall (for me) the actual experience of myself in space- not by words, not by print, but visual reminders, it brings back a very in-depth appreciation

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 44#p104167
As we moved away from the earth,
about halfway between the earth and the moon
or a little bit less, it was very easy to see
constellations or stars in the dark areas of
the sky.

transcripts document of Apollo 10 about half way to the moon.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/53134295
SC Oh, okay. I Just wanted to give
you a star visibility data point. Just a second ago, when
the sun was in the right side window, number 5 window, I
can see on the Southern Cross, Aerux and alpha beta Centauri
out my left window and charts the first time we've been able
to see it.
CAPCOH Rog, good show.
SC And we couldn't - John couldn't
see many other stars, Just the real big ones, you know, like
alpha beta Centauri and Acrux. Now as the sun moves on
around, they've disappeared, but thatts the first glimpse
of any stars I've gotten.
CAPGOM Roger, we
but the distance at that tlme was approximately
108,600 nautical miles. Gene Cernan reported the
moon looks bigger from that distance.
SC Hello, Houston,
that distance.
SC Hello, Houston, !O.
CAPCOM Co ahead, iO.
SC Okay, I can see the stars real good
out the side wlndow_ I've got Sirius out my side window, but
even out through the rendezvous window i can look up there and
I've got Orion and Rigel there.
CAPCOM Rog. Boy, old Snoop really, when
the sun ts on the side, he must really block it all out.
SC Yes. and I've got the moon right up
above the x-axis. It's a beautiful sight.
_APCOM Rog. We envy you.

http://nolapost.com/2012/11/charlie-duke-visits-harvey/
“It’s a real contrast between the lunar surface and the blackness of space,” Duke said. “The sun is so bright. You don’t see any stars. There is no atmosphere. You just see this clear horizon, and space is just inky black to me. You feel like you can reach out and touch it. It’s really beautiful.”
http://nolapost.com/2012/11/charlie-duke-visits-harvey/
Charles Duke (Apollo 16)"You couldn't see stars, it was too bright" [in cis lunar space]. Speaking to me at Autographica in 2012, and reiterated at various public speaking engagements such as this event with Charles Duke.

GaryN wrote; What does NASA have to say about the subject? Not much, just one comment from one of their lackeys.

He probably read the same stuff we have, about what they saw and when they didn't see it, there were the obvious explanations.

Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

Dr. Eric Christian

When I was in grade school, that's how we settled debates too. A little derogatory name calling..

[GaryN]

An interesting report from the crew of Voskhod 2 in 1965, in which they describe the view of the stars and the Sun:

"We had been accustomed to see stars as blue; but we there saw them as of pure gold—they seemed to have been scattered on black velvet by a careless hand.
Leonov: They looked really bright, in fact almost red like pure gold.
...and the Sun looked different—it had no halo and seemed to be welded into black velvet. It was a strange sight."

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00921.html

They expected blue stars, but saw gold/red instead. Due to the orbit of the spacecraft, I have been unable to determine the altitude they were at when they might have seen the red stars and strange Sun, but previous missions where the stars were blue were likely at a lower altitude, as their orbits did not reach that of Voskhod 2.
So it would be interesting to compare the appearance of the stars and the Sun made by NASA astronauts, from the Gemini missions say, and the present day ISS EVA astronauts. Also to compare the appearance of the Sun and stars from cislunar space, as Al Worden on Apollo 15 went out to retrieve film canisters from the externally mounted cameras so should have made observations.

In cislunar space, Worden should have been in full sunlight, but in the image it seems that the light is more likely from the Command module EVA floodlight, which was installed to aid in the recovery of the film canisters from the Panoramic Camera and Mapping Camera. Was there any sunlight at all in cislunar space? How do NASA EVA astronauts descriptions of the Suns appearance compare to what the Russian crew saw? Tough to say, I haven't found any such descriptions from the NASA astronauts yet.
I believe this information supports my belief that the view of the heavens will change with increasing altitude, due to the changing density and composition and ionisation levels of the atmosphere, and that when sufficient altitude is reached, there will be nothing visible. Experiments required.

