Pluto conspiracy

[Allan F]

Yes, Q had a little joke there.

[Gazpar]

Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?

Im pretty sure a lot of them are flat-earthners. Be it a Poe or not.

[smartcooky]

Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?

You have made a fundamental error of judgement in assuming that these nut-bars are capable of rational thought!

[Gazpar]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
I mean, one would expect that Pluto, being far away from the sun, reflects little light from it. NASA maybe adjusted the exposure to see it brighter but that would mean the stars must be visible too, but they dont.
I could be wrong but seeing "Pluto time":
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-lets-you-experience-pluto-time-with-new-custom-tool
"Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto."
Again, I dont have photography experience so I could be wrong.

[Zakalwe]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?

Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.

[Gazpar]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?

Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.

I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""


In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?

[Zakalwe]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?

Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.

I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""


In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?

You've answered your own question. Stars are dim and if there is a bright object in the field of view then the camera settings will not be set to register the starlight. You can get stars into that type of image in two ways:

• Take two exposures and layer them onto each other.
• Expose correctly for the stars and have the dwarf planet over-exposed

As the object of interest is the dwarf planet, what would be gained by setting the camera to expose for the stars?

As for the image being "too luminous", you are showing that you don't really understand photography. You would have to factor in the exposure, f-speed and so on to understand how the image is built up. The image might even be the result of stacking multiple images to counteract noise. Or it may be taken in different wavelengths to show certain details (for example, amateur astrophotographers will use methane filters to image cloud details on the gas giants, of near-infrared to cut through atmospheric distortion).

[Gazpar]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?

Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.

I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""


In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?

You've answered your own question. Stars are dim and if there is a bright object in the field of view then the camera settings will not be set to register the starlight. You can get stars into that type of image in two ways:

• Take two exposures and layer them onto each other.
• Expose correctly for the stars and have the dwarf planet over-exposed

As the object of interest is the dwarf planet, what would be gained by setting the camera to expose for the stars?

As for the image being "too luminous", you are showing that you don't really understand photography. You would have to factor in the exposure, f-speed and so on to understand how the image is built up. The image might even be the result of stacking multiple images to counteract noise. Or it may be taken in different wavelengths to show certain details (for example, amateur astrophotographers will use methane filters to image cloud details on the gas giants, of near-infrared to cut through atmospheric distortion).

I dont have a good understanding of photgraphy, you are right.
I stand corrected then.

[Kiwi]

I have a genuine question. Why dont you see stars in the photos?

I mean, one would expect that Pluto, being far away from the sun, reflects little light from it.  NASA maybe adjusted the exposure to see it brighter but that would mean the stars must be visible too, but they dont.
I could be wrong...

"Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto."

I mentioned the exposure for a photo at Pluto in a post of November 2012, and I don't think I knew there was a spacecraft heading to Pluto at that time, or if I had previously known it, had forgotten by then.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=238.msg7574#msg7574

My maths has never been too good, but I once worked out that if you got out as far as Pluto in its average orbit around the sun, it would be too dim for you to get a sharp hand-held full-sun photo of it on standard film, but if you took a sharp and properly-exposed shot of it and included plenty of sky, you still wouldn't see most stars in the photo.

The link in that post leads to an older post of June 2003 at the CosmoQuest forum which explains a little basic about the exposures for:
1. A typical sunlit scene on Earth.
2. A well-exposed photo of stars from Earth.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/6040-Fox-Special-rescreening-in-NZ-24-June-2003?p=102903#post102903

Number 2 requires at least 30,000 and up to 130,000 times the exposure of number 1. Most hoax-believers have no idea of the figures involved and have never taken a properly exposed photo of stars to either prove or disprove them.

One doesn't particularly need much photographic experience or mathematic expertise to work this out (although those do help) -- just the knowledge of photography's "Sunny-16" rule in the days of film, and how the brightness of light from one source diminishes over a given distance.  I vaguely recall that the rule is something like, "Double the distance, quarter the light." Or in photographic terms, "Double the distance, four times the exposure." -- Opening up two full apertures OR two shutter-speed increases OR one of each.

[Chew]

In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?

Here is the original picture: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?Category=Planets&IM_ID=20233

The close approach LORRI pictures were exposed for 0.1 seconds to compensate for the low light. The LORRI gallery has some 10 second exposures that show stars: https://www.nasa.gov/newhorizons/lorri-gallery

[smartcooky]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?

Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.

I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""


In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?

From Pluto, the Sun is fainter than it is from Earth, but still can be 250 to 450 times brighter than the full Moon
- Phil Plait

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/15/bafact-math-how-bright-is-the-sun-from-pluto/#.VbDm7VK2WfI

Try taking pictures of stars on a full moon night. When you work out how bloody difficult that is to do, imagine trying to do so with the moon 450 times brighter

[Abaddon]

I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?

Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.

I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away?  While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""


In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?

You've answered your own question. Stars are dim and if there is a bright object in the field of view then the camera settings will not be set to register the starlight. You can get stars into that type of image in two ways:

• Take two exposures and layer them onto each other.
• Expose correctly for the stars and have the dwarf planet over-exposed

As the object of interest is the dwarf planet, what would be gained by setting the camera to expose for the stars?

As for the image being "too luminous", you are showing that you don't really understand photography. You would have to factor in the exposure, f-speed and so on to understand how the image is built up. The image might even be the result of stacking multiple images to counteract noise. Or it may be taken in different wavelengths to show certain details (for example, amateur astrophotographers will use methane filters to image cloud details on the gas giants, of near-infrared to cut through atmospheric distortion).

I dont have a good understanding of photgraphy, you are right.
I stand corrected then.

You don't need one. Take the camera of your choice, go out on a clear night, photograph stars.

There are only 3 possible results.
1. You won't do it.
2. You will make excuses.
3. You will do it and discover how difficult it actually is to photograph stars.

I really hope you will do number 3. Until you attempt it, you really do not appreciate how much effort is involved. I have hours of wasted long exposures, all destroyed because some idiot turned on the kitchen light.

The only thing that will really persuade you is when you try and fail. As I did many years ago. Now, I have several thousands worth of gear, and plan to spend thousands more.
Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.

In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.

[darren r]

Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.

In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.

I think Gazpar is on our side. No need to be so hard on him.

[Gazpar]

Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.

In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.

I think Gazpar is on our side. No need to be so hard on him.

I will do it, I just have to wait until is night here. Im on your side dont worry, im playing the hb side.

[Allan F]

Try looking at this photo: https://500px.com/photo/48322274/milkyway-starfield-by-stefan-holm

You'll notice that the photographer has used certain settings to capture this picture - namely an aperture of f5, a shuttertime of 20 seconds, and an ISO setting of 1600.

Compare to this photo were the sun is out. https://500px.com/photo/29148769/blue-horizon-by-da-go.

It's data are f5.6, 1/320s, ISO 100.

That means to create the starfield-picture, the exposure has been increased by 20x320 and 2^4 (4 doublings of the ISO equals 4 doublings of the shuttertime or 4 f-stops on the aperture).

That is a difference of 20x320x16= 102400 times more light in the daytime than in the nighttime.

Pluto is about 40 times farther from the sun than we are. That means it receives 40^2 times less light per area. It's high noon is 64 times dimmer than on Earth. That is equal to 6 f-stops.

Underexposing a picture with 6 f-stops does not produce a viable photo. Therefore: No stars on a photo of Pluto.

edit: spelling