The Moon.

[tobermoryphil]

Hmmm...I suspect there is more to it than just an innocent fib.

You see, when the earth rotates so the sun is behind us, the sky above us goes dark.

This is because our arc of vision restricts actually seeing the sun on the other side because light travels in straight lines, not curves.

Therefore it follows that because the light from the sun continues to stream past the earth (as the earth is a mere minor obstacle in its path) it illuminates the stars....

The stars are in the heavens all the time...we cannot see them in daylight because of the sun's presence and glare...but when the glare is removed...they become visible.

That far is obvious.

Here is a curiosity...

When Patrick Moore interviewed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin after their moon landing he asked them if when on the moon (or indeed on the way there) they could see the stars.

Their reaction to this question was very peculiar.

They looked shocked and were lost for words. They looked at each other with what appeared to be embarrassment...but declined to give an answer one way or another.

What do readers make of this?

Since when has the sun (our nearest star) illuminated the stars? are you confusing them with planets?

 

[electrosys]

Since when has the sun (our nearest star) illuminated the stars? are you confusing them with planets?

I'm so pleased that someone else (and not me) raised that point - for after some overnight thought, VO5 is quite correct: our sun does illuminate the stars - just as they illuminate us.

Let's take 2 scenarios:

Scenario 1: on a very still, moonless night, light a candle. It will be visible for what, half a mile, a mile ? But in the morning, when the sun rises, it will become invisible. An example, I suggest, of one very bright light 'swamping' a much less powerful light, and rendering it invisible to the naked eye.

Scenario 2: at night, when we are in the shadow of the Earth caused by the Sun, we are able to see masses of far-distant self-illuminating stars, as well as a few planets and the moon which reflect sunlight back to us. During daylight we are denied such distant visions because of light from the sun being 'back-scattered' to us by our own atmosphere, a process which causes the light we see (as the sky) to usually be that of a light blue, or very occasionally a patchy red.

However, should a person leave the Earth's atmosphere and enter space, they would no longer be exposed to this diurnal 'back-scattering' of light, and thus the heavens should all become constantly visible - but at the same time, the light from the Earth's Sun would be a significantly more powerful emitter of light than any other heavenly body. Does the Sun swamp-out other, much weaker sources of light, in such a situation ? (i.e. is it necessary to be in the shadow of the Earth, or that of another heavenly body, in order to see far-off pin-points of light ?)

We may know the answer to that now (although I'll openly admit that I don't), but at the time Patrick Moore asked this seemingly simple question, it was a real riddle - which is, of course, the reason behind him asking it. If the story is indeed true, then the inability of the astronauts to address that question is very telling, for only they would have known the answer at that time.

 

[barnaclephill]

Scenario 2: at night, when we are in the shadow of the Earth caused by the Sun, we are able to see masses of far-distant self-illuminating stars, as well as a few planets and the moon which reflect sunlight back to us. During daylight we are denied such distant visions because of light from the sun being 'back-scattered' to us by our own atmosphere, a process which causes the light we see (as the sky) to usually be that of a light blue, or very occasionally a patchy red.

However, should a person leave the Earth's shadow and enter space, they would no longer be exposed to the diurnal 'back-scattering' of light, and thus the heavens should all become constantly visible - but at the same time, the light from the Earth's Sun would be a significantly more powerful emitter of light than any other heavenly body. Does the Sun swamp-out other, much weaker sources of light, in such a situation ?

We may know the answer to that now (although I'll openly admit that I don't), but at the time Patrick Moore asked this seemingly simple question, it was a real riddle - which is, of course, the reason behind him asking it. If the story is indeed true, then the inability of the astronauts to address that question is very telling, for only they would have known the answer at that time.

Quote: V05 "The stars are in the heavens all the time...we cannot see them in daylight because of the sun's presence and glare...but when the glare is removed...they become visible.

That far is obvious." Unquote.

The moon is rotates on its axis at about the same number of days as the lunar cycle, so it always presents the same face to us, but, as from above like in a diagram, it is rotating. Apparently because of some small anomalies to that cycle people/astronomers have seen about 60% of the surface, and only the satellites/astronauts have given us a picture of the other side.

