Why are there no stars visible in cislunar space?How do scientists know there are about 300 billion stars in a galaxy and there are about 100 billion galaxies?Why are most lunar maria on the visible side?Space objects visible from earthTriple Stars v/s Ternary StarsWhy nuclear fusion is a controlled process in stars?Are there any sounds in space?Why are nearby stars like Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star not visible to the naked eye?Puzzling quotes from astronauts about earth sizeWhy is the moon more visible during the winter?Vacuum of space

Can I cause damage to electrical appliances by unplugging them when they are turned on?

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

Would a primitive species be able to learn English from reading books alone?

Would this string work as string?

What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

"Oh no!" in Latin

Does the Crossbow Expert feat's extra crossbow attack work with the reaction attack from a Hunter ranger's Giant Killer feature?

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?

Do I have to take mana from my deck or hand when tapping a dual land?

What does "tick" mean in this sentence?

What's the name of the logical fallacy where a debater extends a statement far beyond the original statement to make it true?

How to get directions in deep space?

Using streams for a null-safe conversion from an array to list

If a lithium cell is said to have a capacity of 20 Ah, does that mean all 20 Ah can be used?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Why the "ls" command is showing the permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

Alignment of six matrices

Given this phrasing in the lease, when should I pay my rent?

What is this high flying aircraft over Pennsylvania?

Language involving irrational number is not a CFL

Extra space after @hangfrom

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?



Why are there no stars visible in cislunar space?


How do scientists know there are about 300 billion stars in a galaxy and there are about 100 billion galaxies?Why are most lunar maria on the visible side?Space objects visible from earthTriple Stars v/s Ternary StarsWhy nuclear fusion is a controlled process in stars?Are there any sounds in space?Why are nearby stars like Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star not visible to the naked eye?Puzzling quotes from astronauts about earth sizeWhy is the moon more visible during the winter?Vacuum of space













11












$begingroup$


It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.



Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



Minute 47-49 stars, press conference all three Apollo 11 astronauts



BBC interview with Neil Armstrong only










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:11










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:18






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:57






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
    $endgroup$
    – Walt
    2 days ago















11












$begingroup$


It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.



Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



Minute 47-49 stars, press conference all three Apollo 11 astronauts



BBC interview with Neil Armstrong only










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:11










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:18






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:57






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
    $endgroup$
    – Walt
    2 days ago













11












11








11





$begingroup$


It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.



Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



Minute 47-49 stars, press conference all three Apollo 11 astronauts



BBC interview with Neil Armstrong only










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.



Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here



Minute 47-49 stars, press conference all three Apollo 11 astronauts



BBC interview with Neil Armstrong only







the-moon earth space star-systems






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







Autodidact

















asked Mar 17 at 23:25









AutodidactAutodidact

256211




256211







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:11










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:18






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:57






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
    $endgroup$
    – Walt
    2 days ago












  • 4




    $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:11










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:18






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:57






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
    $endgroup$
    – Walt
    2 days ago







4




4




$begingroup$
See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 18 at 1:11




$begingroup$
See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 18 at 1:11












$begingroup$
I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:18




$begingroup$
I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:18




4




4




$begingroup$
no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 18 at 1:21




$begingroup$
no need for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 18 at 1:21




1




1




$begingroup$
That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:57




$begingroup$
That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:57




5




5




$begingroup$
Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
$endgroup$
– Walt
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
$endgroup$
– Walt
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















14












$begingroup$

Anders's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:




The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.




That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.



However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




The core of Anders's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera might be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago


















36












$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.



If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).



One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:00






  • 17




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
    $endgroup$
    – Anders Sandberg
    Mar 18 at 1:03










  • $begingroup$
    Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:16






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 18 at 5:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago


















1












$begingroup$

The reason is that:



  1. To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.

  2. Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.

In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.



And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.



In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
enter image description here
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30026%2fwhy-are-there-no-stars-visible-in-cislunar-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









14












$begingroup$

Anders's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:




The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.




That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.



However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




The core of Anders's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera might be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago















14












$begingroup$

Anders's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:




The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.




