PDA

View Full Version : For cosmic dave....stars



infocusinc
2002-Jun-04, 08:37 PM
Dave,

I will be willing to concede that the white spots in your pictures and video posted on your web site have a high probility of being stars IF you can provide me with some simple data.

First I will need to know what exposure settings on the still camera and the motion camera will provide correct exposure of the lunar surface illuminated by the sun AND also provide the exposure needed to record the stars.

Second I will need some data that shows the size of the white spots in the picture and video are consistant with stars photographed with the optical systems present in both types of cameras.

If you can provide this I will concede the point to you that the spots have a high probility of being stars.

infocusinc
2002-Jun-08, 06:00 PM
Hay Cosmic Dave! Did you forget about this one?

My data says they cant be stars just by the exposure settings alone, but I want to keep an open mind and be open to the new evidence from the "here and now" which you find so compelling. Can you share some of this new stuff with me as it relates to the star photographs?

BTW. I set my camera up attached to my telescope while stargaxing last night and took a whole series of photographes of the night sky at different exposures while the scope was tracking. I cant wait to see the results. Shall I post the one where the exposure setting matched the lunar surface camera settings?

jrkeller
2002-Jun-09, 04:43 AM
Why don't you post two. One with the lunar settings and one which shows the stars and tells us the settings.

Andrew
2002-Jun-09, 05:05 AM
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/20148243.jpg

Look at the upper right-hand corner.
There's a "star" outside of the border of the image. It's a bit fainter than most of the other "stars", but it shows that it's a possible scanning artifact.
I couldn't tell from Dave's Realplayer movie about the supposed stars in that footage because Realplayer movies are such dreadful quality.

David Hall
2002-Jun-09, 06:58 AM
I agree. I watched that realplayer movie several times and didn't once see anything even resembling stars in it. The picture is just way too grainy to see any fine detail.

Which brings up a point about that. If there are any "stars" in the movie, what's to stop them from being artifacts from the digitalization process? Modern video compression is notorious for leaving in the occasional blip here and there.

You'd have to examine the original 16mm film to even have a chance at proving it conclusively.

2002-Jun-09, 11:29 AM
<a name="20020609.3:20"> page 20020609.3:20 aka 16mm
On 2002-06-09 02:58, David Hall wrote: To: ?
MY baINdex (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=183&forum=1#LOCKTHRD)
ok they [Holliwood] did make a 16mm Movie prior to
ASR-7 "Final Voyage" i think it stared Lloyed Bridge?
anyway it was about recompression of divers
You'd have to examine the original 16mm film to even have a chance at proving it conclusively.
rapture of the deep & other hokay pookus details
WE..the crew watched FORWARD & BACKWARDS {many Many times}
over and over again the Girl fell into &Rev: fell up out of the Water {Starboard side}

infocusinc
2002-Jun-09, 02:56 PM
Still waiting cosmic dave. I see you have found time to post replies to other questions but not this one. Why not?

I still have half a roll of film in the camera I shot the star photos with and as soon as I finish it and get it processed I will post the results. I used a base exposure value of 1/60 sec at f4.5 ASA 100 film for the test shot of the stars. I will post the result but I think its a forgone conclusion that what we will see is just pure black.

infocusinc
2002-Jun-10, 11:47 AM
Still ducking this one COsmic DAve? Why?

David Hall
2002-Jun-10, 02:20 PM
On 2002-06-09 01:05, Andrew wrote:

There's a "star" outside of the border of the image. It's a bit fainter than most of the other "stars", but it shows that it's a possible scanning artifact.

I think another possibility brought up long ago was that these may be cosmic ray exposures, and for precisely the same reason. But I'm not sure if they would look like pinpoints.

In any case, having some exposures outside of the sky area is a good indication that they are not stars.

Tell me, do all of the images with "stars" in them come from the JSC scans? Are there any shots showing the same things in the higher resolution images from the ALSJ or such? if the same "star" appears in both versions, then we would be able to discount scanning artifacts as the source. Otherwise that seems to be the best bet right now.


