How could they use this instrument if the stars were not visible?
We have been through this before, Nick.
Navigation during the Apollo missions was conducted almost entirely by radar
from the ground accompanied by calculations from the ground computers with
lesser help from the onboard computer. The sextant and the techniques for using
it were seen as an almost useless backup system by the time the missions to the
Moon actually flew.
The device was almost useless, as they found that the debris, mostly ice
crystals, that surrounded the craft on its journey, glowed as brightly as
the stars, so they could not tell what was what. That is from the mission
report, I didn't dream that one up.
The reports from astronauts are all over the map, some did see stars, some
didn't, and what I am trying to say is that they may both be correct, that
the visibility depends on a number of factors, the electron density between
the observer and observed, leading to Compton shifting of higher frequency
'light' to the visible, being one, but not neccessarily only mechanism.
The topic started with the Sun and has wandered, as things tend to do down
here, and perhaps we should return to that. I have e-mailed numerous sites
asking why a picture of the Sun is not available that looks like the Sun we
see from Earth, even offered to supply a Solar filter, but no answers. I'm
probaby on an ignore list by now. I did get an answer from one helpful fellow
about this Sun image:
He said he had dug as deep as he could, no one has any idea where it originated.
The ISS engineers stated that the platform should make an excellent base for
astronomy due to its stability. They would just need some mounts on the outside
to attatch their scopes to. None has been done. Like Aardwolf says, "Something
doesn't add up".
What are you talking about GaryN ?
Does it pertain to this discussion? Just curious.
From the short time the mission was active, they seem to have discovered just
how electro-magnetic the earths surroundings are, and how quickly things
change in response to both local AND distant events. We should be examining
our own back yard much more closely, with a network of instruments that can
track these changes in real or near real time. I think we would find that our
weather is mainly dependant on changes to the ion/magnetosphere. Why do they
spend billions on looking for gravity waves, or trying to determine how many
billion light years away some object is, when we still have such a lot to learn
about our home world? Doesn't make sense to me.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller