Would you be able to do a video talking about what trojan asteroids are? - and the Earth trojan 2010 TK7? Keep up the great work, really love your channels content!
The bright side of the Moon does go dark. When the earth blocks the sun and when the dark side of the moon is towards the sun. We're the astronauts not there long enough for that to happen?
@@Europa-Last-Battle_on_Bitchute You clearly will never be a space engineer, it is designed a special way to with stand the extreme tempatures of our atmosphere.
Im blessed to live in nz and my view of the stars humbles me everytime. As a child me and my sis used to sleep under the stars and they have fascinated me ever since.
@@warrior-prints7385 There is the right way to research by checking the credibility of sources, unfortunately, most aren't aware of this. Although, I agree with ain here. This could have easily been solved just doing 5 minutes of research. The answers would have practically popped up right away.
R. O. B I typically find the author of said article and check credibility from there. Also, try and find up-to-date information. Unfortunately, it’s easy to stumble across terrible sources. Having to write multiple research papers for college has really helped me in that department, so I know how difficult it can be to trust a source.
Good information to know. Thanks for the video. I’ve never personally witnessed it but my stepfather told me that when he was a child his job was hand digging drinking water wells. He told me that looking up from a 40 foot deep well during the day he could see stars. Not sure if this is relevant here but the video reminded me of the story.
With human vision, its not just the opening and closing of the iris that adjusts sensitivity. The sensitivity of your retina’s photoreceptor cells also changes in response to light level. Your irises respond in less than a second. The photoreceptor cell response is much slower, taking up to half an hour to be complete. Try this experiment. You need a room that can be brightly lit or very, but not completely dark at your will. Go in the room with the bright lights on. Now turn out the lights. Wait a few seconds. Look around and note what you can see. Now wait several minutes more, in the very dim light. Look around again and note what you can see. It works the same for stars at night. If your sky is really dark, you can see a lot more faint stars after several minutes adaptation to darkness.
@Blob B the new ones like the Pixel 4 have extra nightmodes and market the capability to Photograph Stars. That alone should make it clear that it is Not the easiest thing to do... It is really not that hard to unserstand.... 😵
And why did the those on the moon could not see the stars? Was their eye sight not as modern as others who supposedly went to space later and saw the stars.
The explanation applies while on earth too. For instance, if you like taking star trails on earth, you must use long exposure times to get the stars to register on the sensor. For example, a speed of 5 or more SECONDS. Daytime exposure times are much faster, like 1/250th of a second which is a fraction of a second because of bright light Try those speeds at night and nothing will come out in the sky except for maybe the full moon it is big and bright enough. This linked video below is a time lapse of the milky way, with a tiny half-moon entering from the left. Notice as the exposure times get longer the moon, even though it is only partial, will start to blow out and look almost like a mini-Sun. That is because the time needed to expose for the stars is too long to expose the moon properly and causes it to blow out. You can no longer see that it is just half a lit moon. However, it is a cool effect. ruclips.net/video/QX3zVyud0Rs/видео.html
@@FactsFirst Yes, that is the point. Try that during a bright sunny day. It doesn't work. Day shots are FRACTIONS of seconds, whereas night time (stars, star trails) are SECONDS. Now, with video or photos, you can shoot the full moon at night, but if you expose for the features of the moon you will not see any stars. Kind of like this. ruclips.net/video/6N3YGgfIVSA/видео.html
Lol the astroNOTS were in SPACE. . .is day and night the same there as on earth..? Besides, SOME say they saw stars, SOME say it was pitch black. WATCH THEIR INTERVIEWS. BULLSHIT. BODY LANGUAGE SAYS IT ALL. ;-P
@@tw3ntythr337 You can test this yourself. Some astronauts will see stars giving the circumstances. It's the human eye. No reason for you to be so willingly ignorant of this.
@@tw3ntythr337 Also, this whole body language nonsense means nothing unless you're specialized in it, which we know you're not. Body language isn't always reliable, especially when you're not factoring in everything, nor experienced at interpreting any data. Hard to take your word when you lack any credentials.
Do you know the difference between your smartphone and film? Do you know the difference between day and night? Do you know the difference between overexposed and underexposed? Did you even watch the video?
I checked it once. I photographed with an old Nokia phone a brightest street lamp, right in the forehead, and several stars were also visible in the photo. And the astronauts have not yet decided whether they can see the stars from the ISS or not. So let's have another fairy tale.
I have noticed this in the mountains near where I live. Even though there is little light pollution there, I can capture more stars in my photos if I increase the exposure. This proves that no matter where we are on Earth, there is still some "washout" effect.
This video finally solved the question I have been having for weeks I always thought that we can’t see the stars due to the sun being open with no cover
*Excellent video!!* 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I have only _one minor correction_ at 1:28 -- The side of the moon we don't see is called the "far side" instead of the "night side" or "dark side." The far side of the moon gets just as much sunlight as the near side of the moon. The amount of sunlight varies based on the moon's cycles. Just one example is a _new moon_ phase. During a new moon, the moon is between the sun and the earth. So, the far side of the moon is fully illuminated, but the near side of the moon is completely dark to us on earth. A _new moon_ looks like this: 🌞 → 🌗 → 🌎 *Thanks for the amazing videos, Alex!* 👍🏻
@@astrumspace _Oooh,_ I see! 👍🏻 I was _sure_ you knew that, but I guess because people repeat the "dark side" misnomer so often, when I heard you say "night side," my brain immediately picked up on it. My apologies for the misunderstanding. ✌🏻
It would be just the same as viewing them in the night sky on Earth, except on the Moon stars are visible in daylight. Just look up at the sky, away from any light source, including the terrain, let your eyes adapt to the black sky and you would see stars. Of course, looking up at the night sky on the Moon would make things simpler, but the stars are still visible in daylight. We don't see stars on Earth during the day because the sunlight scattered by the atmosphere overwhelms the feeble light from the stars.
it'd be much different than earth. if you go to the dark side of the moon with no light pollution and no atmosphere you'd see many more stars in the sky. it'd be nothing like on earth with an atmosphere, clouds, light pollution etc.
