Can astronauts see stars from the space station?

August 18, 2017 by Nancy Atkinson, Universe Today
Stars and the limb of Earth seen in the background of the International Space Station on July 29, 2017. Credit: NASA/Jack Fischer.

I've often been asked the question, "Can the astronauts on the Space Station see the stars?" Astronaut Jack Fischer provides an unequivocal answer of "yes!" with a recent post on Twitter of a timelapse he took from the ISS. Fischer captured the arc of the Milky Way in all its glory, saying it "paints the heavens in a thick coat of awesome-sauce!"

But, you might be saying, "how can this be? I thought the on the Moon couldn't see any stars, so how can anyone see stars in space?"

It is a common misconception that the Apollo astronauts didn't see any stars. While stars don't show up in the pictures from the Apollo missions, that's because the camera exposures were set to allow for good images of the bright sunlit lunar surface, which included astronauts in bright white space suits and shiny spacecraft. Apollo astronauts reported they could see the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module, and also they saw stars while orbiting the far side of the Moon. Al Worden from Apollo 15 has said the sky was "awash with stars" in the view from the far side of the Moon that was not in daylight.

Just like stargazers on Earth need dark skies to see stars, so too when you're in space.

John W. Young on the Moon during Apollo 16 mission. Charles M. Duke Jr. took this picture. The LM Orion is on the left. April 21, 1972. Credit: NASA

The cool thing about being in the ISS is that astronauts experience nighttime 16 times a day (in 45 minute intervals) as they orbit the Earth every 90 minutes, and can have extremely dark skies when they are on the "dark" side of Earth.

For stars to show up in any image, its all about the exposure settings. For example, if you are outside (on Earth) on a dark night and can see thousands of stars, if you just take your camera or phone camera and snap a quick picture, you'll just get a darkness. Earth-bound astrophotographers need long-exposure shots to capture the Milky Way. Same is true with ISS astronauts: if they take long-exposure shots, they can get stunning images.

This long exposure image of the night sky over Earth was taken on August 9, 2015 by a member of the Expedition 44 crew on board the International Space Station. Credit: NASA

Explore further: Martian crater provides reminder of Apollo moonwalk

Related Stories

Image: Hubble's slice of Sagittarius

January 20, 2017

This stunning image, captured by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), shows part of the sky in the constellation of Sagittarius (The Archer). The region is rendered in exquisite detail—deep ...

Stars in the halo of the Milky Way often travel in groups

January 31, 2017

Many stars in the halo that surrounds the Milky Way travel in groups. This is the outcome of a recent analysis of data for millions of stars from the Gaia space mission. Astronomers report their discovery today in the international ...

Journey to the center of our galaxy

March 31, 2016

Peering deep into the heart of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope reveals a rich tapestry of more than half a million stars. Apart from a few, blue, foreground stars, almost all of the stars ...

Image: Hubble admires a youthful globular star cluster

October 31, 2016

Globular clusters offer some of the most spectacular sights in the night sky. These ornate spheres contain hundreds of thousands of stars, and reside in the outskirts of galaxies. The Milky Way contains over 150 such clusters—and ...

Recommended for you

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

Recurring martian streaks: flowing sand, not water?

November 20, 2017

Dark features on Mars previously considered evidence for subsurface flowing of water are interpreted by new research as granular flows, where grains of sand and dust slip downhill to make dark streaks, rather than the ground ...

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Solon
1 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
Quite clearly, the stars are visible from the space station (low Earth orbit) while looking TOWARDS Earth. Are they visible when looking AWAY from Earth? Only astronauts who have been on EVA can answer that, and the reports are ambiguous to say the least:
https://www.youtu...wW-8CC6E

Following on, the question would be "Can stars be seen from space?" and the only people who can answer that are the Apollo astronauts on their way to/from the Moon, and they stated quite clearly that they are not, and took no photos of them during the Low Light Photography experiments.
What makes the stars visible to us on Earth, and from LEO when looking towards Earth, is the Earths atmosphere. Only empirical science can provide the definitive answer to this long running question, why are the experiments not performed?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2017
I've often been asked the question, "Can the astronauts on the Space Station see the stars?"

