The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

Am I doing something wrong? Do my search skills need some refining?
Or is the Sun just too boring from orbit?

"images of the sun from the iss"
"images of the sun from the international space station"
"photos of the sun from the iss"
"photos of the sun from the international space station"
"photographs of the sun from the iss"
"photographs of the sun from the international space station"
"videos of the sun from the iss"
"videos of the sun from the international space station"

"images of the sun from the space shuttle"
"photos of the sun from the space shuttle"
"photographs of the sun from the space shuttle"
"videos of the sun from the space shuttle"

Your search - "xxx of the sun from the xxx" - did not match any documents.

[davesmith_au]

Gary, when you put your search terms between quotes ("search terms") it forces the search to look for the exact, complete phrase. Thus in the example I just gave, it would bring up the phrase 'search terms' but neither 'search' or 'terms' will be returned on their own. Try you searches without the quotation marks, and you'll have much more success. You'll also have much more rubbish you didn't want...

Cheers, Dave.

[Shrike]

Use '+' sign between the words like this: images + of + the + sun + from + the + iss

[Lloyd]

* A search for [ images + of + the + sun + from + the + iss ] would find every website that has all of those words, regardless of position or order in the text.
* Gary, if you want images, go to Google Images and do a search for [ sun iss ] or [ solar iss ] or [ sun soho ] or [ solar soho ] etc. The more words in your Google Images search, the more images that will relate to just one or two of those words.
* The word [ solar ] will get a lot more solar phenomena, than will the word [ sun ].
* You could also search for [ stars iss] etc.

[GaryN]

@davesmith_au

You'll also have much more rubbish you didn't want...

That was the whole idea of an exact search, to eliminate everything but those words. I can always
'loosen up' the search, but even one extra word can result in a flood of irrelevancies. I find it hard to
believe though that none of those exact phrases has ever been used somewhere on the net
over many years.
"images of the sun from apollo"
Ah! A hit! For all you moon hoax folk, a forum with 'legs'.
http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/to ... __st__1220

[Sparky]

I have a terrible time tying to find something with a search...usually have the wrong term/word..

you might try this :

The hyphen - is sometimes used as a signal that the two words around it are very strongly connected. (Unless there is no space after the - and a space before it, in which case it is a negative sign.)

[GaryN]

Lots of images for sunrise from the ISS or shuttle, but no images of a well defined
Sun, with spots, through a solar filter. Seems like they need the atmosphere to
get an image.
Thought this an interesting shot:
Dark Sky, Bright Sun

Larger image:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1879 ... s_full.jpg
From:
http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev. ... N=201.html
And from Earth:
Fuji FinePix HS10 with ND4 solar filter; 720mm (35mm equiv.), ISO 100, f/11, 1/1000s (freehand shot)
http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/2011/ ... nSpots.jpg
Surely NASA could manage something like that from the ISS?

[12ankita34]

Am I doing something wrong? Do my search skills need some refining?
Or is the Sun just too boring from orbit?

"images of the sun from the iss"
"images of the sun from the international space station"
"photos of the sun from the iss"
"photos of the sun from the international space station"
"photographs of the sun from the iss"
"photographs of the sun from the international space station"
"videos of the sun from the iss"
"videos of the sun from the international space station"

"images of the sun from the space shuttle"
"photos of the sun from the space shuttle"
"photographs of the sun from the space shuttle"
"videos of the sun from the space shuttle"

Your search - "xxx of the sun from the xxx" - did not match any documents.

I don't understand the purpose of your post.Can you explain it please.

[GaryN]

I don't understand the purpose of your post.Can you explain it please.

Well, this is the NIAMI section, which means New Insights and Mad Ideas, and
I have lots of mad ideas! With this one, I just wondered why there were no
images of the Sun taken from orbiting spacecraft, or rather none that show
the Sun looking anything like we see it from the Earth. Which leads me to
believe that in space, it doesn't look anything like it does from Earth.
It should be very easy to prove me wrong, but until NASA has time to spare
to take a picture, I'll remain doubtful. Does that explain my post?

[nick c]

Hi GaryN,

I have lots of mad ideas!

There are probably different levels of madness!