@@MarsFKA i don't think you understand the atmosphere on earth is so incredibly thick compared to the moons it would actually make a lot of a difference if you compared them. i don't know if you're picking that up.
@@y3057 I'm an astronomer and do a lot of astrophotography. I'm pretty sure that I understand how incredibly thick Earth's atmosphere is compared to the Moon's.
Well, depends if you want your art to look as it does from a humans eyes, or if you rather show the wonders that the human eyes limitations cant percieve. Personally, i prefer art that reveals beauty our eyes cannot percieve, makes it more unique, makes it larger than life. The stars are still there, regardless if a person can see them or not.
Fun fact: The realisation that you wouldn't be able to see stars from the lunar surface was predicted by Arthur C. Clarke in a 1954 essay called 'Astronautical Fallacies' which has been republished in his book 'Greetings Carbon-Based Bipeds'!
next do a video on who was holding the camera as the craft took off from the moon and followed it upwards. did they come back for him? was it a robot? is it still there?
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Remote control from Houston by radio. In 1969, hobbyists were flying airplanes by radio remote control, operating elevators, rudder, ailerons and throttle in real time as their model airplanes zoomed through the sky. The radio equipment cost $150 to $500 and could be mail ordered.
Mark Holm I thought it took minutes to receive radio waves that far away. that camera work is instant when the shuttle or Rover or whatever it was called takes off.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Light travel time from Earth to Moon is about 1.3 seconds one way on average, 2.6 round trip. I have forgotten the name of the man at NASA Johnson who operated the camera, but I read a quote from him. He said getting the launch was tricky. He didn’t get it right the first time, but nailed it on Apollo 17. Try Googling it. The story is on the web somewhere.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight The Apollo Lunar Module consisted of two major subassemblies, the Descent Stage and the Ascent Stage. It’s the Ascent Stage that contained the pressurized cabin and took off to return the astronauts to the orbiting Command and Service modules.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Google is your friend. The remote video camera operator was Ed Fendall. He said this about tracking the ascending LM. “Now, the way that worked was this. Harley Weyer, who worked for me, sat down and figured what the trajectory would be and where the lunar rover would be each second as it moved out, and what your settings would go to. That picture you see was taken without looking at it [the liftoff] at all. There was no watching it and doing anything with that picture. As the crew counted down, that's a [Apollo] 17 picture you see, as [Eugene] Cernan counted down and he knew he had to park in the right place because I was going to kill him, he didn't - and Gene and I are good friends, he'll tell you that - I actually sent the first command at liftoff minus three seconds. And each command was scripted, and all I was doing was looking at a clock, sending commands. I was not looking at the television. I really didn't see it until it was over with and played back. Those were just pre-set commands that were just punched out via time. That's the way it was followed.” io9.gizmodo.com/how-nasa-captured-this-iconic-footage-of-apollo-17-leav-1671650186 The same website says that on Apollo 15, the camera tilt mechanism did not work properly and on Apollo 16, the rover and camera were parked too close to the LM, making the LM’s apparent trajectory climb faster than the precomputed camera angles.
Interesting. I always thought this was due to light from stars getting diffused in the atmosphere thus increasing their apparent angular size. Real angular size of any distant star is bellow resolution of human eyes, and most cameras as well. But now that I think of it, it doesn't make sense. Ability to see an object depends on its brightness, not size.
As with all photography the objects in the distance are not visible. Apart from the subject, if you take an image of our night sky you end up with a blackened image became the flash light doesn’t reach. It also causes the background to look dark. Take images with a flash at nighttime and you see the effects.
@Trebor Photos of stars "behind the sun"? lol -- good one. There are numerous photos of the sunlit side of the Earth with visible stars, if that's what you mean. The photos are easy to find if you know how to use Google. I'm curious, though -- outside of the Earth's atmosphere, do you think you'd only see blackness and no stars?
@Trebor "Depends on how bright it is"?? How bright blackness is? You know the answer to that question. There are many of those photos. To be a research assistant, I would have to charge you a fee. You can find them easily yourself.
@Trebor Again, astronauts spoke about the millions of stars they saw once they were away from the Earth. The fact that you refuse to search for those interviews and the photos taken yourself is not my problem. You didn't answer my question -- which I'll make clearer: Do you think you would see only blackness and no stars when looking up from the surface of the moon? Here's another question: Can you see the Earth from the moon? And here's another question: What is the reason we cannot see the stars from Earth during the daytime? And another question: Do you think the Apollo astronauts could have adjusted their cameras to photograph the stars? And another question: Do you think the Apollo 13 astronauts saw the stars?
I wish more people would be doing research about space and how things work instead of just saying that NASA's fake and that the earth is flat. I wish this message could go far and wide. Thanks for this video!!!
You can proove this yourself. When you are in a clear sky full of stars look up at it, and then put a flashlight in front on your eyes, all the stars will disappear.
If you looking at the sun in the space yep but what about on the side that is dark and away from sun. why not there? What about all the nebulosus you see in the sky at night but no in space.
I love it how all the Moon Landing hoaxers say there's no stars in the lunar sky. The landings happened during the lunar day. Tell me, if you go out during the day on Earth, apart from the Sun, how many stars do you see in the sky? Its nothing to do with eyes or camera sensitivity.
Well now we "landed on the dark side of the moon". So what's your excuse now? Same as before? With just as much plotholes as the "conspiracy theorists" you're trying to debunk. How do we know how many of these responses are even genuine? For all we know they could be paid to argue with opposing mindsets, or even be programmed with auto generated responses
"Even Apollo astronauts reported not being able to see any stars" This is halfway right, and halfway wrong. "Some" of them reported not being able to see stars, while "some" of them reported that they SAW the stars. Beside that, amazing video.
People really ask this question? You can ask the same question on Earth. Step 1. Wait until midnight. Step 2. Shine a flashlight in your eyes. Step 3. Ask yourself why you can’t see anything.
I knew a moon landing denier who clung so hard to this. So one night I asked him to look up at the sky. What did he see? Stars. Then I asked him to stand directly beneath a streetlight and look up. What did he see? Not a single fucking star. People can be so fucking dense sometimes.
stlkngyomom actually, you're the one who should be looking into those things! Just research a bit more than normal next time around. You'll find that every single one of those things have been debunked and explained before. Good luck I guess.