Erm...why wouldn't they be able to? As long as they look away from the sun they have the same conditions as on Earth at night (or even better since they have no atmospheric interference). Unless th earth also happen to be in the field of view and drowns everything out with 'Earthshine' the view should be quite spectacular.

(Next people will ask if Hubble can see any stars...being in space and all...right?)
Solon
1 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2017
"Apollo astronauts reported they could see the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module,"

References?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2017
What makes the stars visible to us on Earth, and from LEO when looking towards Earth, is the Earths atmosphere.


Lol. References?

big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2017
Solon, get yourself an education as it is really painful to read that idiots like yourself exist and post on a SCIENCE site. It is apparent you are unqualified to be asking any questions because you don't have an intellectual background.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2017
Denying this is very much like looking at the first photograph above and claiming "No way could that guy have fit in the LEM behind him!!!11!!oneeleventyone!!"

As noted on another thread https://phys.org/...nds.html this @Solon individual doesn't have the technical chops (yes that's a punny insult) to understand how imaging hardware from photodetectors to film to CCDs to human retina work, and has no idea what f/10 or 1000/s mean in photography. It's amusing that idiots who have no idea how any of this actually works bother to post on #realscience sites since they're bound to get made to look stupid by people who aren't even real astrophysicists or astronauts.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2017
Just so folks are aware how dumb technicians can be, I once had an argument with a former SR-71 technician who didn't "get it" that such an aircraft spends most of its fuel getting up to altitude, not flying at it, and who tried to invoke the rotation of the Earth to bolster his argument when faced with the facts that a) the air is much thinner at higher altitude and b) accelerating takes much more power than maintaining speed. This is basic physics fact, but this technician didn't know physics. It ended our friendship, unfortunately, since we shared an interest in trains. I still own a belt buckle he gave me, and he probably still has a telescope I gave him. I hope he uses it, even if he elected to end our friendship.
Solon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
"Solon, get yourself an education as it is really painful to read that idiots like yourself exist and post on a SCIENCE site. It is apparent you are unqualified to be asking any questions because you don't have an intellectual background."

This is a science news aggregation site, not a science site. As for my qualifications, I'd put most of you to shame in science matters, it is obvious that nobody here understands the technology employed in the devices that are sent into space, what they can 'see' and how they do so. They don't send cameras, the sort you can buy off the shelf, out into space, they are all but useless due to the exceedingly low light levels, even at Mercury. Find me a photograph of Mercury taken with a camera, not an imaging spectrometer, or a band limited IR device. Similarly, there are no true photographs of the far side of the Moon at visible wavelengths. IR and UV, yes.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
Ummm, you do know that the far side of the Moon gets lit by the Sun for half the Moon's orbit around Earth, right, @Solon?

I can find lots of pictures of the far side of the Moon. Here's a bunch of them: https://www.space...ter.html

Note that the name of the camera used to take this is the, quote, Wide Angle Camera, end quote. It's a visible light device, not an imaging spectrometer, and not IR. It can take UV, but generally is used for visible light photography. Its lens system is a Ritchie-Chretien hyperbolic Cassegrainian telescope, very similar (though both larger at 195mm and much more accurate because of its design) to the 500mm mirror lenses you can buy for a few hundred bucks for your SLR camera. Its imaging sensor is a Kodak CCD, also very similar to the sensors used in DSLRs.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
[contd]
Specifications for the LRO Wide Angle Camera (LROC): http://lroc.sese....ut/specs

More information about this instrument can be found at the links on the left of the page.

@Solon, if you can't get any of this right (and claiming the Sun never shines on the far side of the Moon appears to be just the beginning of what you don't know; not knowing the actual hardware in use on real missions just makes it even more obvious), I suggest that you might consider not revealing your ignorance to everyone.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2017
Here's one of those 500mm f/8 SLR lenses: https://www.amazo...00I67V3U

I actually own one of these. I don't use it much because I have much better glass these days, but it's come in handy a few times for a quick shot when I didn't have time to set up the tripod. You get some aberration out at the edge of the field of view, and it's not a very fast lens, but it wasn't very expensive compared to my big ones and I was just starting out so it was a good deal for me then. It's lightweight, too, which is why you can use it without a tripod. I got some good stuff with it before I finally sprung the big bucks for my current rig.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
This reminds me of a story told me by a bunco squad cop.