The fact that we can see celestial objects, the Moon for example, that are reflecting the light of the Sun demonstrates that the Sun must be visible! If not what are they reflecting?
You cannot just point a camera at the Sun and come up with photos of sunspots, granules, flares, etc. Any cameras that can capture such details of the Sun have to be specially designed for the purpose. The Sun as a subject places certain demands on the camera design that render it pretty much useless for any other task. Conversely, any camera on a spacecraft that is not designed to be used for solar observation is not going to reveal much of scientific value if it is pointed at the Sun.
Fortunately, there are spacecraft that are designed for this purpose and they have captured some fantastic images of the Sun in many different wavelengths.
Orbiting Solar Observatory Program
SOHO
Solar Dynamics Observatory
STEREO



Nick

[GaryN]

Hi Nick,

The fact that we can see celestial objects, the Moon for example, that are reflecting the light of the Sun demonstrates that the Sun must be visible! If not what are they reflecting?

High energy X-rays from the Sun cause lower energy x-rays to be produced above the Moons
surface. Those X-rays are then down-shifted again in our ionosphere by collision with electrons,
to produce the moonlight we see at the surface. The Moon would be almost invisible
otherwise, with its weathered asphalt reflectivity. Believe it, or not.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960227.html
(take no notice of the neutron star bit)

You cannot just point a camera at the Sun and come up with photos of sunspots, granules, flares, etc. Any cameras that can capture such details of the Sun have to be specially designed for the purpose.

Fuji FinePix HS10 with ND4 solar filter; 720mm (35mm equiv.), ISO 100, f/11, 1/1000s (freehand shot)
http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/2011/ ... nSpots.jpg
What is different about the light in space that this will not work?

Orbiting Solar Observatory Program
SOHO
Solar Dynamics Observatory
STEREO

Yes, these are very specialised instruments that show us what we can not see
by eye, or with a camera with regular optics. Have you studied the optics of
these devices? I just tracked down an old friend, who designs optics, and a
whole lot of other very advanced systems for the defense industry, and I am
going to see if he can obtain a detailed description of the Dawn mission framing
camera optics. I'm pretty sure I have it figured, but unless it is classified info,
I'd like verification. Very, very clever stuff. The key words will be 'incident plane
waves'.

There are probably different levels of madness!

I always strive to be the best at whatever I do.

[fosborn_]

High energy X-rays from the Sun cause lower energy x-rays to be produced above the Moons
surface. Those X-rays are then down-shifted again in our ionosphere by collision with electrons,
to produce the moonlight we see at the surface.

I wonder how powerful would those reflected X rays have to be to accomplish this ? Has there ever been an actual measurement of the moons reflected X rays entering our atmosphere ?


I was thinking I would rather trust the human eye over a camera trying to see like human eyes. Over at BAUT I got some cool links.;
This is transcripts from the flight journal. Also this has some serious comments for electrical activity on the moon, (after watching DT's Planetary Scarring DVD. IMO). These transcripts were like a book I couldn't put down.

The back side of the moon is in earthshine for these comments;
http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day4-pt13.htm

077:27:54 Young: Boy, this Moon is lit up like a Christmas tree on the dark side. I don't see any lights, but I mean it is well illuminated from the Earth.

PAO: That's John Young.

077:28:08 Duke: That's very descriptive, John.

077:28:10 Young: I'm a little behind these other guys; they make...

077:28:26 Duke: Apollo 10, Houston. John, say again all about the Christmas tree. Over.

077:28:37 Young: I said I don't mean lit with lights, but it sure is brightly illuminated compared with Earth. I am a little behind these other two guys. They make me mind the DSKY.

I was wondering if earth light can light up the moon that well, it must be pretty a pretty reflective surface, at lest to human eyes.
I might keep reading other flights and look for descriptions of the sun too.

Thanks
Frank
(reason for edit; I misspelled David T's initials, big dope that I am. )
If this is too off topic, for your thread, maybe a mod could break this off to another thread.

[nick c]

High energy X-rays from the Sun cause lower energy x-rays to be produced above the Moons
surface. Those X-rays are then down-shifted again in our ionosphere by collision with electrons,
to produce the moonlight we see at the surface. The Moon would be almost invisible
otherwise, with its weathered asphalt reflectivity. Believe it, or not.

A much simpler explanation for why we can see the Moon...the Moon is a large object close to the Earth, light from the Sun hits the surface and a portion of that light is reflected toward the Earth where it is perceived by observers. The fact that we can see the Moon by reflected sunlight is indirect but convincing evidence that the Sun can be seen from the Moon. An observer on the illuminated (day) side of the Moon could see the Sun, else we would not be able to see the Moon from Earth.

Fuji FinePix HS10 with ND4 solar filter; 720mm (35mm equiv.), ISO 100, f/11, 1/1000s (freehand shot)

That proves my point....I wrote:

The Sun as a subject places certain demands on the camera design that render it pretty much useless for any other task. Conversely, any camera on a spacecraft that is not designed to be used for solar observation is not going to reveal much of scientific value if it is pointed at the Sun

The set up you described is designed for solar photography, that is why it has a "ND4 solar filter."


