Apparently a Japanese prob took this picture of the Earth from several thousand miles away, in deep space. This is lovely, bit it raises some questions.
My initial question is, why can you see no stars in the photograph? You just see the Earth and Moon. A consensus is, the Earth is so bright, it washes out the light from the other stars. It is compared to when you see the sun in space, it's so bright that you can't see anything else.
But by this same logic, how are we able to see stars at night??
The explanation appears to be: the sun, which illuminates everything in our Solar System, is so bright, and the Earth reflects so much light, that everything else is washed out. Using this logic, if the sun is so bright, Shouldn't it wash out the light from the stars at night, while on Earth too?
Perhaps it's simply the camera they used. I know much about cameras, and how they work. So I can understand if they took a picture that was over exposed, just to capture the earth. Everything gets washed out in an over exposed picture. But if the light reflection is so bright, that should result in an under exposure, to capture the Earth properly. You would need a very small F-Stop, and a long exposure time, in order to keep the Earth in focus.
So help me understand.
>>7680887
To clarify, by Small F-Stop, I mean small aperture hole, which would be something like F32
>>7680887
>at night
Hey OP, have you noticed that you can't see the sun at night? So how could sunlight wash out the stars?
I can't say I know much more about cameras than you, but that's clearly the problem. The brightness of the moon does not wash out the stars at night and the moon and Earth wouldn't wash out the stars to the naked eye in this image. But the eye is a pretty good camera and this Japanese probe doesn't seem like the best.
>>7680899
OP got fuggin rekt
>>7680887
the probe didn't open the iris, because it was jap
>>7680887
> ITT Op learned about there being a new exciting phenomena: shadow.
>>7680887
The sun is too bright.
We can see starts at night because the earth is in between the sun and the observer creating shade
>>7680887
>You would need a very small F-Stop, and a long exposure time, in order to keep the Earth in focus.
Does that picture look focused to you?
>>7680887
looks flat to me alright
>>7680887
It's called exposure time.
To see the stars you'd overexpose the earth, so you'd see two larger totally white stars being the moon and earth and a specle of smaller dots.
Human eyes compensate for this by different photoreceptors having different sensitivity and constricting or enlarging the pupil to let in more light.
>>7680998
this
>>7680887
>>7680899
my point was, if the sun was so bright as to block stars out of view from thousands of miles away, shouldn't this effect happen while on Earth too?
>>7680947
I guess I didn't think that all the way through.....in this picture, the sun is behind the probe, which creates a silhouette, blocking out everything behind it.
>>7680998
I'm aware of exposure time. I guess I didn't think this through enough, I don't spend my days taking photos of extremely bright objects.
>>7680887
The reason there are no stars in picture is because our eyes aren't real. So if our eyes aren't real, how can stars be real?
A lot of these "problems" just like the lunar pics have more to do with the camera equipment than physics limitations.
What the human eye sees if often different from what a camera with certain settings will capture.
>>7681018
Right, certainly agreed.
>>7681026
>knows nothing about exposure time
actually that's where you are wrong. I've photographed in the dark many many times. I know exactly what it takes to get a picture of stars from Earth. You have to have a closed aperture, and a long exposure time, with a camera on a tripod that moves with the Earth's rotation. You need a closed aperture because you don't want to over expose, and wash out everything.
I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH DEEP SPACE PHOTOGRAPHY, YOU FUCKWIT.
>>7680887
Look straight up at the night's sky. Now look 180 degrees opposite. Any stars?
QED
>>7680887
why is the Moon so close yet so far
>>7681040
>yet so far
Technically we set foot on it.
As for other anything we're out of luck
>>7681031
Have you ever tried doing this near a light source like a house or even the moon? You can do this with your cell phone camera. if you want to see any stars at all you need to max out the exposure time. Doing this causes dull things to look bright and bright things to be even more bright. The earth and moon are much brighter than the stars and they also rotate pretty fast, so the pic was obviously taken with low exposure time. You keep talking about things getting washed out but that doesn't have anything to do with it
BEING IN DEEP SPACE DOESN'T AFFECT HOW A FUCKING CAMERA WORKS. YOU ARE A FUCKWIT.
>>7681058
it does. there is no light in space, so cameras don't catch light
>>7681058
>You can do this with your cell phone camera
Not fucking likely. And even if you could, why the fuck would you want to???
>>7680998
>>7681009
>>7681011
>>7681018
>>7681024
>>7681026
>>7681031
>>7681032
>>7681058
>>7681066
>>7681110
>le exposure time meme
Pic related is taken using a Canon A590 in a light polluted city at nighttime. One or two stars show up. Opening a can of worms over here correcting you guys for this.
heres another.
so why doesnt that OP pic have stars in them? it should be an astronomers dream.