<center><hr width="50%"></center>


And I have a series of side questions. Is there a site that catalogs all the JSC scans? Does it include the full Apollo image collection? And what percentage and parts of the total collection have been converted to higher quality scans so far? What is the current status? And finally, just about how many photos were taken during the entire Apollo program?

jrkeller
2002-Jun-10, 09:24 PM
Try this one

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/

I'm looking at some photos right now and see lots of stars. Oh wait, just some dust on my screen.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-10, 09:35 PM
I presume this is one example that proves it's contamination.

From JSC Digital Image Collection:
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075259.jpg
AS11-37-5458 (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075259.htm)

From ALSJ:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/20130588.jpg

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 11:08 PM
I think another possibility brought up long ago was that these may be cosmic ray exposures

That's a possibility. But that would be a feature of the original transparency and would thus appear in all masters and all prints and all scans.

But I'm not sure if they would look like pinpoints.

I believe they would. The only material difference between the impact of a proton and the impact of a photon is that the proton has mass and might ionize the film at that point. It would still impart energy that would register as a pinpoint on the transparency.

Tell me, do all of the images with "stars" in them come from the JSC scans?

Cosmic Dave has not given the sources of his images.

Is there a site that catalogs all the JSC scans?

I have not found one. NASA maintains several repositories of Apollo photographs, none of which can be said to be a complete set.

What is the current status?

Haphazard.

just about how many photos were taken during the entire Apollo program?

About 20,000 photos with the Hasselblad and Gold cameras. Non-mission photographs by NASA and its contractors also number in the tens of thousands.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-11, 07:24 PM
The same thing could be said about a film camera though couldn't it... I have on several occasions taken pictures of stars with my video camera, and yet you all believe that this would not be possible on the Moons bright surface. So by publishing Earth pictures of the sky which lacks stars will prove nothing.

Firefox
2002-Jun-11, 07:31 PM
...did you take your pictures at any point after sunrise and before sunset?


Adam

AstroMike
2002-Jun-11, 07:32 PM
On 2002-06-11 15:24, cosmicdave wrote:
I have on several occasions taken pictures of stars with my video camera, and yet you all believe that this would not be possible on the Moons bright surface.

Yes, because the Sun is shining, which completely obscures them.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-11, 10:46 PM
I have on several occasions taken pictures of stars with my video camera

If you did this then you could not have been simultaneously taking pictures of sunlit terrain. You seem completely oblivious to the nature and effect of photographic exposure, yet several of your arguments -- including this one -- depend on it.

The question at hand is how a star can be photographed simultaneously with correctly exposed sunlit objects.

So by publishing Earth pictures of the sky which lacks stars will prove nothing.

On the contrary, it provides a data point which must be explained by your hypothesis.

Your assertion that the white spots in the photographs must be stars rests on the premise that it is possible with Ektachrome ISO 64 or 160 color reversal film to simultaneously correctly expose both sunlit terrain and stars. Since the principles of exposing that film for sunlit terrain are well-known and indisputable, attempting to expose stars with that setting most certainly is applicable evidence. If stars cannot be sufficiently exposed at that setting, it undermines your premise and with it your entire argument.

In short, all the available and applicable evidence points to your white specks as being something other than exposed stars. In favor of your hypothesis you have provided absolutely no evidence of any kind, merely your repeated assertion followed by attempts to shift the burden of proof.

The following evidence stands against your hypothesis:

1. Different versions of the photos do not show the same white marks, suggesting they are not on the duplication master and hence not on the original transparency.

2. White specks occur outside the gated portion of the frame, suggesting they are not the result of normal through-lens exposure.

3. Well-known and indisputable principles of photographic exposure make it impossible for sunlit terrain and stars to be simultaneously exposed correctly on the type of film used. Empirical proof of this is forthcoming.

