Why are NASA astronauts (still) lying?

[Andromeda]

[onebigmonkey]

Which one of you said this:

What they couldn't do was see the stars if the Sun was in the same field of view. No different to being on earth...after all, do you see the stars in the daytime?

Anyone have a problem with this statement?

I can tell you who said it on here, but I'm not going to because if you want to know the answer to questions it's up to you to do some work.

I can tell you that I've heard someone make that same point in person, namely Charlie Duke, Lunar Module Pilot of Apollo 16 and capcom for Apollo 11.

Here's what he said in an interview with Eric Jones of the ALSJ about setting up the UV camera:

Jones - "Could you see stars out in the shadow?"

Duke - "No. The only thing that was visible was the Sun and the Earth. The UV camera was just looking up into the heavens all the time, to me; and I don't know what they were looking at. We didn't take the time to dark adapt."

Dark adapt. Key words. See if you can work out what they mean.

Some light reading on Apollo stellar photography:

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/starryskies.html

[Zakalwe]

Which one of you said this:

What they couldn't do was see the stars if the Sun was in the same field of view. No different to being on earth...after all, do you see the stars in the daytime?

Anyone have a problem with this statement?

Classic hoax-believer stuff. "Quote mining" in an attempt to build an argument on a loose interpretation of a sentence. its a rare thing when I quote the Bible, but this suits "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

So, Mr Weisbecker. Now that you have been shown that your YT video is based on an incorrect interpretation of an image do you care to revise your comments?

[smartcooky]

So, Mr Weisbecker. Now that you have been shown that your YT video is based on an incorrect interpretation of an image do you care to revise your comments?

[ChrLz]

To give Allancw (Allan Weisbecker) all the credit he is due , I do think there is a common problem when people who have little imagination, and little ability to think beyond their narrow, limited experience here on Earth, try to imagine what being on the lunar surface would be like.

As earth-bound critters, we are used to *always* seeing blue (or grey) skies in daytime (and no stars), and then dark skies at night. And of course we are also used to *only* seeing stars after dusk, when the sky is dark or at least darkening.  Cloud cover permitting, of course..

So, a simplistic response - lacking in any thought whatsoever - is to ignorantly believe that a black sky without clouds must mean you will see stars.

There are two things that might help the person who just doesn't 'get it'... (are you listening, Allan Weisbecker?).  The first is to somehow develop an imagination and the ability to think laterally - in a way that isn't biased towards a particular desired outcome - and to put in a little work to properly research the topic, perhaps run a few simple experiments, and to think all the issues through carefully.

The second thing that helps many of us understand immediately, is simple - an interest (and a little experience) in night photography...

You see, Allan, if you had done any night time photography (I mean beyond relying on Auto settings..), then you would know that to get stars to appear in any image, you need to have a long exposure/open aperture.  You would also know that the exposure time would typically be at least a few seconds or more (given a reasonable aperture setting and using ISO 100 film or sensitivity setting).  Nothing like that which is used for daytime/sunlit scenes.

From that very simple observation, you would realise that those exposure settings *tell* you that these are very, very faint objects.

How faint?  Well, starlight is generally less than 0.002 Lux. (Yes, I know that isn't an exact figure for how bright a single star might be, but I'm trying to keep this simple for simple minds....)  To put that into context, here's what some other light levels are:
0.3–1.0 lux - moonlight
50-80 lux - typical well-lit room
100-300 lux - heavily overcast day
320–500 lux - typical office lighting
400-500 lux - dawn/dusk just before/after sun is visible
1,000 lux - typical overcast day
1,500 lux - sports stadium (strongly lit for televised sports)
10,000–25,000 lux - daylight (indirect sunlight)
30,000–130,000 lux - daylight (direct sunlight)
(from memory and verifiable from various sources including Wiki)

Now at any given time our eye can manage to see a ratio of about 100:1 between the brightest and darkest objects in its field of view (fov).  There is some debate over the actual range and some claim up to 1,000:1, so let's accept that highest figure.

You can check this against the numbers above, and you will see it is being pretty generous - I defy anyone to be inside a brightly lit office and look out of a window (no going up to the window and shielding your eyes!) onto a scene lit only by moonlight and see details (or stars, for that matter..).  Good luck with that....  Certainly, it is absolutely clear that there is no way whatsoever that an eye that is exposed to daylight, can possibly resolve a star - that is a ratio of many millions to 1, not thousands, even using the most conservative figures.

Now, the eye *can*, if given time, adapt itself so that the range is effectively shifted up or down.  So at night, you eye slowly adapts to the dim light..  But of course if you are then exposed to very bright light, even if it is in your peripheral vision, the eye has to shift back into 'bright' mode and the dim stuff will vanish.


So.. and this part is ONLY for those with imagination and lateral thinking and the ability to follow logic... what was the situation on the Moon?

