What is the scientific explanation for the gap of photographs showing stars taken from above the mesosphere?
Here's Jupiter in Sagittarius taken during Apollo 17. This picture could not have been taken on Earth since Jupiter was close to the Sun at the time so the atmosphere would have drowned out the stars. You had to be outside the atmosphere.
>>16907010And some shittier images.
>>16907010>>16907013
>>16907010>>16907013>>16907014where are the spectacular photos of the overwhelming starry panorama? The first picture of a star was taken in 1851. People have always been fascinated by the beauty of the night sky, so why the lack of photographs?
>>16906962Relative brightness. Sunlight reflecting off the earth and moon drowns out the light from the stars for the exact same reason you cant see stars at all in the day and barely during a full moon from earth.
>>16907021wait until night
>>16907017digital cameras got going in the 90s and got good enough for it in the 10s, maybe if you scour through boomer negatives at yard sales you'll find some earlier pics from enthusiasts back in the day
>>16907023>they exist but you have to look for them in obscure private collections
>>16906962
>>16907010Here's some more images that I made into a video.From the position of Jupiter we can conclude that the images must have been taken on December 12 1972 at around 15:00UTC. Cernan and Schmitt was on the surfaces of the Moon at that time so the images must have been taken by Ronald Evans when he was alone in the Command Module while orbiting the Moon.
>>16907054…
>>16907022Well yeah. That's basically what orbital telescopes typically have to do.You're not going to have a good photo where either the earth or moon are visible at the same time as the stars.
>>16907061This. Retards don't understand exposure time.
>>16907061Well, why has nobody done it?
someone never took a photography class.
this must be fake then
>>16907076
>>16907063Done what? Taken pictures of stars from space? There's literally thousands of images like that.
>>16907078where?
>>16907079There's literally an example in the OP.
>>16907084Hubble was deployed in the 90s… almost 50 years after the first photo of space was taken. Was there no interest taking pictures of stars from space?
>>16907086Technological limitations, mostly.You could take photos that look like pic related back in the 1800s from ground based telescopes. But it requires long exposure times. Being able to put a satellite into orbit and have it focus on a single point for long enough to capture similar photos was no small feat.Meanwhile, satellite pictures of Earth that we had since the pre-Hubble era simply required a quick snap of a standard camera and were of much greater practical importance.
>>16907091>You could take photos that look like pic related back in the 1800s from ground based telescopes.Paintings are cooler. Nah, maybe not. Equally cool.
>>16906962All those beautiful nebulae and galaxy pics you see are the result of very long exposures. If you looked at it through a telescope there's not much to see.
>>16907041yummy star
>>16907077What is the light source in the pic? Too dim to be the sun, but it reflects on the ocean?
>>16907184The moon. It's high exposure.Also note how bright the city lights are.
>>16907184>>16907189can confirm its the moon.i've taken time lapse shots of iss passing with moon in frame and it shines the same way.
>>16907195Did you take this?
>>16907010Apollo?Um sorry that didn't happen sweaty.We all know it was just Stanley Kubrick
>>16906962Stars before the invention of a proper space telescope weren't very interesting thing to photograph from space. All you would get is a blurry mess which got posted at you in less than 2 hours anyways obliterating you.A ground based telescope could and would mog any meme camera early satellites could put up for stellar observation so obviously the parties that paid to have the satellites with cameras flown up there mostly photographed interesting things (mostly the earth) where the vantage of space provided an actual advantage over ground or air based observation and where the the limited optics of cameras could still provide satisfactory images. Hubble is the first true space telescope and as a result it has a slew of publicly accessible fantastic images of space
>"the sky is a deep black when viewed from the moon, as it is from cis-lunar space, the space between the earth and the moon." - Neil Armstrongi don't think stars are visible beyond the mesosphere
>>16906962"Space" is part of the post-WW2 consensus. It's not a place one can go to or a thing one can photograph.
>>16907086listen, retard, how about coming clear about your particular schtick? what is your problem, what is your conspiracy theory? do you think stars did not exist before (insert year here)? why do you keep ignoring the fact that photography simply had to develop first?
>>16907978stars are not visible from above the mesospherewhat technological invetion allowed us to take pictures of stars from space?
>>16906962>What is the scientific explanation for the gap of photographs showing stars taken from above the mesosphere?The simulation wasn't updated to include that much space outside of earth. Once the beings responsible for maintain it observed we started to peak at tend end of the simulation, they added more to it.
>>16908285there's a reason why all the billionaires are stuck on earth with us and money isn't the issuenot even an artificial gravity space station exists like von braun envisioned
>>16907913same with nukes>post-WW2 consensusaka jewish nwo
>>16908617being "stuck on earth" implies earth isn't basically a paradise compared to any known "planet" in the "solar system", in other words a falsehood
>>16908064>what technological invention allowed us to take pictures of stars from space?well?
>>16907978?
>>16907010>>16907054Oh look, stars clearly visible above the mesosphere before any magical technology was invented. >>16907017>where are the spectacular photos What a lame cop-out. Your aesthetic impression is not science, nor is it relevant to the fact that stars are in fact visible from space with simple film cameras. This is classic /x/ bullshit. Do some half-assed "research", then ignore all the evidence which inconveniently debunks your hypothesis.
>>16912583>Oh look, stars clearly visible above the mesosphere before any magical technology was invented.if the technology existed as you say, where are the stunning pictures of the starry panorama?
>>16912660beautiful, i need to get me one of those 14 inchers
>>16912656>if the technology existed as you say, where are the stunning pictures of the starry panorama?Have you ever tried doing that with a film camera yourself? Do you have any idea how difficult it is? No. For one you need a solid mount. You also need a long exposure, film is much less sensitive than modern detectors. And you cannot stack in a computer like digital cameras. So you need a tracking mount. And then you need fast lens and a high speed film (ISO). Did astronauts have these things? No. And there is no if, you can see the stars for yourself in these images. And Apollo used a sextant, with an eyepiece.
>>16907041do u think we will make big pizza and put this on as pepperoni one day??
>post bait>enraged anons post their prettiest historical space imagesKeep it up! I'm loving this thread. Post your best!