A Fortune Teller's gimmick was an old fold-out camera that could take pictures of ghosts during seances.

Eventually the old camera started to fall apart. Not finding a replacement that could also take pictures of Ectoplasm, she grudgingly took her 'Old Reliable" to a repair shop.

Shortly after retrieving the repaired camera the fortune teller returned to the shop. Complaining to the repairman that he had ruined her camera! Confused the repairman asked her what she expected of the repaire.

Finally, it dawned upon him what she was so upset about. Not being able to take pictures of ghosts. Realizing what he had to do to please his customer. Apologizing for the misunderstanding. He took the camera back to his workroom and proceeded to poke a few pinholes in the fabric.

She and her customers were very happy, that once again they had photographic 'evidence' proving spirits visited them.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2017
@rrwillsj: ROFL !! Thank you !!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2017
This is a science news aggregation site, not a science site. As for my qualifications, I'd put most of you to shame in science matters, it is obvious that nobody here understands the technology employed in the devices that are sent into space, what they can 'see' and how they do so. They don't send cameras, the sort you can buy off the shelf, out into space, they are all but useless due to the exceedingly low light levels, even at Mercury. Find me a photograph of Mercury taken with a camera, not an imaging spectrometer, or a band limited IR device. Similarly, there are no true photographs of the far side of the Moon at visible wavelengths. IR and UV, yes.


Ahh, jeez what a f***wit. Why would you point a camera at the Sun? Ever tried it?
Solon
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
"Ummm, you do know that the far side of the Moon gets lit by the Sun for half the Moon's orbit around Earth, right, @Solon?"

It is not lit by sunlight, there is none. The only light on the far side is again due to UV creating what little light there is by interaction with the Moons very thin atmosphere. They tried sending a 3 tube video camera around the far side, with the f/0.7 lens and it saw nothing, which is why you never heard any more about it. The early colour TV cameras needed a lot of light, which is why the video from the A15 cislunar EVA was so bad. The EVA floodlight produced insufficient light. on A16 and A17 they went with the metric camera and shot at 10 fps.
A15 EVA
https://www.youtu...IT6TutAs

Still from the A17 metric camera
http://www.lpi.us...c_lg.gif

The illumination is from the EVA floodlight. The ahdow of the thruster is in exacly the same place on A15,16,17

Solon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
The use of the word camera is very loose nowadays, and you will not find photographs from them, only processed images. The LROC WAC has numerous filters and a response into the IR. Which filters were used to create the image? Maybe the image is all in IR? How long was the exposure and what post-processing was performed? With the narrow band filters they can crank the gain way up in order to detect the emissions of the surface material (from solar ionising radiation, cosmic rays too), so this is spectral imaging, not photography.
The Mercury Messenger NAC sees only IR.
Being an old time film user, I really think all the images from space should have to publish what the 'camera' settings would be if I were to be using Kodachrome 64 or 200, then at least we would have an idea of the real light levels out there. That will never happen.
Solon
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
"Ahh, jeez what a f***wit. Why would you point a camera at the Sun? Ever tried it?"

Just for you. Nikon Coolpix 990 on auto.
http://www3.telus...esun.JPG
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2017
A number of different types of cameras, the most well-known of which were Hasselblad medium format film cameras with interchangeable film cartridges, were used during the NASA space program that culminated in the Moon landings. The first picture of a spacecraft from outside was taken using a Zeiss Contarex 35mm by Ed White during his famous first spacewalk. It worked just fine in space, since vacuum didn't affect its closed casing or the film inside.

Apollo 11 was particularly well equipped; you can read the list of cameras here: https://history.n...oto.html

The claim that there were no cameras or that they didn't work appears to be complete fantasy.