Bright sun in the sky (just a tad brighter than here on Earth as no atmosphere to scatter some of it..) - 130,000 Lux...
The entire ground, from horizon to horizon, 180 degrees, brightly sunlit. - 30,000 Lux
The LM, the other astronaut, and any hills/mountains, all brightly sunlit. - 30,000 Lux
The astronaut's own arms and hands, and the inner edges of his helmet, all brightly sunlit. - 30,000 Lux
Scattered light from the dust and scratches and refelections and refractions of the visor.  - difficult to guess at..

And then, up in the sky, lots of stars, but all down near 0.002 lux.

Now IF an astronaut was as ignorant as the OP, and thought that it would be worthwhile to try some star viewing (for Deity knows what reason), they would have to:
- find some deeply shadowed area
- in a bulky and pretty rigid spacesuit, bend his back and tilt his helmet upwards, well away from the Sun and from *anything* that might throw any indirect light at his eyes
- wait for about a minute before he would have any hope of seeing *any* stars
- or wait for about 7-10 minutes before he would be able to perceive a decent starfield..

Now by doing all that, he might (after the ten minutes), begin to see something approaching what he might see from any country location on Earth.  How much would that ten minutes cost, and why would he bother?

And then he would have to look down to the scene he was *supposed* to be working in, on a very tightly controlled schedule, and where everything is brightly sunlit.  He would be dazzled for several seconds, running the risk of a fall.  (Is it any wonder that Allan isn't in the space program in an advisory role?)

What should embarrass Allan Weisbecker is his astonishing lack of imagination, his lack of ability to think about what that environment was really like.  Did he somehow forget that it is an alien environment?  Does he honestly believe that dark sky equals seeing stars, with no need to consider the issues properly?

When was the last time that any of us ever stood on a landscape that stretched from horizon to horizon and was all brightly lit by the Sun, and yet when we glance up at the sky away from that Sun we see it is not light blue, but black?   I, and I suspect most of the others who read this forum can indeed imagine/visualise what that might be like.  But some folks (Hi, Allan) just cannot conceive what that would be like, nor can they be bothered to actually think about the logistics of trying (stupidly) to get a better view of the stars than even a casual glance upwards on a moonless night on Earth would give.  Some folks cannot conceive of the cost of such an exercise, in terms of time and the risk as their eyes re-adapted to the sunlit scene.

Some folks just want to support their own (daft) conspiracy agenda, right Allan?


PS - A note for purists: yes, I've taken some liberties by mixing light levels with light outputs - if you can come up with a better way without this becoming incredibly complex, please have at it!

[Sus_pilot]

ChrLz:  Outstanding post.  Thank you.

[nomuse]

A new thought here.

For every one of the didn't-think-much-about-it hoax believers who imagine there must be a spectacular starfield easily visible, and why wouldn't the astronauts comment on it (or if it took an effort to see, then of course make that effort)...

..have any of them considered that incredible and spectacular thing that the astronauts DID see? Which is a bright-lit landscape with an absolutely featureless sky.

I tell you, a clear, moonless night is pretty freaky all on its own. The idea of having daylight around you, and a gaping hole for a sky... Stars you can see from Earth. A few dim scattered stars, even easier (especially for us poor city-dwellers). What they saw, however, is something you have to land on an airless world to see.

As usual, what strikes me about the hoax believers is the notion that they don't get out enough. They imagine all these things, but show they've so very, very, very rarely actually gone outside and LOOKED at things. Their sense of wonder seems about equal to the imagination of a game designer and the output of a decent video card; not to the spectacle that is available to anyone willing to make a modicum of effort.

[Mag40]

To add to the great post by ChrLz.

I can't recall where I read this on AH, but the inner poly carbonate helmet filtered a small part of visible light, as did the outer visor on the helmet. The final visor - gold coloured - completely stopped stars from being visible. On the shuttle, the command module, Gemini or mercury capsules, the windows would also be filtering out some of the visible light. Is it correct that for launch, the occupants are all suited with helmets on?

[ChrLz]

I can't recall where I read this on AH, but the inner poly carbonate helmet filtered a small part of visible light, as did the outer visor on the helmet. The final visor - gold coloured - completely stopped stars from being visible. On the shuttle, the command module, Gemini or mercury capsules, the windows would also be filtering out some of the visible light. Is it correct that for launch, the occupants are all suited with helmets on?

Can't answer your latter question but in regard to the gold visor they were supposed to keep it down for any EVA operations in sunlight.  Partly that was just for comfort - just like wearing sunglasses down here on terra.  The Sun was not visibly brighter, but it sure would have looked dazzling and totally weird being up there in a dark sky, combined with the entire brightly lit landscape..  It was more for their safety - the Sun was significantly brighter in frequencies above and below the visible spectrum.  That 'nasty' stuff can do permanent damage, given enough time.

But it was really up to the astronauts and they would swing it up when they occasionally worked in the shadows.  I think Buzz was busted in at least one of the A11 EVA pictures having his gold visor up when he really shoulda had it down - I also seem to recall him (or someone in a later mission?) getting a gentle reminder about it from Capcom...

I forget to wear my sunnies too, sometimes.. and in that environment who would blame them for getting a little excited and forgetting/delaying one of the less life-threatening recommendations.