Apollo 11 press interview, “Did you see any stars? Armstrong: No, I can’t “recall” seeing any. Collins barges in: I didn’t see any.” He was in orbit around the moon... why didn’t Collins see any stars from the Columbia command module? And how could Armstrong not remember seeing any stars?!
Considering you can see the stars from Earth and were on/near the Moon, where would you be looking? If you ever go to the Grand Canyon, what will you be looking at. The canyon or the sky?
2kb per second? That's like my AOL dialup internet in 1998. What (for lack of a better word) infrastructure in space would be needed to increase that speed? Some sort of super long range satellite network?
At 1:18 you showed a picture w. The sun and the the moons dark side near the craft. BUT. How would you be able to c the craft when the sun is on the other side and there isn't any other light sources?
That is why when some conspiratard says that Stanley Kubrick made the moon landing videos I tell them there is no way since Kubrick was a perfectionist and he would NOT have missed putting stars in all 6 moon landings. Not only that his 2001 Space Odyssey had LOTS of stars so there is no way he would have left them out.
A lot of people in the comments simply can't understand 😂. They think the dark BG in space means night. Taking pictures of stars in space is the same as here, you need darkness and longer exposure times, and the results are much better in time lapses with big sensor cameras. Video cameras usually sucks shooting stars. Anyone can try it. Good luck filming stars while receiving sunlight.
@@jonahk1588 i know what it is called, it was an illustration that just because you can't see the stars doesn't mean that they're not there. A simple analogy that you apparently couldn't understand.Really disappointing that I would have to explain it to someone.
It's the part about the astronauts not being able see stars with their own eyes except the one astronaut who said in the shade and looking straight up, he could see them. I can't argue the camera exposure point but why not leave a long exposure just once to show the world the stars from the surface of the moon? Why did all the astronauts say they could not see stars but one said that he could. That is not well addressed here. It's smoke if not a smoking gun. Sometimes when an explanation is being given it kind of explains the opposite of what is intended. Are you saying; there is only one astronaut that says that he saw stars from the surface of the moon?
It takes time for your eyes to adjust to the dark. People underestimate how faint stars really are. Astronauts on the moon would have to stare at the sky for a minute or two and make sure that the ground was not in their field of view. Since they were on a tight schedule, it seems obvious why they didn't see any stars: Nobody thought it was important.
That is the Question that I always ask myself why can we see Stars and Constlation more Perfectly than here on Earth. Thank's for the Answer it make Perfect Sense now to me.
wow its very happy to hear when we on dark side of the moon we get some incredible photos and details why we not go to dark side. any way another great video thanks
ganeskmr Because on the other side of the moon we wouldn’t be able to get a direct signal back to earth for communication. However, if we had a relay satellite orbiting the moon then that would be more expensive anyway.
Well, all of the moon landings took place at what they called Lunar Dawn. That was on purpose as they did not want to land while the moon was full. Their landings were planned to take place near the moons shadow terminator line. Not exactly on it but close enough so that the full reflection of the Sun would not be a problem.
NebTheWeb A big reason for choosing lunar morning rather than high noon is shadows. Just as on Earth, high noon lighting produces few if any shadows from rocks, hills, valleys and craters. Both for the sake of the pilot trying not to land in a crater or on top of a boulder, and for the sake of photography once they had landed, moderate length shadows were optimum.
@@markholm7050 I think it had more to do with the temperatures. www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/this-is-our-planet-awesome-iss-time-lapse-will-blow-your-mind/
I got a question. Ok - so you can't see stars in space because of background light and high albedo's of the surroundings. When the command module was on the back side of the moon and the lunar albedo dropped to zero and cabin lights momentarily extinguished - were they then visible? -
1/30th of a second exposure time, PER FRAME, for one. Digital could be config'd for what you ask, but someone has to get approved, get funds, setup the mission, get the gear, etc.
@@rogerscottcathey If they looked out the windows away from the moon, no doubt they would see stars. But what's the big deal. If they didn't see any stars, that would be something worth reporting. When you go for a trip, do you tell people you saw trees or cars on the way. No (unless it was something unusual). Remember, they were more interested in doing their mission tasks, and probably looking at the moon or Earth every chance they got. Their view of the stars would have been no different than viewing the stars from a dark sky site on Earth anyway. And we had some pretty good optical telescopes available back then for star and galaxy observations, certainly better than anything the Apollo missions carried.
@@daveg2104 : So you think seeing a brilliant, unobstructed star-field from the far side of the moon is nothing to write home about hunh? Not even worth mentioning hunh? Collins remarked never having seen star-light the entire time. Youre rationalising about something that has a scientific explanation having to do with how atmosphere affects star-light frequency. Reducing it into the range visible to the naked eye.
@@rogerscottcathey First things, these were missions partly about beating the Russians (politics, huh), proving technology, and also examining the Moon, and to an extent, the Earth. Trying to observe the stars from the daylight surface of the moon is a pretty pointless exercise, and nothing particularly remarkable from the spacecraft when using Mark 1 eyeballs looking through windows. So, you have never been to a truly dark sky location then. Try to do it a least once, preferably in the Southern Hemisphere if you can. I have, a very remote location in north western Australia. Being a city boy, it was amazing. I felt like I had to duck my head with this "thing" (the Milky Way) hanging in the sky over me. The Apollo astronauts wouldn't have seen anything that much better than that. How would the conversation have gone - Mission Control, we turned off the lights in the capsule, and we are getting a really great view of the stars. Mission Control to Apollo Capsule - that's nice. If I was up there, I wouldn't be wasting too much time looking at the stars, that's for sure. On the last Apollo mission, they had some better equipment, and took observations in UV (and I think IR), you can look it up if you want. Now that is something that is more difficult to do on Earth, so it makes sense to try it on the moon.
I knew this in fourth grade when Apollo 11 landed. I was already a ham radio buff, had some exposure to pro photography as well when we implored about the kick ass Hasselblads the astronauts wore.