I won't even address claims that the far side of the Moon never is lit by sunlight; it's ridiculous. I'll also say that I sincerely doubt that anyone dumb enough to think so ever worked on anything that went on any spacecraft.
Solon
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2017
"The claim that there were no cameras or that they didn't work appears to be complete fantasy."

Huh??

"I won't even address claims that the far side of the Moon never is lit by sunlight; it's ridiculous."

And you have the empirical science to show there is any Sunlight in space? The only time they send Bayer filtered cameras into space is when they are going to a location where there is enough atmosphere for visible light to be created by that atmosphere. The Mars webcam for example. HiRISE, (not Bayer filtered) data is available by channel but viewing the data or creating an image from that data, never have managed to do it. I'm sure there must be one of the many intellectuals around here who could advise a dumb schmuck like myself how to go about it though.
https://hirise-pd...02_2315/

"Apollo 11 was particularly well equipped;"

Solar filters? Maybe weight restrictions meant they had to leave them behind.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2017
What a nutjob.

Yes, I have evidence to show there is sunlight in space. Millions of pictures have been taken of spacecraft illuminated by the Sun. What are you, a psychotic? What do you suppose pictures of asteroids are illuminated by? How about Mars? Jupiter? Saturn? Venus? The Moon?

Let's try to keep the conversation within the bounds of sanity. NASA isn't sending up klieg lights to illuminate Jupiter. Get a grip. This is bizarre.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2017
Next you'll be telling me that stars are sparkles on the cellophane over our fishbowl, or that comets are bowling balls thrown by Zeus and lightning is caused by the decomposition of dinoflagellates. Where does the crazy stop?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2017
People take pictures of the ISS all the time. What do you suppose illuminates the ISS? Do you really think they spend power to shine klieg lights on it all the time in case some amateur astronomer decides to shoot pictures of the ISS while it's passing overhead? Do you really think they have power to spare for this? And if so, where does the power come from? You do realize the ISS is solar powered, right? Which means its power comes from, wait for it, sunlight?

This is duh ummm. Not to mention it's the product of psychotic ideation. Please get help and make sure it includes medication for your delusions. NASA is not engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the fact that sunlight doesn't illuminate anything. It's like claiming the Federal Election Commission is engaged in a conspiracy to put drugs in milk. This is totally outside the realm of sanity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2017
I have rarely heard anyone claim anything as stupid or psychotically delusional as the claim that the Sun does not illuminate anything. It's so far beyond reality that it really cannot be responded to as anything but a psychological aberration. This is bizarre stark psychotic ideation without any possible connection with reality.

Can we please exclude the obviously mentally ill from this forum? Otherwise it is completely useless. Instead of discussing science we are discussing the delusions of the insane, with no benefit to them. They merely feel abused, rather than getting help for their conditions.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2017
Well, he is a unique kind of crazy - you have to give him that.
Solon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2017
It will never cease to amaze me how all you smart people totally ignore the statements of those such as Armstrong, the ones who have actually been into space, not just LEO, and who say it is totally black out there. They weren't dark adapted, the Sun was in their eyes, they weren't out there to look at the stars or the Sun, or other such nonsense. The astronauts themselves made no such excuses, were trained observers with the best of eyesight, yet they are told they must be mistaken, of course they could see stars. Cognitive dissonance.
No science can begin with an assumption. We can see the stars from Earth, they must be visible form space. Same for the Sun. Assumptions. The required experiments are very simple, take photos of the stars or the Sun, using the exact same equipment and exposure settings, one set from Earth and one set from outside of the atmosphere, such as cislunar space.half way to the Moon. Compare results. Comparative analysis. That's science.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
People did better. They went into space and actually had a look. You can check out what Michael Collins said in his biography about circling the backside of the Moon in the Apollo 11 command module:

"I feel this powerfully -- not as fear or loneliness -- but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation. I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."


Stars. Duh. Whoda thunk it.

Solon
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2017
"Stars. Duh. Whoda thunk it."

