The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

A reply from NASA about SOFIA!
The primary contractor has exclusive rights to all data collected, for an unspecified period, and may, at some future date, release selected portions of it's data analysis and/or images. Don't hold your breath. The public pays, corporations get the goods.
No word on KAO data, maybe they are still analysing it.

[GaryN]

Ah, fianlly found some images taken from the Kuiper aircraft flying at 40,000 ft.
The Milky Way

Haleys comet with ion tail

Quite impressive I'd say. Even more so when you consider that these images were taken
with a regular camera, and not the 36" reflector telescope!

The CAN DO team mounted 35mm cameras on the head ring of the KAO's 36 inch infrared telescope.
This was the first time anyone had attempted this type of photography from the airborne observatory
and no one expected them to work as well as they did. Even Nikon doubted that the F3, known for its
rugged nature, would function properly at -70 C in the nearly space-like conditions.

http://www.musc.edu/cando/haley/haley00.html
So what on (or off) Earth did they see with the big telescope? They ain't sayin'.
So we can see lots of bright stars with a regular camera at 40,000 ft. , which means the stars should be even
brighter at 90,000, or 120,000 from a balloon? And really spectacular from the ISS?

[GaryN]

A SOFIA image! Comparison with other IR instruments. It has a narrow field of view
and yet shows an amazing 'star' density. Can they all be stars? I think this is why
SOFIA, or Kuiper images are not available. They show so much stuff that it must raise
questions about just what we are seeing. Planets and rocks IMO. Just imagine the complexity
of the Birkeland Currents if all stars are powered by them.

http://mips.as.arizona.edu/MIPS/science_f.html
SOFIA images are supposed to be available here:
http://sofia.arc.nasa.gov/

Here is a nice image from the final Shuttle mission. Stars are visible, even though the cargo bay is
well lit. I wish they would list camaera and exposure settings. Again though, the stars are close
to the crescent Earth.


Vesta with stars in the background. All you need is a 10 minute exposure with a camera
with, probably, single photon sensitivity CCDs. So what would your eyes see if you were out
there? Not even Vesta probably.

[GaryN]

Here is another experiment, and telescope I wasn't familiar with. A Space Shuttle mission using the SWUIS telescope. I haven't found an image gallery for this mission either, but there are some images at the site.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/swuis/index.html
This page states theat the SWUIS could be used from the ISS, but a quick look doesn't bring up any info on that.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... yes&ref=no
Is NASA trying to hide something from us? Nah, they wouldn't do that.

[GaryN]

Thanks to a helpful member on the baut forums, information from the Kuiper mission
has been brought to my attention. I thought I had performed a comprehensive search
through Google, but I guess Google does not search all other search engines, and it seems
the info resides almost exclusively with the Royal Astronomical Society.
The first item I examined was very informative, and the image of the torus in the pdf file seems to
be better than I can find from the newer IR instruments. Maybe my search skills just plain suck.
Kuiper Widefield Infrared Camera Far-Infrared Imaging of the Galactic Center: The Circumnuclear Disk Revealed
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/511/2/761
The pdf file:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/511 ... _2_761.pdf

I also did find some images from the SWUIS device, but not an image gallery or repository.
Astro-2 UIT Release Pictures
http://archive.stsci.edu/uit/project/As ... tures.html

[GaryN]

Stunning! Comet Lovejoy Photographed from the Space Station

I sure wish they would give exposure times etc with their images. I'd suspect this
was a good few seconds, yet there are no stars visible, apart from maybe a couple
in the densest part of the atmosphere close to crescent Earth.

[GaryN]

Full resolution image.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 014350.jpg

Astronaut Dan Burbank captured Comet Lovejoy from the International Space Station on December 21, 2011. Despite setting his Nikon D3S to an ISO of 12800, he still needed a steady hand for this 0.8-second exposure through an f/2.8 lens.

[GaryN]

An image search for lunar far uv emissions doesn't bring up much, but I found this one, taken by
the ASTRO telescope on some early Shuttle missions. There appear to be some high intensity spots,
on the surface I presume. Or are they in the ionosphere? If it is FUV, what is the cause?

ASTRO.(The visible stars are just above the Earth crescent, in the ionosphere)

Ultraviolet shots are available through
http://archive.stsci.edu/uit/uitcat.html
...
I was reading on Baut how the ISS crew can not view the stars easily, due to the cabin
lighting. I was wondering though, if they could see any of the planets.

