The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

But look at the way it measures the spectrum of light..

Only helpful if you know the orientation of the instrument when it is taking the measurements. From 400 miles it could still be looking through an awful lot of atmospheric matter if it was looking 'sideways'. The thermosphere extends up to 1000 KM, exosphere to 10,000. Seems a waste that those geostationary satellites (28,000 KM) can't take a camera up there with them that could look away from Earth, then we would know just what was visible from that elevation, where there will be minimal matter present, just atomic hydrogen mostly. Pretty sure I know why they don't try that experiment.

Also the node 2 zenith window, have you found any updated pictures other than this one?

No, and I can not find the image set again:
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/p ... ame=104149

But I did find a shot that illustrates the limited visibility from the Cupola. I thought I could see some stars around the Earth, but at 1/640 at ISO 400, can't be.
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages ... 105300.JPG

And the Moon seen in the video is not from the Node 2 location, as it would see no other part of the space station. More deceptive info from NASA.

..the Zenith port of Node 2 at the very front end of the station..

That's the green one.

[fosborn_]

Concerning the location of Node 2 Zenith window.

Close up of Node 2 in simulated 2014 configuration for Moon image experment with Zenith window, note why its called Zenith window

ISS_Node2.png (9.36 KiB) Viewed 9494 times

.

ISS_SimImageSm.gif (18.33 KiB) Viewed 9494 times

So this picture labled NASA Image: ISS043E104149 - Moon Imaging Experiment Photo session, was taken at the zenith window.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... 104149.jpg

MoonNode2Zport_.gif (3.56 KiB) Viewed 9494 times

[GaryN]

Seems like the experiment failed. It's a joke trying to get information out of NASA. No references to any other images from the experiment, no EXIF data, nothing at all to go on. Typical.
http://nova.astrometry.net/status/863455

[fosborn_]

Seems like the experiment failed. It's a joke trying to get information out of NASA. No references to any other images from the experiment, no EXIF data, nothing at all to go on. Typical.
http://nova.astrometry.net/status/863455

Speculation is useless. What was posted served our needs, to see that the moon is observable at the zenith.

[GaryN]

What was posted served our needs, to see that the moon is observable at the zenith.

For your needs maybe, I want to know exposure settings and the camera used. Just because the camera saw it doesn't mean you definitely could.

[fosborn_]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ktwop.com/ ... phere/amp/

But now work with a vacuum ultra violet laser (simulating uv light in the upper atmosphere) shows that the resulting excitation of carbon dioxide molecules can lead to the production of oxygen by disassociation.Vacuum ultra violet (200 – 10 nm; 6.20 – 124 eV) is strongly absorbed by atmospheric oxygen, but 150–200 nm wavelengths can propagate through nitrogen. This is particularly intriguing since it would be controlled by the oxygen concentration in the upper atmosphere....
According to one of the scientists who reviewed the paper for Science, Zhou’s work means that models of the evolution of planetary atmospheres will now have to be adjusted to take this into account.

Redsun2.jpg (5.53 KiB) Viewed 9414 times

CO2tooxygen-300x225.jpg (6.14 KiB) Viewed 9414 times

So will there be light emission with the disassociation? seems otherwise if sunlight is only visible in a planetary atmosphere, the sun would appear much dimmer with all the atmospheric absorption.

[GaryN]

So will there be light emission with the disassociation?

Yes, though what wavelengths I have not looked into. With the Atmospheric Light Transformer model, what is going on in each planet or moons atmosphere is going to depend on the composition and density of the atmospheres, and with Earths complex atmosphere there will be numerous processes to be examined, but the assumption by mainstream is that visible Sunlight and refraction is the primary mechanism is totally unproven. Yes, there will be refraction at some altitudes, but further out then it will be fluorescence, and further out still, atomic electron orbital shifts, and even photon-electron interactions.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... hotel.html
The electron density profile of the magnetosphere is known pretty well, so this transformation is beginning quite a ways out from Earth.

The FUVC instrument they took to the Moon shows the Lyman Alpha emissions from atomic hydrogen, a vacuum UV emission.

So underneath that layer, the VUV emissions are going to be producing numerous effects on materials lower in the atmosphere, and those emissions producing more effects on the material even lower in the atmosphere. The greatest amount of IR that we feel as heat on the surface is developed by the CO and CO2 most likely, but again I have not got to doing any calculations. There is absorption and emission going on, so the processes occurring in the atmosphere are not simple, but the overall effect is transforming of shorter wavelength light to longer, with visible and thermal IR dominating at the surface.

This simulation using the visually impressive but factually nonsense Space Engine program starts with a view of our Sun, bright white, as claimed by NASA, but as we have no actual photos of the Sun from space, this is an assumption. Not science, but then astronomy is not a real science, is it? So the view of the Sun from other planets is all based on the model of sunlight refracted in the atmosphere of the planets or moons, whereas it is actually a creation of light, not necessarily visible, by transformation of the Suns higher energy radiation. Certainly there will be refraction involved in some circumstances, such as with the dust atmosphere on the Moon, or Mars, that comes under the work of Gustav Mie.
How Does The Sun Look Like from Other Planets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax2iCxp9JTQ

So the A.L.T. model, if the Sun, or anything else, is not visible from clear space, is the most scientifically appropriate model, but the exact details I do not have. If I had even a small percentage of the funds spent on looking for black holes or dark matter or gravity waves, I'd have a go at some calculations. Not gonna happen.

[fosborn_]

Thanks for a thoughtful responce and effort....

But..

GaryN » Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:01 pm

Frank...

So will there be light emission with the disassociation?

GaryN..Yes, though what wavelengths I have not looked into

How can we find out what wave length? Then we will want to know it's absorbsion?