2kb/s at the furthest distances? not bad! thats almost a 2400 baud modem which was top speed on land 30+ years ago. You could download doom2 in 1 night. Id roam around space with that kind of internet sure.
@@elissitdesign I got my first cable modem in 1995, a real military General Instruments "Surfboard". Sold to Motorola, then Arris. My town was in the first five cities to have cable internet rolled out(hint: world famous military bases here, well before WWI)
@@swinde Titan is WAY, WAY cool! you can shoot down arguments about oil with it: What types of sub-zero dinosaurs created all the methane, and hydrocarbon lakes, seas, and rain on Titan? OR, is oil abiotic throughout the solar system?
Titan's atmosphere has almost the same pressure at ground level as Earth, and the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen like the Earth. It is just really cold there. Hydrocarbon can be from life or other natural processes. We really don't know much about this, for instance there may be conditions conducive to life at some level in Venus' atmosphere or even Jupiter. The best bets are always in areas where liquid water is present. Europa, Enceladus, or other moons with subsurface oceans or maybe even Mars.
So if you stood in the shadow of the lunar module and looked/took pictures upward, or even just turned your back to the sun (out of the sun's glare), you'd see everything the universe had to offer? The astronaut Micheal Collins (Apollo 11) said he doesn't remember seeing any stars....but he stayed in the orbiter the whole time....that's all he would have seen, just by staring away from the moon.
Thanks to W West for asking this weeks question! If you have a space related question, ask below, and your question might be picked next!
You didnt answer my question...
Hello, Alex! My question is also a possible subject for one of your videos: what have we learned thus far from the Parker Solar Probe?
Id like to learn more about the halleys comet since it hard to find anything about that topic :) keep up the great work
Would you be able to do a video talking about what trojan asteroids are? - and the Earth trojan 2010 TK7? Keep up the great work, really love your channels content!
The bright side of the Moon does go dark. When the earth blocks the sun and when the dark side of the moon is towards the sun. We're the astronauts not there long enough for that to happen?
Imagine leaving Earth and standing on the moon looking back at Earth. That concept alone is unreal
Cause its not real
that's scary and i don't know why
Mentor scary? I think that would be dope af
That’s crazy af to me. To be “one” looking back at a WHOLE planet of people is so wild in theory. I would think I’d NEVER be the same after
You’d be looking at everyone that has ever lived.
Unfortunately the people who most need to know this aren’t in your audience
Jerry Rupprecht IKR. makes me sad. conspiracy theorists never attempt to actually learn.
@@RafidW9 Sadly you are both right...
Oh and 9/11 was an inside job! jk...
Haha so true
Agreed
I always appreciate an educational video about space.
Why are you here
Are you the moon. Why are you following me everywhere
Thank you sire
pause at 0,49, it's not like the lunar module was welded by a kid with duct tape =))
@@Europa-Last-Battle_on_Bitchute You clearly will never be a space engineer, it is designed a special way to with stand the extreme tempatures of our atmosphere.
Im blessed to live in nz and my view of the stars humbles me everytime.
As a child me and my sis used to sleep under the stars and they have fascinated me ever since.
pause at 0,49, it's not like the lunar module was welded by a kid with duct tape =))
Finally - that Question was answered - because that always bothered me as well.......Thank you for the knowledge
If it always bothered you, why didn't you look it up yourself?
@@ain7256 what, like on the internet?.... are you familiar with the internet?
@@warrior-prints7385 There is the right way to research by checking the credibility of sources, unfortunately, most aren't aware of this. Although, I agree with ain here. This could have easily been solved just doing 5 minutes of research. The answers would have practically popped up right away.
SuckMy SpinningBalls how do you check the credibility of your source ?
R. O. B I typically find the author of said article and check credibility from there. Also, try and find up-to-date information. Unfortunately, it’s easy to stumble across terrible sources. Having to write multiple research papers for college has really helped me in that department, so I know how difficult it can be to trust a source.
Come on man, we all know the moon is flat and made out of cheese.
I thought it was a hologram? :))
Actually Moon is hollow and there's a flying space Nazi base there.Check out Iron Sky documentary and Idiocracy documentary...
A Grand Day Out - Landing on the Moon - Wallace and Gromit
You showed them
& aged perfectly.
Good information to know. Thanks for the video. I’ve never personally witnessed it but my stepfather told me that when he was a child his job was hand digging drinking water wells. He told me that looking up from a 40 foot deep well during the day he could see stars. Not sure if this is relevant here but the video reminded me of the story.
Its very relevant. Thank you for sharing.
With human vision, its not just the opening and closing of the iris that adjusts sensitivity. The sensitivity of your retina’s photoreceptor cells also changes in response to light level. Your irises respond in less than a second. The photoreceptor cell response is much slower, taking up to half an hour to be complete. Try this experiment. You need a room that can be brightly lit or very, but not completely dark at your will. Go in the room with the bright lights on. Now turn out the lights. Wait a few seconds. Look around and note what you can see. Now wait several minutes more, in the very dim light. Look around again and note what you can see. It works the same for stars at night. If your sky is really dark, you can see a lot more faint stars after several minutes adaptation to darkness.
Something i notice when i wake up during the night.
There were stars in the first photo taken from space . in 1946 . All the sciencism getting very thin
In modern era of phone cameras with full auto it seems only few people understand how they actualy work. Short answer to the title: dymanic range.
@Blob B the new ones like the Pixel 4 have extra nightmodes and market the capability to Photograph Stars. That alone should make it clear that it is Not the easiest thing to do...
It is really not that hard to unserstand.... 😵
And why did the those on the moon could not see the stars? Was their eye sight not as modern as others who supposedly went to space later and saw the stars.
@@curiousmindjourney Did you watch the video?
@@curiousmindjourney are you sentient?
That's one good explanation about photography in space.