[fosborn_]

Wow! thanks for that post. I had no sucess looking of cosmonaut discriptions of the stars. Its cool how it is confirmation of NASA and ESA space based observers accounts.

"Then I spread my arms like wings.
That was a very pleasant sensation
. . •" Alexei Leonov made this
sketch for "Komsomolskaya Pravda"
(Komsomolskaya Pravda (Russian: Комсомо́льская пра́вда; lit. "Komsomol Truth") is a daily Russian tabloid newspaper, founded on 13 March 1925)
before the flight of Voskhod 2. On the back of the drawing he wrote
"This is how I visualize the first moments in space"

bright stars drawn in sketch

CosmoDwgsm.png (46.99 KiB) Viewed 14351 times

The Earth below appeared
flat; its curvature was only noticeable on the horizon. The distance
of hundreds of kilometres from the Earth at which the spaceship
was moving made the Earth appear like a sphere similar to the Moon;
the sky was black, jet black; the stars were bright,

Leonov: They looked really bright, in fact almost red like pure gold.

Simulation of a draw of Dave Smiths favorite beer ( flood light to add extra appeal)

BearBubles.gif (12.76 KiB) Viewed 14349 times

Crocodile Dundee's home town pud.. Dave Smiths pub too?

CrocDundee.jpg (7.21 KiB) Viewed 14351 times

Belyayev: It was indeed a tremendous sight: the universe with its
myriads of stars, with the Sun breaking the darkness. We watched
all we could see through the windows. On one occasion our attention
was attracted byan object bathed in the rays of Sun.

Hope your wearing bullet proof steal toe boots....

[fosborn_]

by GaryN »So it would be interesting to compare the appearance of the stars and the Sun made by NASA astronauts, from the Gemini missions say

nice Gemini zenith shot of sun :

https://youtu.be/7K5DiKsZhTk?t=77

[fosborn_]

by GaryN »In cislunar space, Worden should have been in full sunlight, but in the image it seems that the light is more likely from the Command module EVA floodlight,

EVA lighting exterier

So you think that system will produce these lighting effects?

CMP Ken Mattingly Performs Cis-Lunar EVA (25 April 1972) — Astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly II, command module pilot, performs an extravehicular activity (EVA) during the Apollo 16 trans-Earth coast.

OK

Or your picture in a much better light.
http://from-the-earth-to-the-moon13.tum ... nsit-eva-5

[GaryN]

nice Gemini zenith shot of sun :

Yes, and going by Celestia, the Sun was indeed overhead. But lens effects don't tell us much about how the Sun looked to their eyes, and if the Voskhod 2 crew could describe the Sun as they did, what did it look like to the Gemini crew?
Here is a Gemini 12 video, the mission where they did use an ND filter to observe an exclipse, though Celestia shows that at the time of the eclipse the Sun would have been very close to Earths limb, so looking through dense atmosphere. The Sun seems to be just out of direct view in some of the footage,

starting at 11:52 for example, but there is what appears to be a cloud of some kind in shot for quite a while that does not seem to be a lens effect, and at times seems to have fine tendrils at the edges, and as the ionosphere goes out well above where their orbit takes them, I suspect that the Solar radiation may cause visibly glowing clouds such as seen in the video, with perhaps a well defined, but not big and painfully bright or heat producing central spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb4tTfFraxs

So you think that system will produce these lighting effects?

I think if it is truly black in cislunar space, then it must be the EVA floodlight providing the illumination. The astronauts would know of course, but I don't think they ever discuss it. Al Worden should know, but can't find a way to ask him.
One thing I did learn recently was that the visors, or at least the ones they use now, do not darken the view through them, but sharpen it, like looking through a one way mirror it was described as. So, perhaps the Sun is still too bright to look at through the reflective visor, and they couldn't describe the Suns appearance, or say if Sunspots were visible.
Again, I call for NASA, or ESA, or anyone else with space capability, to do some serious, verifiable experiments to determine just what is visible as you move away from the Earths surface, looking outwards, and going out to 10,000km or so. It's insane that it has never been done.