Until your hypothesis addresses these issues, it is not proven.

infocusinc
2002-Jun-12, 12:52 AM
I got my film back today and I will scan a few of the slides tomorrow at work.

The results are exactly as expected.

The images where taken on a very clear evening between 12 midnight and 2 am.

I used a minolta 102 (a 25+ year old 35mm) with a 24mm lens. The camera and lens were mounted atop my Meade EXT 125.


I ran a series of exposure tests using Kodak Ektachrome 100. Starting at 1/125 sec at f 4.5 I slowed the shutter speed down in one stop increments until the exposure time was 25 minutes.

Needless to say the 1/125, 1/60 and 1/30 sec exposure times were totally black frames. I first began to see faint stars at 30 seconds of exposure time. The best image was taken at 4 miniutes.

I will post the images tomorrow.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-12, 03:50 AM
Besides actually taking pictures, shouldn't there be a method that one can use to calculate the minimum exposure time for various shutter speeds, f-stops, film type etc.

infocusinc
2002-Jun-12, 05:09 AM
Thats an interesting question.

A given films senitivity to light is expressed in its iso speed rating. The smaller the number the less sensitive that given film is to light.

The minimum exposure setting question is a hard one. Since any number of shutter speed / f-stop combinations can produce the same amount of light reaching the film, its not a good measurement tool.

The next question in my mind would be how much light is available and what will be considered normal. Low light levels more exposure volume (for lack of a better term) which is created by extending the exposure time of opening up the f-stop, or both. High light levels require the opposite. Im my studio work it is not uncommon to have exposure times that reach one miniute or more with times in the 8 - 15 seconds being common for the lighting setups and depth of field requirements of my work. For me finding the proper exposure involves the use of a light meter and polariod film. Photography in natural light is a bit easier since stand exposure "rules of thumb" work very well in the common sunlight conditions such as bright, overcast or open shade. Bright is very easy to use. Simply make a fraction from the film iso speed and set the f-stop to f16. For example for iso 125 film the standard rule of thumb exposure would be 1/125 sec. at f16.

And that btings us to the question of what is a proper exposure? Is it a properly exposed photograph of a standard gray scale stp wedge or is it a personal judgement based on viewing a negative or transparency? What matters to me is what the film "looks" like. Many times the "correct" image for me is the one that looks right. Many times it is a sheet of film that is either under or over exposed from the setting found on the meter.

I'm just a pro user. There is now way I can express the science behind this. Anyone her care to add that part /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Craig

JayUtah
2002-Jun-12, 06:06 AM
I'm only a semi-professional photographer so I cannot claim special expertise in exposure. But everything I've read on the subject of exposure suggests it's best handled as an empirical question and that too many variables are involved to make it a synthetic question.

This begs the question of how exposure meters work, and the answer is that they don't always work. They simply encapsulate an empirically derived model which, as Craig notes, does not necessarily produce pleasing results. I have used the so-called "sunny 16" rule quite successfully in my own photography. But I typically use film with a forgiving latitude.

The key difference between film and direct observation is that film accumulates an image (i.e., the integration of luminosity over time in a spatial domain). (N.B. I am aware of studies of the human visual cortex which suggest a "frame" concept and would seem to dispute this. I contend that is irrelevant at the time scales under discussion.) Light falls on the film for as long as the shutter is open. The film responds photochemically for as long as light falls upon it, within its capacity to do so. A certain number of photons must strike a spot on the emulsion before the emulsion will begin to respond chemically. After a certain maximum number of photons has struck that point, the emulsion will no longer react to it. The science of exposure is to regulate the amount of light striking the film such that the variance in the focused image falls neatly within the film's ability to faithfully record that variance -- its latitude.

The art of exposure is to provide in the finished photo an image which appears much as it would via direct observation, or at least to present no glaring anomalies. Easier said than done.

The human eye and its interpretive brain are highly capable of overlooking anomalies in a scene they observe directly. For example, we do not consciously perceive a difference between sunlight and tungsten light. However, sunlight is biased toward blue and tungsten is biased toward orange. Photographic film unforgivingly reproduces these biases as color aberrations which our eyes automatically adjust for.