The explanation applies while on earth too. For instance, if you like taking star trails on earth, you must use long exposure times to get the stars to register on the sensor. For example, a speed of 5 or more SECONDS. Daytime exposure times are much faster, like 1/250th of a second which is a fraction of a second because of bright light Try those speeds at night and nothing will come out in the sky except for maybe the full moon it is big and bright enough. This linked video below is a time lapse of the milky way, with a tiny half-moon entering from the left. Notice as the exposure times get longer the moon, even though it is only partial, will start to blow out and look almost like a mini-Sun. That is because the time needed to expose for the stars is too long to expose the moon properly and causes it to blow out. You can no longer see that it is just half a lit moon. However, it is a cool effect. ruclips.net/video/QX3zVyud0Rs/видео.html
@@FactsFirst Yes, that is the point. Try that during a bright sunny day. It doesn't work. Day shots are FRACTIONS of seconds, whereas night time (stars, star trails) are SECONDS. Now, with video or photos, you can shoot the full moon at night, but if you expose for the features of the moon you will not see any stars. Kind of like this. ruclips.net/video/6N3YGgfIVSA/видео.html
Do you see any stars in daytime? Well. The astronauts didn't either.
Lol the astroNOTS were in SPACE. . .is day and night the same there as on earth..?
Besides, SOME say they saw stars, SOME say it was pitch black. WATCH THEIR INTERVIEWS.
BULLSHIT.
BODY LANGUAGE SAYS IT ALL.
;-P
@L L Naked eye?
@@tw3ntythr337 You can test this yourself. Some astronauts will see stars giving the circumstances. It's the human eye. No reason for you to be so willingly ignorant of this.
@@tw3ntythr337 Also, this whole body language nonsense means nothing unless you're specialized in it, which we know you're not. Body language isn't always reliable, especially when you're not factoring in everything, nor experienced at interpreting any data. Hard to take your word when you lack any credentials.
@L L You can under controlled circumstances using equipment.
Alright, alright, I take pictures with my cell phone and capture stars even with a full moon. I find this very difficult to believe.
Do you know the difference between your smartphone and film? Do you know the difference between day and night? Do you know the difference between overexposed and underexposed?
Did you even watch the video?
So we can build a space station. But cant make a camera work in space as it would normally on earth. Makes perfect sense.
I checked it once. I photographed with an old Nokia phone a brightest street lamp, right in the forehead, and several stars were also visible in the photo. And the astronauts have not yet decided whether they can see the stars from the ISS or not. So let's have another fairy tale.
Oh look at the flatter. So clever. Lol.
I see a bunch of people not knowing basic principles of how camera exposures work unbelievable......
Your Channel gives me reason to live
*"the brighter the sky the darker the stars"*
The Moon has a Sky?
@@Anonymous-411 No, but the moon is as bright as the stars.
@@AJ-te6tf don't know about that, the moon has reflected light. Stars have their own light.
@@Anonymous-411 well, sure. Just not an atmosphere.
Ever thought of putting these on TV? I mean, I am like well enlightened about space stuff from this channel. Definitely one of my favourite channels
More people watch RUclips
I have noticed this in the mountains near where I live. Even though there is little light pollution there, I can capture more stars in my photos if I increase the exposure. This proves that no matter where we are on Earth, there is still some "washout" effect.
Try taking them a mid-day,
@@allandesoer7672 So far, I've only been able to capture one star at mid-day!
It's a big rascal ain't it 😀
@@allandesoer7672 Yes it is! Funny, though- I never seem to be able to get a shot of it in the nighttime...
Every Apollo ASTRO NOT orbited both the Earth & the Moon. Night to the dumb believers. @@allandesoer7672
Turns out it was a less stupid question that I always thought. 😂
This video finally solved the question I have been having for weeks I always thought that we can’t see the stars due to the sun being open with no cover
I love your channel. It brought me back to love astronomy. I hope you will make another short video about : why the nebula appears colorful
Nice topic idea! thanks!
Astrum your welcome
@@rjaban3531 **Facepalm**
Your - you own it
You're - you are
You'r - both? 🤔
*Excellent video!!* 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I have only _one minor correction_ at 1:28 -- The side of the moon we don't see is called the "far side" instead of the "night side" or "dark side." The far side of the moon gets just as much sunlight as the near side of the moon. The amount of sunlight varies based on the moon's cycles.
Just one example is a _new moon_ phase. During a new moon, the moon is between the sun and the earth. So, the far side of the moon is fully illuminated, but the near side of the moon is completely dark to us on earth.
A _new moon_ looks like this:
🌞 → 🌗 → 🌎
*Thanks for the amazing videos, Alex!* 👍🏻
But I wasn't necessarily talking about the far side, just the night side :)
@@astrumspace _Oooh,_ I see! 👍🏻 I was _sure_ you knew that, but I guess because people repeat the "dark side" misnomer so often, when I heard you say "night side," my brain immediately picked up on it.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. ✌🏻
Long story short: Both camera and eye adapt to surrounding brightness. If it's high, they don't register stars, that are actually relatively dim.
This really makes me wonder what it'd be like to view the stars while on the moon.
It would be just the same as viewing them in the night sky on Earth, except on the Moon stars are visible in daylight. Just look up at the sky, away from any light source, including the terrain, let your eyes adapt to the black sky and you would see stars. Of course, looking up at the night sky on the Moon would make things simpler, but the stars are still visible in daylight.
We don't see stars on Earth during the day because the sunlight scattered by the atmosphere overwhelms the feeble light from the stars.
it'd be much different than earth. if you go to the dark side of the moon with no light pollution and no atmosphere you'd see many more stars in the sky. it'd be nothing like on earth with an atmosphere, clouds, light pollution etc.
@@y3057 Which is pretty much what I said.
@@MarsFKA i don't think you understand the atmosphere on earth is so incredibly thick compared to the moons it would actually make a lot of a difference if you compared them. i don't know if you're picking that up.
@@y3057 I'm an astronomer and do a lot of astrophotography. I'm pretty sure that I understand how incredibly thick Earth's atmosphere is compared to the Moon's.
Question here on Earth can you see stars during the day ? No , question answered
Beautiful quality video as always
Mike k you haven't even watched it yet
Cus Kubrick forgot to put them in 🤪😉👽
And here I was photoshopping stars In every scifi art I make
Gonna make it pitch black next time :P
Well, depends if you want your art to look as it does from a humans eyes, or if you rather show the wonders that the human eyes limitations cant percieve. Personally, i prefer art that reveals beauty our eyes cannot percieve, makes it more unique, makes it larger than life. The stars are still there, regardless if a person can see them or not.