[fosborn_]

by GaryN >>Yes, and going by Celestia, the Sun was indeed overhead. But lens effects don't tell us much about how the Sun looked to their eyes, and if the Voskhod 2 crew could describe the Sun as they did, what did it look like to the Gemini crew?

Groundless speculation. There are plenty of observers testimony the sun is bright, the cosmonauts confirmed it. The stars are bright.

From your video a few frames prior. your screen shot is just lens artifacts and glare off space craft panel. in previous frames you can see same affects wash out opposite of the frame of the sun . Pretty much same thinking as with the flood lights.

by GaryN>>> so looking through dense atmosphere. The Sun seems to be just out of direct view in some of the footage,

So what we really gather is the sun is the same at zenith as it is low on the horizon. Geminii 4 and 7 show that. Your notions about camera lenses and visors, with out technical documentation is no more profitable or legitimate than what you have been posting.
So now we can complete more of the solar circuit you demand.

I think if it is truly black in cislunar space, then it must be the EVA floodlight providing the illumination.

Sorry, physically impossible. Based on light angles and position of the flood. Not even in the design, what your asking for.

Again, I call for NASA, or ESA, or anyone else with space capability, to do some serious, verifiable experiments to determine just what is visible as you move away from the Earths surface, looking outwards, and going out to 10,000km or so. It's insane that it has never been done.

I have presented all the obvious reasons why its proven stars emit light and so does the sun, the insanity is ignoring it. Only the need to proselytize for some religious views makes sense other wise.

[GaryN]

We obviously have very different mental models of how things work, and that is allowed, and a good thing really. Some of your points have given me cause to look further into certain aspects of my own beliefs, but in most cases my research has only strengthened my doubts about what NASA shows or tells us about the true nature of how the cosmos works, and just what would be visible to our eyes in space.
Now I know you are dead against any scientific experiments which might lead to showing the errors in your own models and beliefs, but feel you will eventually have to accept that something is badly amiss with what mainstream science has lead us to believe about how things are in more than just astronomy and astrophysics, while I am quite willing to accept the results of any experiments that can be shown to be verifiable and repeatable and to have been conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.
You'll like this first bit of news though, as it does prove you were correct about the existence of the Node 2 Zenith porthole, and it was used in March this year to image to Moon! Case closed you might say, and this image, which I have verified to my satisfaction to have been taken from that porthole, must be proof of that.

Given the information provided it could be shown beyond doubt that this image was indeed taken from that port, although the image you provided earlier can be proven to have been taken from either the cupola or another sideways facing port:

I have had this confirmed by an independent third party, who like yourself, believes my views are nonsense. I had been told about the Zenith porthole before, but was told it was usually covered because of its delicacy, and no images from it were to be found anywhere. Here is the post, and the CBCS flap image is available from there;
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 240#p67102
Searching more recently for window or porthole had brought no results, so I had claimed it didn't exist, but using Node 2 Zenith CBCS does bring up info.
So the porthole exists, and images were taken. The Moon is clearly visible at a high angle, looking away from Earth. So what's my beef now? Well, looking further into the images from the set presented, I came across this image:

Much dimmer. Looking then into the camera metadata, I see they have used an ISO 400 setting, with the camera deciding aperture and exposure time.

NASA PHOTO ID: iss042e307400.NEF
GMT: 2015:03:08 15:46:43
MODEL: NIKON D4 S/N: 2071125
NASA SN and Temp: NASA 2071125 76.6F
Firmware: Ver.N.10
Image Size: 4992x3292
Compression: Nikon NEF Compressed
Exposure Program: Manual
Shutter: 1/1000
Aperture: 5.6
Meter Mode: Multi-segment
Shooting Mode: Continuous, Exposure Bracketing
ISO Speed: 400
AF Area Mode: Single Area
Focal Length: 58.0 mm
Lens ID: Manual Lens No CPU
DOF: -0.00 m (0.01 - 0.01)
Focus Mode: Manual
Focus Distance: 0.01 m
Subject Distance Range: Unknown
Compensation: +2/3
Noise Reduction: Off
Whitebalance: Auto1
Flash: No Flash
Flash Mode: Did Not Fire