From Lunar orbit, looking through the lunar atmosphere and with the Sun behind the Moon, fast film and long exposure, the stars could be imaged. Looking away from the Moon, nothing is visible. Same story with Earth, except from LEO, when looking towards Earth, there is much more atmosphere to make the stars visible.

http://tothemoon....27-19980

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2017
From Lunar orbit, looking through the lunar atmosphere


"The lunar atmosphere"
.
..let's let this tidbit of insanity sink in for a bit.

...and that they constantly talk about shooting the stars with a sextant in the Apollo 11 transmissions doesn't really bother you, eh? Even during midcourse correction (you know: halfway between Earth and Moon)

Next you're gonna tell us there's atmosphere there, too, right?
Solon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2017
"The lunar atmosphere"
.
..let's let this tidbit of insanity sink in for a bit.

Is There an Atmosphere on the Moon?
https://www.nasa....ere.html

"...and that they constantly talk about shooting the stars with a sextant in the Apollo 11 transmission.."

If you study the sextant you will learn that the optical output of the star tracker was merged with the view through the sextant. The only time they saw stars in cislunar space was because of the Star Tracker. Duke, in the transcripts, once said "You wanna see stars? Just did a waste dump..". The Star Tracker made the ice particles visible, likely seeingt Lyman Alpha emissions from the hydrogen atoms. The Early star trackers relied only on Lyman Alpha as it is one of the strongest emission lines out there.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
Uh huh..and the Hubble also only sends blank pictures.. Riiight.

Oh man, how do you survive in the real world?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2017
..oh..and lyman alpha is in the UV. That wouldn't be visible to a human.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Aug 22, 2017
Of course the moon has an atmosphere
https://en.wikipe...the_Moon

We can see it as the ISS passes through it right heer:
http://www.atlaso...sit-view

Pretty spektakular no?
Solon
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2017
"Uh huh..and the Hubble also only sends blank pictures.. Riiight."

Hubble doesn't send any pictures, it sends data that is transformed by some very complex processes into the eye-candy. Try decoding the raw data sometime.

"..oh..and lyman alpha is in the UV. That wouldn't be visible to a human."

It was to the Star Tracker, which outputed a visible signal that was displayed through the sextant. You really don't understand any of the instruments involved do you?

1923
"We can see it as the ISS passes through it right heer:"

iss052e055885, nice. Looks like a mylar filter but can't find any info. I'm hoping the series will show up on here soon.
https://eol.jsc.n...e=055885
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2017
So basically @Solon says Jack Fischer is lying. Just so we're clear here.
Solon
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2017
"So basically @Solon says Jack Fischer is lying. Just so we're clear here."

You really are confused it appears. If he can take a picture of the stars from the cupola and says he can see them then they ARE visible from the space station, I'm not arguing with him. Now what I want to see is a photo of the stars and him saying he can see them with the camera pointed AWAY from Earth.
He'd need to be EVA to do that though.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2017
@Solon << Jack Fischer; @Solon random anonymous dude on the Internets, Jack Fischer astronaut on the International Space Station.

Jack Fischer says:
Q: Can the astronauts on the Space Station see the stars?
A: Oh yeah baby!

There isn't any room for equivocation here. Either he's lying or he's not. @Solon accuses all and sundry of BSing when it appears the BS artiste is @Solon. Sorry, man, the dude is a real astronaut on the real ISS. There is no place to run. There is no place to hide.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Aug 22, 2017
iss052e055885, nice. Looks like a mylar filter but can't find any info. I'm hoping the series will show up on here soon
Mylar? What makes you think NASA uses mylar?
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2017
My suspicion is that the reason the astronauts to the moon had to wear their spacesuits all the time was?

The Lunar atmosphere consists of outgassing from all that green cheese it is made of,,, Yeah, that must be it.

Go ahead, prove me wrong!
Solon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2017
"There isn't any room for equivocation here. Either he's lying or he's not. @Solon accuses all and sundry of BSing when it appears the BS artiste is @Solon. Sorry, man, the dude is a real astronaut on the real ISS. There is no place to run. There is no place to hide."