Do you have an instagram?
I want to see some of your work
Thank you so much for explaining this so clearly
And I am the one person who never even thought about it! In retrospect....why the hell didn't I wonder where the stars were???
Oddly enough, I didn't think about it either.
I've ALWAYS wondered about that. But forget to ask , when I'm at a reliable source. THANKS !!!
That was a great explanation. Thank you.
Fun fact: The realisation that you wouldn't be able to see stars from the lunar surface was predicted by Arthur C. Clarke in a 1954 essay called 'Astronautical Fallacies' which has been republished in his book 'Greetings Carbon-Based Bipeds'!
Thanks for answering that question Alex. I've always wondered about the stars missing too.
next do a video on who was holding the camera as the craft took off from the moon and followed it upwards. did they come back for him? was it a robot? is it still there?
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Remote control from Houston by radio. In 1969, hobbyists were flying airplanes by radio remote control, operating elevators, rudder, ailerons and throttle in real time as their model airplanes zoomed through the sky. The radio equipment cost $150 to $500 and could be mail ordered.
Mark Holm I thought it took minutes to receive radio waves that far away. that camera work is instant when the shuttle or Rover or whatever it was called takes off.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Light travel time from Earth to Moon is about 1.3 seconds one way on average, 2.6 round trip. I have forgotten the name of the man at NASA Johnson who operated the camera, but I read a quote from him. He said getting the launch was tricky. He didn’t get it right the first time, but nailed it on Apollo 17. Try Googling it. The story is on the web somewhere.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight The Apollo Lunar Module consisted of two major subassemblies, the Descent Stage and the Ascent Stage. It’s the Ascent Stage that contained the pressurized cabin and took off to return the astronauts to the orbiting Command and Service modules.
One 7 Decimal 2 Eight Google is your friend. The remote video camera operator was Ed Fendall. He said this about tracking the ascending LM.
“Now, the way that worked was this. Harley Weyer, who worked for me, sat down and figured what the trajectory would be and where the lunar rover would be each second as it moved out, and what your settings would go to. That picture you see was taken without looking at it [the liftoff] at all. There was no watching it and doing anything with that picture. As the crew counted down, that's a [Apollo] 17 picture you see, as [Eugene] Cernan counted down and he knew he had to park in the right place because I was going to kill him, he didn't - and Gene and I are good friends, he'll tell you that - I actually sent the first command at liftoff minus three seconds. And each command was scripted, and all I was doing was looking at a clock, sending commands. I was not looking at the television. I really didn't see it until it was over with and played back. Those were just pre-set commands that were just punched out via time. That's the way it was followed.”
io9.gizmodo.com/how-nasa-captured-this-iconic-footage-of-apollo-17-leav-1671650186
The same website says that on Apollo 15, the camera tilt mechanism did not work properly and on Apollo 16, the rover and camera were parked too close to the LM, making the LM’s apparent trajectory climb faster than the precomputed camera angles.
Interesting. I always thought this was due to light from stars getting diffused in the atmosphere thus increasing their apparent angular size. Real angular size of any distant star is bellow resolution of human eyes, and most cameras as well.
But now that I think of it, it doesn't make sense. Ability to see an object depends on its brightness, not size.
Thank you SO much for this answer! It always bothered me that I did not know a good reason for that effect.
Gr8 answer to a very curious question. Space is infinitely beautiful. Appreciate you videos
How are spaceships able to pass through stars without getting bashed?
Excellent, as always. Thank you!
As with all photography the objects in the distance are not visible.
Apart from the subject, if you take an image of our night sky you end up with a blackened image became the flash light doesn’t reach. It also causes the background to look dark.
Take images with a flash at nighttime and you see the effects.
Blob B Yes guess I was not clear with my comment.
Great video as always but could have put a white stripe behind Curiosity Stream logo at the start to make it look contrasted.
Thankyou
You answered quesion what ive been wondering for years.
Wasn't what I thought the answer was going to be, but very pleasantly surprised!!
You can’t see the stars even back home on Earth during daytime so daytime must be fake
the reason why you can't see stars on daytime is because of the sun the sunlight blocks out the view of stars and galaxies
so your going to have to wait till night to see the stars
The ISS astronauts didn't get the memo, then -- they all said they could see millions of stars despite the sun's glare.
@Trebor
Photos of stars "behind the sun"? lol -- good one.
There are numerous photos of the sunlit side of the Earth with visible stars, if that's what you mean. The photos are easy to find if you know how to use Google.
I'm curious, though -- outside of the Earth's atmosphere, do you think you'd only see blackness and no stars?
@Trebor
"Depends on how bright it is"?? How bright blackness is? You know the answer to that question.
There are many of those photos. To be a research assistant, I would have to charge you a fee. You can find them easily yourself.
@Trebor
Again, astronauts spoke about the millions of stars they saw once they were away from the Earth. The fact that you refuse to search for those interviews and the photos taken yourself is not my problem.
You didn't answer my question -- which I'll make clearer: Do you think you would see only blackness and no stars when looking up from the surface of the moon?
Here's another question: Can you see the Earth from the moon?
And here's another question: What is the reason we cannot see the stars from Earth during the daytime?
And another question: Do you think the Apollo astronauts could have adjusted their cameras to photograph the stars?
And another question: Do you think the Apollo 13 astronauts saw the stars?
@Trebor
You forgot "why can we not see the stars during the daytime?"
@Trebor
What question did you ask me?
I wish more people would be doing research about space and how things work instead of just saying that NASA's fake and that the earth is flat. I wish this message could go far and wide. Thanks for this video!!!
THEY TOOK PICTURE NEPTUNE JUPITER BUT NO STAR?
The same reason you can’t see the stars on earth during day
It's that simple ain't it, but some people need the full explanation cos they're that dumb!!
@@19ARSENAL100 I'm probably dumber ... I didn't even notice there weren't any stars in those photos ...
I share your videos to my friends. 😊
Thank you
Really enjoyed this episode 👍👍
Nice information...u give
Stars are a conspiracy, confirmed.