Because film accumulates an image, it is possible to produce latent images on film that are harder to produce sometimes in direct human vision. For example, in an overexposure situation the subtle difference in luminosity between two adjacent features of the image may be lost because both levels exceed the film's upper threshold. Such detail is said to be "blown out". Excessively long or short exposures will fail to render subtle differences in detail at the bright or dim end of the scale, respectively. Magicians are adept at manipulating light in order to hide detail by pushing it off the end of the human visual perception's latitude.

Since subtle differences in luminosity exist in all scenes at all luminosity levels, and film latitudes are finite, it is a given that no type of film and no manipulation of exposure controls can accurately capture all variances in luminosity. To correctly expose stars, the exposure time is adjusted so that the difference in luminosity between a star and the surrounding space, when integrated over that time, falls within the film's latitude. If the exposure time is set to correctly provide the latitude for sunlit terrain, the difference in luminosity between the star and its surrounding space becomes insignificant and below the lower threshold of the latitude.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-12, 10:55 AM
As far as I know from my education (my field in Computer Science is Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence), JayUtah is completely right in his explanation of how the human eye/brain interpret light, compared to how photographic film samples it.

Of course, I'm just an amateur photographer of the digital era, so I think my support of his statements should be considered a bit week on the photographic side. Still, I'm certain he's right.

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-13, 01:45 AM
I agree with Jay too, and Craig as well. Although, to be more complete, they should mention the effects of reciprocity failure in film. When photons start acting on the film's emulsion, it begings to lose sensitivity. For real long exposures, you have to expose longer still to make up for some of the loss.

(And, Jay, you are correct that the eye does integrate over the short term. DLP projectors are a good demonstration of this.
Star Wars looked pretty good projected with a DLP with frame times of 1/24th of a second.)

For what it is worth, the only Apollo photos I came across that have stars in them, are taken from the CM in orbit. The following is from the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report. They were trying to photograph the zodiacal light with a 35 mm Nikon. Image (d) is 2-second exposure. Note, though, that this is with Kodak 2485 film, which is very high speed at ASA 6000.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/apollostars1.jpg

Andrew
2002-Jun-13, 10:17 AM
I spotted the "star" (1 visible) in Dave's Realplayer footage. But I want to ask dave where he got this footage.

"Star" footage. (http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ufo.rm)

Does anyone recognise what mission this is from?

It looks like fiducials are visible, could it be a Hasselblad image/panorama made into a clip?

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-13, 11:03 AM
Andrew - where in the clip is the "star"? I looped the clip 20 times and could not find it. Its of such poor quality any "star" that is seen may be a compression artifact. What appear to be fiducials might be artifacts as well but it would not surprise me if it is a clip made from a still or panorama - that fits into the way the HB’s create “facts”.

C-Dave - where did you get this clip? What mission is it from?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-13 07:04 ]</font>

Andrew
2002-Jun-13, 11:41 AM
I think the quality vastly improves if you right click and "save", then play it back.
It also looks like a fiducial grid is visible. So I think it could be a Hasselblad still. That would account for why the alleged "star" maintains a fixed position relative to the ground.

Dave, could you tell us where you got this footage from?

David Hall
2002-Jun-13, 02:54 PM
After looking at that footage again, I'm not even sure it's actually the Moon. It looks more like an artist's rendition of lunar features being panned across. It certainly doesn't look like any other lunar footage I've ever seen.

And no, I still haven't spotted anything even remotely star-like in it.

David Hall
2002-Jun-13, 03:07 PM
AHA! I finally spotted it. After downloading the clip and running it a dozen times in double-sized mode, I got it.

It's a little fuzzy patch above and to the right of the highest point on the horizon. A little less than halfway from there to the top of the frame. It's almost invisible at regular size.