A NASA photo of the Sun from space with a camera not designed for solar photography, no detail can be seen on the Sun because it is overexposed:

0124-0610-2618-0055_setting_sun_and_earths_horizon_from_space_s.jpg (19.71 KiB) Viewed 92431 times

" ISS013-E-77965 (5 Sept. 2006) --- A setting sun and Earth's horizon are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 13 crewmember on the International Space Station."
http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_ ... -0055.html


Here are a wide assortment of images of the Sun taken from spacecraft:
http://www.google.com/search?q=images+o ... 46&bih=596

Nick

[GaryN]

We really seem to have a problem communicating, don't we Nick? I assure you
though that I never intend to be facetious, I really am serious in my beliefs,
and if I have to inhabit the realms of the underworld in order to try and put
these ideas across, so be it.

The set up you described is designed for solar photography, that is why it has a "ND4 solar filter."

I realise that Nick. If I took that same camera up to the ISS, with its filter, and out on
an EVA, could I take the same image as I could do from Earth? If not, why not?

Here are a wide assortment of images of the Sun taken from spacecraft:

All the images taken with a regular camera have the Sun close to the Earths horizon,
well within the range of the ionosphere. All the images that show a
full Sun, with flares etc, are from craft which have gratings in their optics path,
and use CCDs which can 'see' things the eye never could. They are computer processed
eye candy, as are nearly all astronomical images nowadays.

This image is a graphic, according to the description, but there do appear to be 3 stars
visible in there. I'll E-Mail and ask about that one.

No source credited here. I'll bet this is an artists impression, as there is nothing
else like it. I looked through pages of those images, not impressed.

Hi Frank,

I wonder how powerful would those reflected X rays have to be to accomplish this ? Has there ever been an actual measurement of the moons reflected X rays entering our atmosphere ?

Good question. I haven't looked into it, maybe someone at BAUT is knowledgeable?
The Earthshine is interesting, isn't it? In many of the color images from
Apollo, I noticed in successive images, which you wouldn't think were too
far apart time wise, the color of the ground can change quite dramatically. I
wouldn't think those were processing variations, if they were processed
before being cut from the spool, but maybe they were adjusting the f-stops
between shots?

077:27:54 Young: Boy, this Moon is lit up like a Christmas tree on the dark side.
I don't see any lights, but I mean it is well illuminated from the Earth.

Many of the astronauts said that it was so black out there, a darkness that
enveloped everything, that I would think the Earthshine would be quite
bright to their struggling eyes. The inconsistency of reports from different
astronauts about the conditions has to make me wonder about our not just our
eyesight, but how our brains interpret what the eye detects. One astronaut,
when asked about it said "You see what you expect to see". How do we figure
consciousness into all this?
I have looked through a lot of the Apollo images, and of those from the
orbiter, this seems to be the most consistent, color-wise. Is this the true
color of the surface, or does Earthshine have a big impact on what we see?

[fosborn_]

I wrote; I wonder how powerful would those reflected X rays have to be to accomplish this ? Has there ever been an actual measurement of the moons reflected X rays entering our atmosphere ?

by GaryN » wrote;
Good question. I haven't looked into it, maybe someone at BAUT is knowledgeable?

Good idea, I'll have to ask that Solon dude .
Anyway its your belief, thought you would do some look up. If your really not that interested, its no problem.
I'm starting to think you come up with this stuff because you enjoy the journey more than the outcome.

GaryN » wrote; I
wouldn't think those were processing variations, if they were processed
before being cut from the spool, but maybe they were adjusting the f-stops
between shots?

I think we are talking past each other. ( I'm not that original, I ape a lot of social interactions. ).
My emphasis was eye witness human account over tech. So I did my homework. And got interesting results.

077:27:54 Young: Boy, this Moon is lit up like a Christmas tree on the dark side.
I don't see any lights, but I mean it is well illuminated from the Earth.

GaryN »The inconsistency of reports from different
astronauts about the conditions has to make me wonder about our not just our
eyesight, but how our brains interpret what the eye detects. One astronaut,
when asked about it said "You see what you expect to see". How do we figure
consciousness into all this?

Ok, all I have to say is I did my homework, and you have an opinion. Ok.
I like the flight recordings because its their first impression before they have time for their brains to rewrite what they saw. They gave the conditions under which they made the observations.
But again if your really not that interested in this offshoot of your OP, no big deal.

Is this the true
color of the surface, or does Earthshine have a big impact on what we see?

Sorry, I'm not sure what your asking. Sounds like your an apple and I'm an orange.