Woah you got a new sponsor! Nice! :D
You can proove this yourself. When you are in a clear sky full of stars look up at it, and then put a flashlight in front on your eyes, all the stars will disappear.
If you looking at the sun in the space yep but what about on the side that is dark and away from sun. why not there? What about all the nebulosus you see in the sky at night but no in space.
2 kb/s. As long as it's consistent I would switch to Nasa instead of my current provider.
I lived those download speeds in the 80's.
Discovery channel on the other hand - "tHeRe aRe nO sTaRs iN aNy oF tHe mOoN LaNdInG pHoToS so it was shot in Hollywood"😂😂😂
I love it how all the Moon Landing hoaxers say there's no stars in the lunar sky. The landings happened during the lunar day. Tell me, if you go out during the day on Earth, apart from the Sun, how many stars do you see in the sky? Its nothing to do with eyes or camera sensitivity.
Mercury, Venus and sometimes the moon can be seen in daytime in Earth, they are not stars but look like them
Well now we "landed on the dark side of the moon". So what's your excuse now? Same as before? With just as much plotholes as the "conspiracy theorists" you're trying to debunk. How do we know how many of these responses are even genuine? For all we know they could be paid to argue with opposing mindsets, or even be programmed with auto generated responses
"Even Apollo astronauts reported not being able to see any stars"
This is halfway right, and halfway wrong. "Some" of them reported not being able to see stars, while "some" of them reported that they SAW the stars. Beside that, amazing video.
Watch the video again.... he does say that...
You are the best Astrum...
People really ask this question?
You can ask the same question on Earth.
Step 1. Wait until midnight.
Step 2. Shine a flashlight in your eyes.
Step 3. Ask yourself why you can’t see anything.
People are dumb.
Baleur - just Americans
I knew a moon landing denier who clung so hard to this. So one night I asked him to look up at the sky. What did he see? Stars. Then I asked him to stand directly beneath a streetlight and look up. What did he see? Not a single fucking star. People can be so fucking dense sometimes.
That has nothing to do with whether we went to the moon or not.
Checkmate flat earthers and conspiracy theorists!
Research:
1.haarp
2.chemtrails
3.vaccines
4.illuminati
5.dropity
All iam saying is,look into it my globetard friend.
stlkngyomom actually, you're the one who should be looking into those things! Just research a bit more than normal next time around. You'll find that every single one of those things have been debunked and explained before. Good luck I guess.
Flat Earth was a PsyOp used to discredit all the true "conspiracy" theories. Seems like it worked.
sTiLL dOeSn't ExPlein, MigHT bE cGI
@@stlkngyomom 😂😂Whatever turns your screw ,dude !
Long story short, no stars because the images are stitched together.
Cool, you didn't watch the video and instead just jumped straight to making s comment.
Apollo 11 press interview, “Did you see any stars? Armstrong: No, I can’t “recall” seeing any. Collins barges in: I didn’t see any.” He was in orbit around the moon... why didn’t Collins see any stars from the Columbia command module? And how could Armstrong not remember seeing any stars?!
Considering you can see the stars from Earth and were on/near the Moon, where would you be looking?
If you ever go to the Grand Canyon, what will you be looking at. The canyon or the sky?
I didn't know I need this information but it's actually incredibly explained. Thanks!
Homework words for the day. Contrast and albedo.
2kb per second? That's like my AOL dialup internet in 1998. What (for lack of a better word) infrastructure in space would be needed to increase that speed? Some sort of super long range satellite network?
Relays would also help
@@astrumspace They would be placed lagrange points.
At 1:18 you showed a picture w. The sun and the the moons dark side near the craft.
BUT. How would you be able to c the craft when the sun is on the other side and there isn't any other light sources?
Reflection from the lunar surface
*I never even noticed this*
_The More You Know_
That is why when some conspiratard says that Stanley Kubrick made the moon landing videos I tell them there is no way since Kubrick was a perfectionist and he would NOT have missed putting stars in all 6 moon landings. Not only that his 2001 Space Odyssey had LOTS of stars so there is no way he would have left them out.
A lot of people in the comments simply can't understand 😂. They think the dark BG in space means night.
Taking pictures of stars in space is the same as here, you need darkness and longer exposure times, and the results are much better in time lapses with big sensor cameras. Video cameras usually sucks shooting stars. Anyone can try it.
Good luck filming stars while receiving sunlight.
Maybe because it's not real?
Where are all the stars when you are in the city? Must be that city living is fake...
Thays called light pollution man
@@jonahk1588 i know what it is called, it was an illustration that just because you can't see the stars doesn't mean that they're not there. A simple analogy that you apparently couldn't understand.Really disappointing that I would have to explain it to someone.
It's the part about the astronauts not being able see stars with their own eyes except the one astronaut who said in the shade and looking straight up, he could see them. I can't argue the camera exposure point but why not leave a long exposure just once to show the world the stars from the surface of the moon? Why did all the astronauts say they could not see stars but one said that he could. That is not well addressed here. It's smoke if not a smoking gun. Sometimes when an explanation is being given it kind of explains the opposite of what is intended. Are you saying; there is only one astronaut that says that he saw stars from the surface of the moon?
Rewatch the video.
Major_kukri now what?
It takes time for your eyes to adjust to the dark. People underestimate how faint stars really are. Astronauts on the moon would have to stare at the sky for a minute or two and make sure that the ground was not in their field of view. Since they were on a tight schedule, it seems obvious why they didn't see any stars: Nobody thought it was important.
Steven Tedford Have any citation?
1:10 so couldn't they feel from the dark side that has no sunlight?
I mean sunlight is the problem
The night is dark and full of stars!
wOW i DIdn't kNow ThaT!! 👁👄👁
Thanks so much for the information and video. Shabbat Shalom
The day side of the moon killed the stars on the dark side too for the command module. I guess proximity to the moon is very high exposure setting.
That is the Question that I always ask myself why can we see Stars and Constlation more Perfectly than here on Earth. Thank's for the Answer it make Perfect Sense now to me.
True
wow its very happy to hear when we on dark side of the moon we get some incredible photos and details why we not go to dark side. any way another great video thanks
ganeskmr Because on the other side of the moon we wouldn’t be able to get a direct signal back to earth for communication. However, if we had a relay satellite orbiting the moon then that would be more expensive anyway.