Still can't see how it proves the existance of stars. It's only one small blip after all.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-13, 03:39 PM
Thanks for the right-click tip, that clears up a number of things.

First, the object Mr. Cosnette believes is a star is obvious now. However nothing proves it's a star. In order for his argument to hold, it must be proven that it's a star and not anything else.

Second, the ATVEF information (the "bits" in top scan line) conclusively establishes that this was recorded from a commercial television broadcast. Mr. Cosnette likely does not know which mission this footage is from, or whether it's even authentic Apollo footage.

Third, the features of the terrain -- convoluted mountains and a valley with many sharp-rimmed craters -- are quite uncharacteristic of actual lunar terrain. It is more consistent with early artist's conceptions of the lunar surface. Further, artistic license may compel the artist to render stars in the sky. I think the best conclusion is that this is a recently televised pan of an artist's conception of the lunar surface.

Mr. Cosnette's argument regarding the video is predicated on the premise that it is authentic Apollo film or video footage. There is evidence that it is not. Therefore until such time as Mr. Cosnette can describe the provenance of the video clip and allow us to verify his evidence in the primary sources, I reject his claim that this footage shows a star in the sky in actual lunar photography.

Mr. Cosnette's argument regarding the still photos is based on the premise that the white spots in question appear on the original transparencies and are conclusively stars. A vast array of theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented that is not consistent with that premise, and which Mr. Cosnette has not addressed. In fact, Mr. Cosnette has provided nothing except his inexpert opinion on any of this issue.

Finally, Mr. Cosnette's assertions (i.e., that the absence of stars in lunar photography is anomalous, and the alleged presence of stars in lunar photography is anomalous) are mutually contradictory. No proof of actual anomaly can be established according to that line of reasoning.

Jim
2002-Jun-13, 04:20 PM
Mr. Cosnette's assertions (i.e., that the absence of stars in lunar photography is anomalous, and the alleged presence of stars in lunar photography is anomalous) are mutually contradictory.

This is what galls me...

An HBer says, "The photos are fake because you should see stars."

It's explained that photographing stars under those conditions is highly unlikely and there should be no stars.

"Aha!" exclaims the HBer. "But here's a photo with stars which proves they are fake."

And the killer is they don't see the contradiction!!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif ...my head hurts... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-13, 04:35 PM
On 2002-06-13 12:20, Jim wrote:
And the killer is they don't see the contradiction!!


Its quite obvious that the main goal of most HB’s once people start to shoot down their theories is to shoot down the experts not defend themselves. Based on that premise it doesn’t matter if the HB is making sense – they assume victory if they make the experts look confused. For proof just visit C-Dave’s discussion board.

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-13, 06:21 PM
That "footage" resembles the famous Lunar Orbiter photo looking across Copernicus crater. This very well may be a painting inspired by that "picture of the year."
The hills in the foreground are central peaks, and the crater rim is the wall of mountains in the background.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-13, 06:39 PM
Exactly right, SpacedOut. Mr. Cosnette seems to believe that his case can be proved not by providing any evidence for it in the customary way, but by simply showing that one of the arguments against it doesn't appear true. That's like trying to prove that something is yellow by showing that it's not green.

Unfortunately Mr. Cosnette is so wrapped up in his chosen method of proof (i.e., trying to prove someone else wrong) that he can't see when his steamroller runs over his own foot. To continue the above analogy, that would be as if the proof that an object is not green would also prove it's not yellow.

A lot of conspiracy theories suffer from similar large-scale logical flaws. The major flaw would have to be the assumption of causation, otherwise known as the affirmed consequent.

infocusinc
2002-Jun-14, 02:55 AM
Here are two images from my recent star photography attempt.

The first image is a taken with a 35mm camera and a 24mm lens atop my telescope. I did nake one error in my first post about this photography. The actual film I used was ektachrome 200. Exposure time for this image was 4 mins at f 4.5.

The second image just shows the viewing setup for that night. i did a little light painting with a small red flashlight. Exposure time was in the 15-20 min range ( I think...I didnt record it)

As I stated in the eariler post images exposed at 1/125, 1/60 and 1/30 were pure black.

