I'm patiently waiting for the debate to begin.
Well people, it seems Edward likes me for some reason or another and dropped a long PM in my box. The 48hours have passed and now I'm responsible for the delay.... :-)
Here is his message:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, it's the old 'star' question again, but this time, the other way around. I fully understand (and have from the very beginning) why stars would not be visible in the lunar sky, using a camera or other optical instruments. As we know, the astronauts stated many times that it was difficult to see stars with the naked eye, although I think it was Eugene Cernan who said that it was very difficult, yet possible if he shielded his eyes from bright light sources.
This question therefore, is not the tired old (very much explained) one of why there are no stars in any photographs taken from the lunar surface. It is however, about why the astronuats said that they could not see any with their naked eyes (through their visors), and why Armstrong would have said that "the sky is a deep black" in cislunar space. As you know, Collins said that the stars were very visible on a Gemini mission, but the point is not whether he was in earth's shadow or not, as according to the NASA image (the link to which I'll give in a moment) he should have been able to see the stars he mentioned whilst in orbit on the sunlit side of the earth.
The NASA website contains an image (which has been on the website since 21 June 2007 - so NASA has obviously given their approval thereof ) by a professional astronomer by the name of Jerry Lodriguss, who's other work NASA also showcases, which is entitled: 'Stars and the solstice sun.' The page is at:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.htmlHere you will see Lodriguss' impression of how the sky would appear during daytime on earth - if there were no atmosphere to scatter light from the sun. Here (in Lodigruss' photo/picture) we have a blazing sun, and at the same time we have thousands of stars brightly visible throughout the sky, even easily visible right next to the sun and behind the sun's corona. This is corroborated in comments following the image by a professional astronomer, verifying Lodriguss' image.
Surely this is how stars should also appear in the sky from the surface of the atmosphereless moon? The only difference would be the glare from the surface of the moon, but given the clarity and luminosity of the stars as indicated in the image, surely glare from the moon would not be enough to obliterate every star?
NASA, in a brochure of theirs of the Johnson Space Center, (which a family member sent to me from Houston) state categorically in a caption which accompanies a photograph of a recreated scene, in which two Apollo astronauts are standing on the moon with a pitch black sky in the background: 'The Lunar Landscape features two spacesuited figures, the Lunar Rover Trainer - and no stars. The astronauts could not see stars from the moon's surface.' (verbatim). Note that they specifically state that '...the Lunar Landscape features...NO STARS', and that 'The astronauts COULD NOT SEE STARS from the moon's surface.'
The Space Center does not refer to astronauts not being able to capture stars with their cameras, or say that stars were not visible in photographs. They state that stars were simply not visible to the astronauts. This correlates with the mock-up at the museum which portrays the astronauts as standing on the moon with the backdrop of a black, starless sky. If NASA in their caption were referring only to stars not being visible in photographs, surely they would have, and should have, portrayed stars in the pitch black sky beyond the astronauts in the mock-up, and as it would have looked to the astronauts' naked eyes - without using a camera. But they don't. This view seems to be contradicted by the image cited above on NASA's own website.
According to the NASA webpage, they should portray the sky behind the astronauts (in the mock-up) and to any museum visitor as being star-filled, as visitors are not observing the sky through an aperture adjusted camera, and neither are the astronauts. This, however would be in direct conflict with the belief that the reflection of the moon, and the sun's brightness obliterates virtually any vestige of stars. Is the NASA museum in Houston simply leaving the sky black, even to the camera-less and unaided naked eye, because it corresponds with all the lunar photographs which show a black void?
This would not be an accurate representation though, and of course conflicts entirely with NASA's image by Lodriguss on their own website. I agree that the stars in the lunar sky may not have been very important to the astronauts, but it is strange that they do not mention them to any degree. In fact, they even state that "...the stars were not visible in lunar orbit - only when we travelled behind the moon." This contradicts Lodigruss' (and NASA's) image. Stars should have been spectacularly visible anywhere in atmosphereless space to the astronauts unaided eyes, including from any point in lunar orbit. The astronauts also used star charts to navigate on the way to the moon. How would this be possible if, as Armstrong states, "The sky is a deep black", and that he did not see any stars or planets on his way to the moon? Anywhere in atmosphereless space the stars should be spectacularly bright (not in photographs) - according to the image on NASA's website.
Perhaps there is an explanation for the fact that stars would be spectacularly bright as viewed from an atmosphereless earth, but not from the moon. I posed this question on another forum to a chap who was staunchly pro-Apollo, and who seemed quite knowledgeable, and with whom I had been having an ongoing discussion for weeks on end, but after I had posed this question he failed to reply, not posting on the forum again. I saw him posting on another forum, and referred to the NASA image question, and once again, he immediately ceased to post.
Perhaps Apollohoaxnet members have an answer. Please post this message in its entirety on the website (including this paragraph) for them all to see. It is not, as one alleged that I am 'hiding away'. Why would I do that? I would simply rather not deal with some of them (not all), as they continually make assumptions and comments which are incorrect, such as that 'I am not going to post the question', and 'the 48 hours were 3 to 4 days ago', 'that I am insincere', etc.
My word... As you can see from when I gave the time frame of 48 hours, I have posted the question within that time period, and it wasn't simply a one or two sentence question as they might have thought. I think you know by now, that when I say I'm going to do something, I do it - such as joining the site within a time frame I gave, which I also adhered to.
So, hoping to hear member's comments on the NASA image!
All the best
Edward
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I really don't have much time to dive into this right now, but I'm pretty sure many of you are willing to help and answer.