@@mortarbackmusic8511 Thank u sir.
Did it.
The sun must be very bright if standing on the bright side of the moon.
Well, all of the moon landings took place at what they called Lunar Dawn. That was on purpose as they did not want to land while the moon was full. Their landings were planned to take place near the moons shadow terminator line. Not exactly on it but close enough so that the full reflection of the Sun would not be a problem.
NebTheWeb A big reason for choosing lunar morning rather than high noon is shadows. Just as on Earth, high noon lighting produces few if any shadows from rocks, hills, valleys and craters. Both for the sake of the pilot trying not to land in a crater or on top of a boulder, and for the sake of photography once they had landed, moderate length shadows were optimum.
@@markholm7050 I think it had more to do with the temperatures. www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/this-is-our-planet-awesome-iss-time-lapse-will-blow-your-mind/
PRIZM CMYK ...yes, and it is compounded by the fact that lunar soil is somewhat reflective...
I got a question. Ok - so you can't see stars in space because of background light and high albedo's of the surroundings. When the command module was on the back side of the moon and the lunar albedo dropped to zero and cabin lights momentarily extinguished - were they then visible? -
Yes and several Apollo astronauts have commented on this.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth TY - I hadn't come across any comments on this.
Thank you Alex!!
Thank you, always asked myself this question
HOW MANY PEOPLE BEEN TO SPACE?
I just want to know why no film footage of the star-field while on the dark side orbit. Ideal opportunity for a spectacular shot.
1/30th of a second exposure time, PER FRAME, for one. Digital could be config'd for what you ask, but someone has to get approved, get funds, setup the mission, get the gear, etc.
@@htos1av : No one from Apollo missions mentions stars seen on dark side.
@@rogerscottcathey If they looked out the windows away from the moon, no doubt they would see stars. But what's the big deal. If they didn't see any stars, that would be something worth reporting. When you go for a trip, do you tell people you saw trees or cars on the way. No (unless it was something unusual). Remember, they were more interested in doing their mission tasks, and probably looking at the moon or Earth every chance they got. Their view of the stars would have been no different than viewing the stars from a dark sky site on Earth anyway. And we had some pretty good optical telescopes available back then for star and galaxy observations, certainly better than anything the Apollo missions carried.
@@daveg2104 : So you think seeing a brilliant, unobstructed star-field from the far side of the moon is nothing to write home about hunh? Not even worth mentioning hunh?
Collins remarked never having seen star-light the entire time.
Youre rationalising about something that has a scientific explanation having to do with how atmosphere affects star-light frequency. Reducing it into the range visible to the naked eye.
@@rogerscottcathey First things, these were missions partly about beating the Russians (politics, huh), proving technology, and also examining the Moon, and to an extent, the Earth. Trying to observe the stars from the daylight surface of the moon is a pretty pointless exercise, and nothing particularly remarkable from the spacecraft when using Mark 1 eyeballs looking through windows. So, you have never been to a truly dark sky location then. Try to do it a least once, preferably in the Southern Hemisphere if you can. I have, a very remote location in north western Australia. Being a city boy, it was amazing. I felt like I had to duck my head with this "thing" (the Milky Way) hanging in the sky over me. The Apollo astronauts wouldn't have seen anything that much better than that. How would the conversation have gone - Mission Control, we turned off the lights in the capsule, and we are getting a really great view of the stars. Mission Control to Apollo Capsule - that's nice. If I was up there, I wouldn't be wasting too much time looking at the stars, that's for sure. On the last Apollo mission, they had some better equipment, and took observations in UV (and I think IR), you can look it up if you want. Now that is something that is more difficult to do on Earth, so it makes sense to try it on the moon.
I knew this in fourth grade when Apollo 11 landed. I was already a ham radio buff, had some exposure to pro photography as well when we implored about the kick ass Hasselblads the astronauts wore.
Came here after the discovery plus ad, that there were no stars in the photos so no one went to the moon. Got it
2kb/s at the furthest distances? not bad! thats almost a 2400 baud modem which was top speed on land 30+ years ago. You could download doom2 in 1 night. Id roam around space with that kind of internet sure.
mike jones Bring back memories! 1994 bandwidth tech.
@@elissitdesign I got my first cable modem in 1995, a real military General Instruments "Surfboard". Sold to Motorola, then Arris. My town was in the first five cities to have cable internet rolled out(hint: world famous military bases here, well before WWI)
Sad that it's such a short video.
did we forget the moon is a hologram
Then how do lasers and radar bounce off of it?
What a stupid question! It is notorious stars want their privacy and avoid being shot by fans unless they are really fancy stars! 😁😎🤣🤣🤣
makes sense. that's why they only come out at night and even then you don't see them much in populated areas.
Ur answer is stupid lmao
How many moons in our solar system have verifiable atmospheres?
I think it is just two. Saturn's Titan and Neptune's Triton. Possibly Jupiter's IO.
@@swinde Titan is WAY, WAY cool! you can shoot down arguments about oil with it: What types of sub-zero dinosaurs created all the methane, and hydrocarbon lakes, seas, and rain on Titan? OR, is oil abiotic throughout the solar system?
Titan's atmosphere has almost the same pressure at ground level as Earth, and the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen like the Earth. It is just really cold there. Hydrocarbon can be from life or other natural processes.
We really don't know much about this, for instance there may be conditions conducive to life at some level in Venus' atmosphere or even Jupiter. The best bets are always in areas where liquid water is present. Europa, Enceladus, or other moons with subsurface oceans or maybe even Mars.
The funny thing about this video.. is the flag on the moon waving like there is wind in space🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂
U see stars at earth :D
Moon:mother where did my friends go?
keep up the good work pal .....i appreciate Science more
So if you stood in the shadow of the lunar module and looked/took pictures upward, or even just turned your back to the sun (out of the sun's glare), you'd see everything the universe had to offer? The astronaut Micheal Collins (Apollo 11) said he doesn't remember seeing any stars....but he stayed in the orbiter the whole time....that's all he would have seen, just by staring away from the moon.