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/infocusinc/lst?&.dir=/astro+photos&.src=ph&.view=t

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-14, 03:30 AM
Craig, I think that works out pretty consistent with those Apollo photos from the CM showing stars I posted (on the previous page).

The Apollo 35 mm camera was f/1.2, or almost 3 stops wider than yours. Their film ASA was 6000, or almost 5 stops more, for a total of 7 to 8 stops more than yours.

The Apollo shutter time was 2 seconds, but yours was 240, so that's the equivalent of about 7 stops more for you.

If I figured that right, then your exposure was almost equivalent to the Apollo one (not factoring in reciprocity failure). It looks to me like the star images are similar in terms of brightness. It would help, though, if you could get up to orbit to get away from all that sky brightness.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-14, 04:34 AM
On 2002-06-13 23:30, Joe Durnavich wrote:
It would help, though, if you could get up to orbit to get away from all that sky brightness.

Should we pass the hat and try and get enough to send him up to the ISS?
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

infocusinc
2002-Jun-14, 05:25 AM
On 2002-06-13 23:30, Joe Durnavich wrote:
Craig, I think that works out pretty consistent with those Apollo photos from the CM showing stars I posted (on the previous page).

The Apollo 35 mm camera was f/1.2, or almost 3 stops wider than yours. Their film ASA was 6000, or almost 5 stops more, for a total of 7 to 8 stops more than yours.

The Apollo shutter time was 2 seconds, but yours was 240, so that's the equivalent of about 7 stops more for you.

If I figured that right, then your exposure was almost equivalent to the Apollo one (not factoring in reciprocity failure). It looks to me like the star images are similar in terms of brightness. It would help, though, if you could get up to orbit to get away from all that sky brightness.


Joe,

I figured the same thing. I would guess 1 stop loss for reciprocity failure but I didnt check my references for the exact amount. If I read your other post right they used filters on the camera and a red or blue filter depending on the density would cause perhaps another stop of light loss give or take.

The sky glow stinks. My friend lives about 10 miles from town but its still glows like crazy. We were out on a Friday night so the bulk of the city lights stay on pretty late. That shot was taken around 12:30pm and the glow was down a bit. A big part of it was from porch lights in his addition. Thats why we built those big black panels. they help a lot. BTW the camera was pointed almost due south.

And if you guys can raise the 20 million bucks for me I'm a go for the ISS!

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-14, 05:41 AM
On 2002-06-14 01:25, infocusinc wrote:
And if you guys can raise the 20 million bucks for me I'm a go for the ISS!


I thought that it was Over $100 million, now.

At least, that's what Lance Bass, of N'Sync, is Paying!

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-14 01:42 ]</font>

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-14, 12:27 PM
By the way, the bright "star" in those Apollo photos is Jupiter.

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-14, 06:46 PM
Jay mentioned the differences between human vision and film. A related experiment written up in the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science report has a good example of this.

The crew also photographed the solar corona during the same sessions in which they photographed the zodiacal light. Additionally, Schmidt drew a sketch of the coronal streamers that were visible to the eye.

The attached figures show one of the photographs alongside Schmidt's sketch. From the text, I infer that the exposure time of the photo was 10 seconds. The bright "star" is Jupiter and the report states that is was overexposed. Notice the streamer detail that Schmidt was able to detect visually, but which was not picked up by the film. The streamers he sketched were corraborated by data from the Orbiting Solar Observatory 7. Speaking of the sketch, the report notes, "This identification is a tribute to the wide dynamic range or adaptability of the human eye." Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest areas in a scene and the darkest detectable areas.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/apollostars2.jpg

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-14, 11:07 PM
In an attempt to set Craig's star photo in context, I grabbed the characteristic curve for Ektachrome E200 film off of Kodak's web site, flipped it around and plotted exposure times roughly equivalent to Craig's. (The curves for the various Ektachrome films are very similar.) A characteristic curve plots the density (darkness) you get for a given exposure level.

