Why are there no stars visible in cislunar space?How do scientists know there are about 300 billion stars in...

Should I use acronyms in dialogues before telling the readers what it stands for in fiction?

What favor did Moody owe Dumbledore?

Pronounciation of the combination "st" in spanish accents

How is the partial sum of a geometric sequence calculated?

Do I need to consider instance restrictions when showing a language is in P?

What is the term when voters “dishonestly” choose something that they do not want to choose?

Probably overheated black color SMD pads

How do hiring committees for research positions view getting "scooped"?

What (if any) is the reason to buy in small local stores?

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

How to terminate ping <dest> &

Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?

The average age of first marriage in Russia

Brake pads destroying wheels

Can a medieval gyroplane be built?

Maths symbols and unicode-math input inside siunitx commands

Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?

Calculate the frequency of characters in a string

Fewest number of steps to reach 200 using special calculator

Synchronized implementation of a bank account in Java

Is a party consisting of only a bard, a cleric, and a warlock functional long-term?

Are dual Irish/British citizens bound by the 90/180 day rule when travelling in the EU after Brexit?

Help rendering a complicated sum/product formula

Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?



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 earthRealistic space environmentsWhy 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?Is it practical to build a giant telescope in Moon? (Considering the fact that the atmosphere of moon is very rare)Why is the moon more visible during the winter?Vacuum of space













1












$begingroup$


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










share|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    27 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    20 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    17 mins ago
















1












$begingroup$


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










share|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    27 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    20 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    17 mins ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


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










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







the-moon earth space star-systems






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









AutodidactAutodidact

19918




19918












  • $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    27 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    20 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    17 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    27 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Autodidact
    20 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    17 mins ago
















$begingroup$
See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
27 mins ago




$begingroup$
See also What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
27 mins ago












$begingroup$
I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
20 mins ago




$begingroup$
I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
$endgroup$
– Autodidact
20 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
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
17 mins ago




$begingroup$
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
17 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    35 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    22 mins 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

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

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
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    35 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    22 mins ago
















2












$begingroup$

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
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    35 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    22 mins ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$

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 48 mins ago









Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

2,159411




2,159411












  • $begingroup$
    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
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    35 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    22 mins 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
    38 mins ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    35 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    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
    22 mins 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
38 mins 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
38 mins ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@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
35 mins ago




$begingroup$
@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
35 mins ago












$begingroup$
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
22 mins ago




$begingroup$
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
22 mins 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

Can't compile dgruyter and caption packagesLaTeX templates/packages for writing a patent specificationLatex...

Schneeberg (Smreczany) Bibliografia | Menu...

Hans Bellmer Spis treści Życiorys | Upamiętnienie | Przypisy | Bibliografia | Linki zewnętrzne |...