No results found for "venus from the international space station"

I tried more planets, and other variations, no go.
Tonight I had Venus directly in front of my window shortly after sunset, so in my normally lit room,
my porch light on, one neighbors porch light on, and the other neighbours house with 5 or 6 security
lights on, houses across the road with lights on, I look through my dirty window with my old 10x50s,
and almost get blinded by the planet. Well, I exagerate, but it is bright and clear. I wonder if they
have binoculars on the ISS for taking a quick look? Could they see Venus as bright as I can?

[GaryN]

From a previous post:


A little more digging, and it seems that NASA knew very well what it was doing with these
shots, and knew precisely when to be out taking them.



The moon and Venus were being viewed through the ionosphere, they just staged the shot so
the Earth was not in frame. Sneaky.
Same with the other shot.


BIG image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... g_iss1.jpg

[GaryN]

These 2 images were taken from the Mars Global Surveyors MOC camera. They turned it around to take an Earth/Moon shot, when Mars what on close approach to Earth. I was just informed by someone who says he knows that it was a 7 second exposure. You have to look real close. And another professed expert told me there were no stars in there because the Earth and Moon were affecting the visibility of the stars or some such nonsense. I saw a camera straining its limits to pick up what it could of the transverse wave reflections of those bodies.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/200 ... -00763.gif
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/200 ... -00762.gif
From:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/200 ... index.html
Here is what my Coolpix 990 camera is capable of.
http://www.stargazing.net/david/nikon99 ... 20515.html
Think about this. Is that the 7 second exposure that exposes the whole game? Dollard is right, JL was right, only longitudinal waves travel long distances in the vacuum. The wavefronts can not be brought into focus by eye, with a regular camera, or the MOC camera, as it has very camera-like optics. It was designed to take stunning images that our eye would expect. Have I finally lost it all together, or can I get Dave to reopen the "stars can not be seen in space" thread?

[fosborn_]

Think about this. Is that the 7 second exposure that exposes the whole game? Dollard is right, JL was right, only longitudinal waves travel long distances in the vacuum. The wavefronts can not be brought into focus by eye, with a regular camera, or the MOC camera, as it has very camera-like optics. It was designed to take stunning images that our eye would expect. Have I finally lost it all together, or can I get Dave to reopen the "stars can not be seen in space" thread?

In the description of the pictures, its sounds like the photos had a lot of processing to get the image they wanted.

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/05/22/index.
The MOC Earth/Moon image has been specially processed to allow both Earth (with an apparent magnitude of -2.5) and the much darker Moon (with an apparent magnitude of +0.9) to be visible together.

GaryN »
The wavefronts can not be brought into focus by eye, with a regular camera, or the MOC camera, as it has very camera-like optics.

I would like to bring up some information, that may already be in this thread;

http://www.ophsource.org/periodicals/op ... 1/abstract
Results
After 6 months of space flight, 7 astronauts had ophthalmic findings, consisting of disc edema in 5, globe flattening in 5, choroidal folds in 5, cotton wool spots (CWS) in 3, nerve fiber layer thickening by OCT in 6, and decreased near vision in 6 astronauts. Five of 7 with near vision complaints had a hyperopic shift ≥+0.50 diopters (D) between pre/postmission spherical equivalent refraction in 1 or both eyes (range, +0.50 to +1.75 D). These 5 showed globe flattening on MRI. Lumbar punctures performed in the 4 with disc edema documented opening pressures of 22, 21, 28, and 28.5 cm H2O performed 60, 19, 12, and 57 days postmission, respectively. The 300 postflight questionnaires documented that approximately 29% and 60% of astronauts on short and long-duration missions, respectively, experienced a degradation in distant and near visual acuity. Some of these vision changes remain unresolved years after flight.

My highlights.
So I'm thinking some people wouldn't be able to see stars and others who's eyes adapted well, will. As in the mixed observations of astronauts who have and those who haven't.

[GaryN]

That's very interesting Frank. From my own experience with looking at stars around here though,
I don't think it would make a difference to the stars being detectable. I need long distance
correction, but I don't normally wear my glasses, except for driving. I can still see the
stars, but they look much bigger and 'spiky'. In one eye I have a bad cataract right now
(warning to any microwave experimenters, I think I boiled my lens!) and the diffusion ring
around the Moon is huge. Also, my blood pressure affects my vision, it gets blurred more when
my pressure is higher. Changes like those reported are a little concerning though, for the future
of man going into space for longer periods. Not being able to see properly would be a major setback.
Though if stars are not visible in space, might not be a big deal.

So it looks like the MGS MOC camera exposure time may not be comparable to a digital camera, as the
CCD is being used in a scanning mode, reading out a line at a time, and 7 seconds is the time
to complete a full image scan, meaning the Earth and Moon lines were only a small part of the total
image time. I don't know how to put that all in perspective. I'd just assumed that we had a
digital IMAX class camera out at Mars, and it couldn't see things. Mind you, they did take an IMAX camera
to the ISS, but never tried to look out the 'back window' of the ISS. Musta' forgotten their solar filters.