Craig exposed his film for 240 seconds, but to account for reciprocity failure, I reduced the amount to 120 seconds, meaning Craig would have exposed for 120 seconds to get the brightness levels we see if film did not lose its sensitivity during long exposures.

It looks like in Craig's photo, the stars do not full expose the film. To be conservative, I assumed that the stars did fully expose the film. In the graph below, I plotted a large asterisk to represent the exposure level of the stars at a 120 second exposure time. This represents the brightest image the film can record.

The minimum exposure that will record an image is towards the lower right. Kodak's curve ends at my 1/6th second exposure time. This represents the darkest image the film can record. (That's about 9.5 stops between brightest and darkest.)

Craig said his exposures of 1/30th and 1/60th of a second came out pitch black. The graph confirms that this would be the inevitable result.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/E200stars.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Joe Durnavich on 2002-06-14 19:11 ]</font>

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-14, 11:37 PM
On 2002-06-14 19:07, Joe Durnavich wrote:
Craig said his exposures of 1/30th and 1/60th of a second came out pitch black. The graph confirms that this would be the inevitable result.


Interesting Analysis, unfortunately, now it All seems, so Incredibly Dull /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Leave it to The HBs, they can Force us to take the Fun out of Anything, even Astro-Photography!

infocusinc
2002-Jun-15, 01:10 AM
Very nice stuff Joe...as always.

Craig

jrkeller
2002-Jun-19, 01:23 AM
Here's a nice little gem I just happened to stumble upon today. In Mike Collins' book "Carrying the Fire" he talks about all the stars he can see on his EVA, and names several of them. He also mentions that he can see Venus. What's really interesting about his EVA is that one of his tasks was to photograph several southern hemisphere stars. His exposure time - 20 seconds.

The book doesn't talk much about the camera, film etc., but I'll see what I can find.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-18 21:26 ]</font>

Ian R
2002-Jun-19, 01:41 AM
I seem to recall Karamoon saying something about this a few months ago. Apparently at a press conference after the completeion of the Apollo 11 mission, the astronauts were asked if they could see any stars from space. Collins said in reply that he couldn't remember having seen any at all, which seems to contradict the content of his own book.

I haven't seen the footage of the press conference, so I can't really comment on that. Probably just a simple misunderstanding.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-19, 01:47 AM
At the public welcoming back event for the STS-109 Hubble repair crew, I had the opportunity to ask John Grunsfeld, an astronomer mission specialist, if he could see stars from orbit. He went into some detail about the stars he could see.

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-19, 02:21 AM
Collins' space walk was during Gemini 10. He may have spent part of that space walk on the night side, where stars would be much more visible.

There was no space walk during Apollo 11 (except Neil and Buzz' moon walk, of course). So this can't be what he was referring to in the book.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-19, 02:42 AM
The question was whether any stars could be seen from the lunar surface. Aldrin said he couldn't remember seeing any. Collins says he couldn't remember seeing any from lunar orbit. The question was not whether stars could be generally seen from space, but whether any were seen on that particular mission.

Since no one's checklist contained an item instructing him to look mindlessly at stars, we can presume they were too busy to specifically do that.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-19, 02:54 AM
I guess why the "seeing stars from space" thing always sets me off is Bill Kaysing assertion that the Challenger crew was killed because Christa McAuliffe wouldn't say she saw stars from space.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-18 22:59 ]</font>

infocusinc
2002-Jun-21, 11:54 AM
Hey Cosmic Dave I see youre back...care to comment on this star issue?

jrkeller
2002-Jun-24, 06:51 PM
CD,

Here's some proof that you should see stars from space. Of NASA it's from NASA so I guess you can't trust it. For the rest of you, here are two images from the JSC Digital Image Collection taken by Mike Collins on his Gemini X EVA

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/GT10/10074468.jpg

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/GT10/10074469.jpg