[sts60]

At least a couple of the Apollo astronauts did take the time and trouble to arrange sufficient dark adaptation to see stars from the lunar surface.  I don't have time to dig up the references at the moment, but IIRC there is >= 1 in ALSJ, and I believe Jay also asked Edgar Mitchell about it.  It's in the record, just as are plenty of reports from Apollo crew of star sightings in flight in appropriate circumstances.

Really, Allan, are you going to cling to your initial statement, or are you going to consider that your understanding of the topic might be flawed?  Just as with the "no mention of VAB exposure planning" (paraphrasing) claim in your Apollo 13 thread, how will you ever learn anything if you refuse to reconsider your claims when errors are pointed out to you?

[ka9q]

I don't think there was a big safety issue in keeping the gold visor up. Jack Schmitt had it raised much of the time (despite occasional scoldings from Houston) simply because it had gotten so badly scratched  that he couldn't see through it.

The gold visor was not needed to protect against UV. The polycarbonate (Lexan) pressure helmet was already pretty much opaque to that. Gold is very good at reflecting infrared (that's why it looks yellow) so other than preserving their night vision (so they could see stars? :-)) I think the astronauts kept it down simply to reduce the solar heat loading on their PLSSes, and hence cooling water consumption -- a critical consumable.

[ChrLz]

At least a couple of the Apollo astronauts did take the time and trouble to arrange sufficient dark adaptation to see stars from the lunar surface.

Yep..  I was sorta hoping Allan might dig around enough to discover that for himself, and that's why I talked about just how much effort they would need to put in to do it to the extent necessary to get a view that was even just as good as a typical night on Earth...

Given the difficulties inherent in completely shielding themselves from stray light, the lengthy time required to sufficiently dark adapt, and the simple fact that even if they were, say, 90% successful they would have still only been able to see nothing different or better than a moonless clear night on earth, all makes it very obvious that any attempt to see stars would be one they would not spend much time or effort on.

And of course all of this again re-inforces the fact that it is a complex topic and trying to imply that one astronaut's comment about what he did or didn't see (especially when deliberately taken out of context, as Allan has been shown to do) is in some way evidence of a hoax, is completely and utterly laughable.

Actually, it is worse than that - it is hard to see it as anything other than a deliberate and wilful attempt at misinformation.  But the fact that this doesn't get any mileage here or at any serious forum is a redeeming factor...

[Tedward]

By the laws of physics and simple common sense, these people are lying. I ask, Why?

Allancw is baaaack.

This like saying "By the power of Greyskull!". Has the same effect when issued in the usual quarters.


Imaging I know nothing of physics, it ain't hard cos I don't , hold my hand through an explanation with some info I can check.

[ka9q]

The Apollo Experience Report titled Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit has the optical data for the visors on page 20:

The pressure helmet had a UV transmittance of 0.18, and an inside and outside reflectance of 0.14.

The impact protective visor (inside the gold sun visor) had a UV transmittance of 0.00, an inside reflectance of 0.13 and an outside reflectance of 0.07.

The sun (gold) visor had a UV transmittance of 0.01, and inside and outside reflectances of 0.08.

So I remembered incorrectly that the Lexan pressure helmet by itself was opaque to UV, but I was correct that the gold visor was not needed to stop it (even though it's nearly opaque to UV) because the impact protective visor alone will do the job.

And in the near infrared, which we can't see but is where the sun radiates almost half its power, the sun visor transmitted only 12%, the impact visor 37% and the pressure helmet 68%. By passing only 19% of the visible light, the sun visor also reduces heating by visible sunlight and lunar surface glare. So I was correct in remembering that the sun visor significantly reduced the amount of direct and reflected solar heating of the astronaut's face and the inside of the suit.

Also, all three layers had zero transmittance in the far infrared, where the lunar surface re-radiates its heat. Their emittances are interesting in that they differ in the inward and outward directions. The pressure helmet is 0.93 in both directions, i.e., it appears black. The impact protective visor is 0.10 inside and 0.95 outside, and the sun visor is 0.06 inside and 0.94 outside. These small inward emittances appear to be designed to minimize radiation of the impact and sun visors' own heat onto the pressure helmet, heating it and the inside of the suit.

[RAF]

Clearly, four recent NASA astronauts -- plus a bevy of Apollo boys -- claim outright that you cannot SEE stars from the vacuum of low earth orbit (or cislunar space re Apollo, same thing), which is clearly a LIE.

Complete misrepresentation...but I've come to expect that from you...

Let's start with that and leave the faked imagery for later.

Isn't that cute...HBer thinks he can somehow "control" the conversation...

The question has nothing to do with the usual BS that stars do not register on film.

So we can add photography to the list of things you simply DO NOT understand....thanks for clearing that up...

We are only talking about what these NASA people say they can SEE in space. By the laws of physics and simple common sense, these people are lying.

It's been explained to you...that you continue to deny it only makes you look like a credulous believer

I ask, Why?

Because YOU are willfully ignorant.

Allancw is baaaack.

If this is going to be "more of the same", then perhaps you should just go awaaaay.