Can you see your back yard if you are looking out the front bay window? Can you not understand that they can not see space from the Cupola, only earth and the band of atmosphere around it?

" The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him."-Tolstoy
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2017
Solon, are you a flat Earth believer?
Solon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2017
Pretty flat here on the prairies.
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2017
yeah but do you believe in:
* The firmament and flat earth
* The sun is a spotlight
* If you hold a ruler up to the horizon it's flat
* The Bedford level experiment
* The Antarctic ice wall which holds all the water in

and all that stuff?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2017
When someone asks, "Can you see stars from the ISS?" and someone who's stayed there a long time says "Yeah, baby!" that's the end of the conversation except for trolls, #sciencedeniers, and psychotics (if there's even a difference between them and I don't see any).

This is a complete waste of time, basically arguing with an insane person having psychotic delusions. What you need to do, @Solon, is go get some psychiatric assistance and take the medicine they give you. Then the dark space monsters won't get you.
Kron
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2017
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.

So whats Tolstoy got to say about a slow-witted man that thinks he knows it all?

Here's a quote you should've lived by:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

You've surely removed any semblance of that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2017
@Kron, it isn't about what people who haven't reviewed the data think. And it isn't about what people who pretend to have reviewed the data but rejected what their religious and political preferences prejudiced them against think either. It's about what people who have reviewed the data and can't bring themselves to reject what they do not want think.

No one sane wants anthropogenic global climate change. We only hope we're right and can change it. The real nightmare is non-anthropogenic climate change. Because we wouldn't be able to change that.

Consider carefully that the theory that this climate change is anthropogenic is ***THE MOST HOPEFUL THEORY BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT*** and the utter hopelessness we will know if it turns out we're wrong.

Either way whatever we can do with renewable or nuclear energy is bonus. I'm an "all of the above" kinda guy. Maybe you have a really inaccurate view of who you think you oppose.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2017
Simpel experiment:

Take a glass cupola. Put an LED light with a battery inside. Extract the air. Mash your eye up against the glass (so that there is no atmosphere between you and the light)

And whaddaya know? You can still see the LED.

Sheesh.
Solon
not rated yet Aug 23, 2017
"Simpel experiment:"

Experiments with lighting were performed. Here is the report. On page 14 you will see that the window shades were to be employed under normal circumstances to prevent sunshafting and heat entering the craft, which is likely why the astronauts complained about being cold.

Page 15 covers external lighting. Why would they need the EVA light (p.20) when they were in full sunlight all the time, plus Earthshine and that bright Moonlight?
NASA knows best I guess.

Apollo Experience Report Crew Station Integration. Volume V Lighting Considerations

https://www.scrib...erations
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2017
DS, I think your statement about anthropogenic global climate change, is one the smartest and most succinct explanations for that controversy.

I doubt that we, Humanity, have the intelligence to avoid committing suicide as a species.

I doubt that enough people are willing to pay the exorbitant price and make the endless efforts it would take to prevent the extinction-level Matricide of our ONLY biosphere!
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 23, 2017
@rrwillsj, the average IQ is 100.

I have had people tell me that's elitist. Think carefully about that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Aug 23, 2017
Consider carefully that the theory that this climate change is anthropogenic is ***THE MOST HOPEFUL THEORY BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT*** and the utter hopelessness we will know if it turns out we're wrong
Nonsense. There are plenty of things we could do to counter natural global warming. Many of them are identical to AGW countermeasures.

A very real danger is that we put all our efforts into sequestering CO2 for example and then find out we should have been spending our time and effort and money elsewhere.
Solon
not rated yet Aug 23, 2017
"Then the dark space monsters won't get you."

The Apollo astronauts did describe the blackness of space as scary, blacker than black. A few minutes alone in deep space would be like being in an isolation chamber, sensory deprivation would set in. I wonder if the astronauts needed meds?

rrwillsj
not rated yet Aug 24, 2017
Well DS, it is my observation that having a brain is all too often an unused organ. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make him think!"

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.