[fosborn_]

GaryN,thanks for your reply.

GaryN wrote: That's very interesting Frank. From my own experience with looking at stars around here though,
I don't think it would make a difference to the stars being detectable. I need long distance
correction, but I don't normally wear my glasses, except for driving. I can still see the
stars, but they look much bigger and 'spiky'

But I wonder how your eyes would respond after say a couple of days at zero G? I read fluids might build up around the optic nerve and or lower pressure in the eye.

http://www.ekantipur.com/2011/09/06/hea ... 40349.html

"People have been flying in space for 50 years and nobody has gone blind yet," said Dr. Tom Mader, an ophthalmologist at the Alaska Native Medical Center, in Anchorage, who led the study. "But it's still something to be concerned about," he told Reuters Health.
Mader said the effects may be due to increased pressure of the fluid surrounding the brain -- the result of less gravity than on Earth -- that fails to drain well back into the body. But the precise mechanism is unclear.
It's possible that the loss of gravity causes pressure around the optic nerve to spike, which can damage vision, Mader said. It's also possible, however, that microgravity environments cause vision problems by lowering pressure in the eye, he added.
"It's very hard for us at this point to define exactly what is causing all of this," said Mader, whose group reported its findings in the journal Ophthalmology.

So there is a wiki article on adaptive optics, the section on retinal imaging.
Seems like poorly adapting eyes in a zero g environment might need this system. I wonder if the fluid conditions inside the eye are unstable and unpredictable as the earth's atmosphere ( in microgarvity environments), this would overcome it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_o ... al_imaging

Spectacles and contact lenses correct "low-order aberrations", such as defocus and astigmatism, which tend to be stable in humans for long periods of time (months or years). While correction of these is sufficient for normal visual functioning, it is generally insufficient to achieve microscopic resolution. Additionally, "high-order aberrations", such as coma, spherical aberration, and trefoil, must also be corrected in order to achieve microscopic resolution. High-order aberrations, unlike low-order, are not stable over time, and may change with frequencies between 10 Hz and 100 Hz. The correction of these aberrations requires continuous, high-frequency measurement and compensation.

[GaryN]

It doesn't seem like we will ever do well in space in zero gravity. Seems like whenever I go to
take a look at the ISS daily activity, much of their time is spent testing to see how sick each
other are! Nothing on plasma experiments, or pictures from Pettits hot-rod camera. I wonder
what, and how quickly, we would become if we were to live and breed in 0 G? Adaptation, not
evolution seems to occur very fast. Spherical jelly blobs? Shifted spectral vision? (Our eyes
are useless in space in their present configuration , I bet it would be weird anyway.
So why haven't we had artificial gravity, by spinning I mean. Is fake gravity different to 'real'
gravity when it comes to our health in space?
I figure I could set up a rotating space habitat pretty cheap, by NASA standards. What do we need?
Aircraft wire, though I'm sure there is even stronger stuff available.
A fairly straight forward design using tensegrity. Very strong, and rigid. I think just
a hub and wires and tension would do, but I like tensegrity. Add some lightweight tubes then.
A living space. Well, it doesn't need to be any more than a multi film tent. If it's parked in
the correct place, radiation isn't a big problem inside. Not x-rays anyway.

"In fact, researchers have been studying the use of polyethylene as a shielding material for some time.
One of several novel material developments that the team is testing is reinforced polyethylene. Raj Kaul,
a scientist in the Marshall Center's Engineering Directorate, previously has worked with this material on
protective armor for helicopters.
"Since it is a ballistic shield, it also deflects micrometeorites," Kaul says. "Since it's a fabric, it can be
draped around molds and shaped into specific spacecraft components."

And aluminum foil, and I think we'll maybe see some graphene based products before too long. Anyway, I don't
see why something has not been done by now, not even any test models AFAIK. They don't really want us in
space, that's what I think, and judging by our present behaviour on this planet, can't say I blame them.

[fosborn_]

It doesn't seem like we will ever do well in space in zero gravity. Seems like whenever I go to
take a look at the ISS daily activity, much of their time is spent testing to see how sick each
other are! Nothing on plasma experiments, or pictures from Pettits hot-rod camera. I wonder
what, and how quickly, we would become if we were to live and breed in 0 G? Adaptation, not
evolution seems to occur very fast.

For me the biggest waste of science funding, there ever was, is manned space flight. Probes are the only way to go, for our most economical and productive science IMO.