Why such a high ISO? Not to prevent motion blur surely, or even camera shake if it was hand held. What does happen though, using those settings, is that you are guaranteed to get an overexposed image. They should have been using ISO 100, as most would while shooting the Moon from Earth. So this appears to be a totally dishonest attempt by NASA to make us believe that the Moon looks as bright in space as it does from Earth, but this is not the case. With the correct settings I believe the Moon would be very dark indeed, and that fact would not tally with the brightness we observe from Earth, which, if anyone noticed or even cared, should surely lead to questions, but to me, demonstrates that some atmospheric mechanism is making the Moon appear very bright, and that same mechanism is making the stars visible to us on Earth. Unfortunately, they never did any longer exposures to show us the stars out of that porthole, maybe next time?
Pick away Frank!

[GaryN]

A change in the model of what I believe the experiment showed. After looking at more images, and they don't make it easy, I found a sequence of shots from the cupola that begins with a distorted moon, indicating that the shot was from the cupola when the Moon was very close to Earths limb, being viewed through the denser atmosphere. Enlarge within the square to see the detail.
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ph ... ame=307040
A close succession of shots illustrate that as the Moon was viewd through less and less atmosphere as the orbit progressed shows chhnges in both colour and brightness of the Moon

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ph ... ame=307070

Later, the shots from their precious Zenith port show a bright Moon

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ph ... ame=307390
followed very shortly after as a much duller Moon

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ph ... ame=307400
The ISO setting of the camera remains the same with all shots, both from the Cupola and the Zenith port.
So what is this telling us? I see this as demonstrating that firstly the Earths ionosphere does determine what we see from Earth. The changing brightness and colour and than fading out altogether indicate that without that atmosphere there is nothing visible, and the changing colours explains why the Voskhod 2 crew saw blue stars, as at certain altitudes their view would have been equivalent to the view from the cupola, they were seeing through a thinner or differently ionised layer of atmosphere. There are shots from this experiment that show the Moon with a reddish tinge, not as pronounced as the blue, but clearly evident if the image was run through the appropriate software. Than would explain why the Russians saw red/gold stars from a different altitude.
So the, how did the view from the Zenith port happen if they were not looking through Earths atmosphere? It isn't the exposure speed as I first though, and I now believe that NASA was viewing the Moon through a region of plasma, a plasma bubble, above the ISS, that is giving a similar effect to seeing through the Earth atmosphere. There are plasma bubbles or sheets that persist for long periods, many only in the daytime, and with the Zenith shot, I believe the reason for the quick dimming of the Moon is due to the limited size of the plasma bubble, so the effect is only fleeting.
There is lots going on above the ISS that we don't really understand, and bubbles and sheets of differing ionisation levels will affect the view of the heavens when you are at different altitudes and looking in different directions, and of course the levels of ionisation, which change with changes in the Suns emissions in x-ray/uv levels.

http://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/structur.htm
The red and blue noted in the images would be from the Hydrogen Balmer emissions. So, if the view of the heavens from Earth is determined by the ionosphere/plasmasphere, then it is likely that the whole model of what we see out there, about star colours which are the basis of the temperature and distances, and even if they really are stars, is all in serious question. Comprehensive experiments are in need, NASA might do them, but won't tell us much about them if they do.

[GaryN]

So what could NASA have been using to make the Moon visible, if it is some plasma region, cloud, bubble? I'd thought first about the equatorial plasma belt, and one of the denser regions, not sure of it's altitude though.

Maybe. Then there is the ionospheric perturbation.

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/qsl-perturbation.htm
Maybe they exist higher up too, but if not it does look like a very good candidate for the thing imaged in the Gemini 12 video. Right altitude, right structure with the tendrils snaking out to find some electrons, and the right colour for a Balmer hydrogen emission line.