Have you listed or identified some of or any of the individual problems to solve to get to where we could project such a convincing spectrum at ground level ?

[GaryN]

Have you listed or identified some of or any of the individual problems to solve to get to where we could project such a convincing spectrum at ground level?

No. Experiments would be a far better way, measure and record everything possible while heading from the surface to outside of the magnetosphere, shouldn't cost billion$.

[fosborn_]

AAS 16-225 OPTIMIZATION OF A 3D PRINTED CUBESAT BAFFLE USING RAY TRACING Tjorven Delabie, KU Leuven University
Optical payloads and star trackers are equipped with a baffle to reduce the impact of stray light from the Sun or Moon. As small satellites and CubeSats are moving toward Earth Observation missions, small-scale performant baffles will need to be developed. This paper presents a novel method to improve the inner vane structure of baffles. Thanks to 3D-printing, more complex structures can be built with ease. The novel designs, their analytical performance and the performance obtained in optical tests are presented. The increased performance leads to a compact baffle that increases the image quality of star trackers and optical payloads.

SunsTravels.jpg (10.83 KiB) Viewed 9381 times

http://www.space-flight.org/docs/2016_w ... _FINAL.pdf

Wow, looks like, star trackers need to block the bright light of the sun and moon.

AAS 16-340 Strategy and Algorithm Study on Evasion of Incident Light of Sun and Moon for Star Tracker Wang Haiyong; Li Jingjin
Attitude determination of star tracker is executed by observing star light, which is rather weak. The optics and imaging array designed for star light are not applicative to the sun and the moon, the two strong light sources, so a geometrical analytic method is put forward for star tracker to evade strong light sources. The commanded orientation of the boresight calculated by the algorithm could make star tracker work wihtout incident lights. This algorithm can achieve the purposes of protecting the optics of the star tracker autonomously and securing the validity of the star observation window.

So again where the parctical working science must deal with facts not theory.

But Looks like there is a bone for everybody in this one..

The commanded orientation of the boresight

This must be a lesson they learned from the Apollo 1X scanning and navigation scopes( no filters or polorizing or coatings), when in CisLunar and Lunar Surface, when brilliant sun light was blocked properly they could sightings on stars to get a fix on location calculated. Neil Armstrong included...

[GaryN]

Thanks Frank for your excellent work and and the time you clearly invest in these matters, and I am in no way being facetious here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and even though I can not prove the most important claim, the one that all others hang on, i.e. that the Sun is not visible in clear space, I do believe that a very strong case can be made from what data I am able to obtain.

The Star Tracker is a good example.
Attitude determination of star tracker is executed by observing star light, which is rather weak.

No quantitative or qualitative values. We don't know how the star tracker 'sees' what it does, or what wavelengths it is detecting. If stars were visible to the human eye in space, then much cheaper, much less sensitive and understandable devices could be used. At present, they must be purchased from Military controlled corporations, and they do not have to sell you one if they don't like you.
My first guess would be that it would be the Lyman alpha light they were detecting, I'm leaning more now towards IR at the 3.5 micron line, which is one that WISE uses. It is an unidentified line, but strong from the location of WISE.
WISE Passbands

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/WISE/passbands.html
Maybe not so from clear space, I don't know.
That the Apollo astronauts have said it is totally black out there does not prove there is no visible light out there of course, but only that the trained observers sent out there could not see it, whereas an extremely sensitive instrument would be able to, if present. Again,experimentally testable, we should KNOW these things by now.

Apollo 1X scanning and navigation scopes

I have explained before that the optical output from the Star Tracker was merged with the view through the Sextant, they only saw stars when the S.T. could, and as you say they are very sensitive to stray light, but what wavelength of light was that?
I'm working on more nonsense for you to pick at Frank, hope you will critique it too!

[GaryN]

Just to add to the confusion about what is visible in space. I don't know if both of these guys are Freemasons, or just what the connection of the FMs is to NASA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

[fosborn_]

But now work with a vacuum ultra violet laser (simulating uv light in the upper atmosphere) shows that the resulting excitation of carbon dioxide molecules can lead to the production of oxygen by disassociation.Vacuum ultra violet (200 – 10 nm; 6.20 – 124 eV) is strongly absorbed by atmospheric oxygen, ...

So will there be light emission with the disassociation?

GaryN wrote:

Yes, though what wavelengths I have not looked into.

I can't find anything that shows there would be any light emission from this process. It seems a fundimental necessitiy for your hypothesis.

[GaryN]

I can't find anything that shows there would be any light emission from this process. It seems a fundimental necessitiy for your hypothesis.

Not visible light, correct. The visible light is lower down the transformation chain, but even the gamma rays are referred to as light.

[fosborn_]

I can't find anything that shows there would be any light emission from this process. It seems a fundimental necessitiy for your hypothesis.

Not visible light, correct. The visible light is lower down the transformation chain, but even the gamma rays are referred to as light.

Wow! what happened to VUV? Are you revising your hypothesis? will the gamma ray star images look the same as VUV star images?

If you could see gamma-rays, the night sky would look strange and unfamiliar.
The gamma-ray moon just looks like a round blob - lunar features are not visible. In high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is actually brighter than the quiet Sun. This image was taken by EGRET.

moon_egret.jpg (8.02 KiB) Viewed 9342 times

The difference in how the galaxies appear is due to which type of stars shine brightest in the optical and ultraviolet wavelengths. Pictures of galaxies like the ones below show mainly clouds of gas containing newly formed stars many times more massive than the sun, which glow strongly in ultraviolet light. In contrast, visible light pictures of galaxies show mostly the yellow and red light of older stars.

How can more detail be in the down shifted visible light than is in the original gamma and VUV?