That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.



However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




The core of Anders's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera might be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago













14












14








14





$begingroup$

Anders's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:




The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.




That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.



However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




The core of Anders's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera might be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



Anders's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:




The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.




That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.



However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):




Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.




The core of Anders's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera might be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









LuaanLuaan

25615




25615




New contributor




Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Luaan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
    $endgroup$
    – GalacticCowboy
    2 days ago















$begingroup$
Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
2 days ago




3




3




$begingroup$
@Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
2 days ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
$endgroup$
– GalacticCowboy
2 days ago





$begingroup$
@Autodidact, two thoughts based on your comments: 1) He was speaking specifically about the view while on the moon, and specifically stated that it was different from cislunar space. 2) They were in transit between Earth and Moon, so were in a position to see the corona at the edge of the lunar disk. I.e. their position was eclipsed, even though the Earth was not.
$endgroup$
– GalacticCowboy
2 days ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
$endgroup$
– GalacticCowboy
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Autodidact You responded to something I later edited out of my comment. However, the flaw in your reasoning (as pointed out above) is that they were not traveling directly toward the center of the moon, but to an orbit around it. They passed through the shadow, but were navigating toward its edge. And in any case, he did not state that the corona was visible during the entire transit of the shadow, only that it was visible specifically at the edge of the shadow.
$endgroup$
– GalacticCowboy
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
$endgroup$
– GalacticCowboy
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Autodidact And to reiterate: the interviewer specifically asked about the view from the surface of the moon (not in cislunar space) and Armstrong specifically answered that question followed by a specific statement that the view from the lunar surface differed from that in cislunar space. This is all in the first question/response of the interview.
$endgroup$
– GalacticCowboy
2 days ago











36












$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.



If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).



One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:00






  • 17




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
    $endgroup$
    – Anders Sandberg
    Mar 18 at 1:03










  • $begingroup$
    Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:16






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 18 at 5:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago















36












$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.



If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).



One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:00






  • 17




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
    $endgroup$
    – Anders Sandberg
    Mar 18 at 1:03










  • $begingroup$
    Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:16






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 18 at 5:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago













36












36








36





$begingroup$

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.



If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).



One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.



If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).



One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Mar 18 at 0:50









Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,4091513




2,4091513











  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:00






  • 17




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
    $endgroup$
    – Anders Sandberg
    Mar 18 at 1:03










  • $begingroup$
    Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:16






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 18 at 5:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:00






  • 17




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
    $endgroup$
    – Anders Sandberg
    Mar 18 at 1:03










  • $begingroup$
    Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    Mar 18 at 1:16






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 18 at 5:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    2 days ago















$begingroup$
Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:00




$begingroup$
Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:00




17




17




$begingroup$
@Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
$endgroup$
– Anders Sandberg
Mar 18 at 1:03




$begingroup$
@Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
$endgroup$
– Anders Sandberg
Mar 18 at 1:03












$begingroup$
Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:16




$begingroup$
Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
Mar 18 at 1:16




9




9




$begingroup$
@Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 18 at 5:18




$begingroup$
@Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule. If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 18 at 5:18




1




1




$begingroup$
@Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
2 days ago











1












$begingroup$

The reason is that:



  1. To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.

  2. Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.

In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.



And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.



In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
enter image description here
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago
















1












$begingroup$

The reason is that:



  1. To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.

  2. Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.

In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.



And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.



In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
enter image description here
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$

The reason is that:



  1. To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.

  2. Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.

In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.



And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.



In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
enter image description here
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The reason is that:



  1. To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.

  2. Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.

In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.



And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.



In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
enter image description here
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer

57135




57135











  • $begingroup$
    Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago

















  • $begingroup$
    Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    2 days ago
















$begingroup$
Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
2 days ago












$begingroup$
@Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago












$begingroup$
You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago





$begingroup$
You could see stars in "daytime" if you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago













$begingroup$
A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago





$begingroup$
A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago





$begingroup$
@Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons). That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
2 days ago


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30026%2fwhy-are-there-no-stars-visible-in-cislunar-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029