>>7681329
Same reason you wont find any stars in most of the Apollo mission pictures.
>>7681329
>it should be an astronomers dream
Short answer? The Earth is much brighter than a light-polluted city, because you're imaging the daytime side of it.
>>7680887
The short answer is you don't see stars on a bright sunny day.
The inner solar system is not dark. The sun is constantly shining despite the blackness of space and it's just too bright to see point like light sources like stars. The only reason it gets dark at night is because the night side of a planet faces away from the sun.
Also, if the lights from a big city at night are enough to wash out all but the brightest stars, why would you think it strange that the SUN can do it too?
The key fact here is that there is no nighttime in space. Space is not dark or night. In fact, at earths distance, its bright as a clear cloudless day.
Night is the planets shadow.
>>7681365
yeah, the problem with that is that space is supposed to be a vacuum. if you have light pollution in the void of space that means its not empty. did you forget that the supposed apollo missions used a sextant for navigation?
>>7681387
doesn't matter, they are object reflecting or emitting light and there's nothing stopping that light from getting to other objects.
>>7681322
>streetlights are as bright as sun reflecting off of white clouds and oceans
Google the words "dynamic range". the fstop and exposure time are related, but a heart of the matter is that the imaging system doesn't have the dynamic range to capture both
>a very dim star, which can be obscured even by dim streetlights
>a planet illuminated by a nearby star
Maybe look up "inverse square law" while you're at it.
If they exposed for the stars, earth would be a glaring white ball.
>>7681396
The difference is that there is no atmosphere to diffuse the light, so you have glaring daylight on one side of an object and pitch black night on the other.
Interesting factoid about the moon--it's albedo is about the same as asphalt. And even then, most cameras don't have the dynamic range to expose the moon and the stars in the same frame (and still capture detail in the moon).
>>7680887
Ask yourself why we can see stars at night but not in the day?
The reason is because sunlight during the day is bouncing off particles in the air, and as a result the air in our atmosphere is actually brighter than the stars (more photons from the air is hitting your eyes than photons from the stars). We can see the moon though during the day, sometimes. This is because the moon is close enough and big enough to reflect enough photons so that they outshine the photons reflecting off our atmosphere (unless there is a cloud in the way).
So what is different at night? Well at night we are inside the Earth's shadow. So practically no sunlight is reflecting off the atmosphere between us and the stars. This allows for some starlight to shine through. However, if you are near a bright city, then even the city lights will be enough to cause the atmosphere to outshine the stars.
So how does this relate to your pic? Well, it doesn't. The reason the camera in your pic doesn't see stars is not because there is a bright atmosphere in the way, but because it wants to see detail of Earth. Notice how the clouds are really bright? Well Earth would just be a white blob if the exposure was any longer, and same with the moon. With a long enough exposure, the two blobs would basically be indistinguishable. Because the exposure is so short, the sensor is not exposed for a long enough time to receive a significant number of photons from dimmer objects, like the stars. At least not enough to distinguish them from background noise
>>7681322
Those are probably planets or satellites, and not actually stars. And the reason we can't see any stars in your pic is because they are not brighter than the particles in the atmosphere that sits between the camera and the stars, so they become indistinguishable from the atmosphere
>>7681408
It does matter, planets are much closer than stars, which means there are more photons from the planet's passing though the atmosphere than there are photons from stars passing through the atmosphere. More photons means the better a camera's sensor can pick up those photons when exposed. In the case of your pics, the atmosphere is reflecting just as much, or more, photons than the stars resulting in them blending in with the atmosphere. Planets and satellites, however, are still close enough and big enough to reflect enough photons to make it through the dimly lit atmosphere at night. Out in the country where the atmosphere is even dimmer, you can see more stars. Also, notice how you can see the moon during the day, even through the brightly lit atmosphere. It's just that big and close
>>7681361
This OP. We have NEVER been farther than LEO, too much radiation - it's a game to keep people believing there is something more.
>>7680887
>several thousand miles away
Lrn2million, pleb
>>7682656
Not OP but is it possible to estimate the distance this was taken?
>>7682726
We would need to know what the angle of view on the camera was.
>>7682730
Yeah, i also just noticed that while probably the earth diameter is correct the moon-earth distance isn't.
Maybe if we measure the apparent distance in the pic in earth diameters and apporximate where the probe was in relation to the moon-earth plane we can work it out
>>7681026
extremely dim objects*
>>7682745
Or you can just Google for the source...
>>7682748
>i don't want to have fun or do math in the math&science board
>>7681322
you need to realise that cameras are not eyes