I agree with Electrosys' explanation, but add to paragraph one that sometime (1054 AD? 16xx AD?) there was a supernova explostion which could be seen in daylight for 10 days or so, and was so unusual that it was recorded in history. I've read it recently, probably in Ussher's "Annals of the World" published in 1585???. Revised in 2002?? Somewhere recently.
I have too seen once Venus in the afternoon sky together with the sun, for about half an hour before sunset, about 5 years ago. My point being that the atmosphere scatters the light, filtering out blue wavelengths when overhead and red when at a shallow angle.

In Electrosys' paragraph 2, I disagree with the Earth's shadow, but say that it's leaving the Earth's atmosphere, for the atmosphere does the blue filtering/backscattering not a shadow. This has the benefit for us that the sun is not so stark, but that it's effect is spread on the surface of the Earth, enabling plants to grow in shadowy valleys, etc. They get some light. Without this scattering, the sun would be like a bright arc light, so very stark.

I liken it to being on a dark road and seeing a car's headlights. You don't see other lights because of the overpowering nature of the starkness and brightness, but if you put you hand over the sight, then you can begin to see the other lateral lights (stars/surroundings, etc). Because of this starkness because of being out from the filtering of the atmosphere, the astronauts had a mirrored face shield, like fighter pilots as they get high into the upper atmosphere with less filtering & backscatter.

The inabilty to answer a question which they would have experienced, is a big mystery though.

 

[Moonshining]

An Earth day is 24 hours. A Lunar day is about 28 days (i.e. it spins on its axis once every time it orbits the Earth).

Now, to see clearly what you were doing whilst on the moon you would need sunlight. And, in order for radio signals to go back and forth easily between the astronauts and mission control, you would need to land on the side facing the Earth. (There weren't lots of satellites back then that you could use to bounce signals back to Earth).

So, I'm guessing the whole duration of their time on the moon was during lunar daylight. I'm not sure exactly how long they were on the surface, but it was only only a couple of days, wasn't it? Therefore, (unless they happened to experience an eclipse of the Earth) they would not have seen the stars for the same reason that you don't see them during the day on Earth.

They would have seen them whilst in orbit round the Earth and when in orbit round the moon (on its dark side).

I guess they just hadn't adjusted their minds from an Earth day (where you see stars every 12 hours) to a Lunar day where you have to wait 14 days.

Or am I totally wrong?

There's no atmosphere on the moon to scatter sunlight and make the sky bright, so my guess is that you'd see the stars all the time. Having said that, the astronauts' visors would probably be heavily tinted to protect their eyes, so that may have made them less visible

 

[DaveS]

Some interesting points made. My understanding is that, once clear of the atmosphere, the sky is black with all stars visible. Obviously in the direction of the sun stars can only be seen by shielding out the sun. Indeed, ISTR that determining the correct positioning of the Apollo vehicles for initiating burns was done by astral navigation. So it's hard to see why the issue of star visibility during the flight should cause any confusion.

I didn't see the Patrick Moor interview, but is it possible that the confusion was caused by the framing of the question? Perhaps phraseology with different meanings on opposite sides of the Atlantic, or even simple failure to understand exactly what had been said? Does anyone know if a link to a recording is available?

Edit: I take the point about visor shielding. Nowadays I would guess that something like an automatic welding mask would be used, but I don't think that technology was available in the 1960s. However, they must have had some means of varying the shielding since a dark enough screen to look safely at the sun is much too dark for looking anywhere else.

 

[VO5]

Quote: V05 "The stars are in the heavens all the time...we cannot see them in daylight because of the sun's presence and glare...but when the glare is removed...they become visible.

That far is obvious." Unquote.

The moon is rotates on its axis at about the same number of days as the lunar cycle, so it always presents the same face to us, but, as from above like in a diagram, it is rotating. Apparently because of some small anomalies to that cycle people/astronomers have seen about 60% of the surface, and only the satellites/astronauts have given us a picture of the other side.

I agree with Electrosys' explanation, but add to paragraph one that sometime (1054 AD? 16xx AD?) there was a supernova explostion which could be seen in daylight for 10 days or so, and was so unusual that it was recorded in history. I've read it recently, probably in Ussher's "Annals of the World" published in 1585???. Revised in 2002?? Somewhere recently.
I have too seen once Venus in the afternoon sky together with the sun, for about half an hour before sunset, about 5 years ago. My point being that the atmosphere scatters the light, filtering out blue wavelengths when overhead and red when at a shallow angle.

In Electrosys' paragraph 2, I disagree with the Earth's shadow, but say that it's leaving the Earth's atmosphere, for the atmosphere does the blue filtering/backscattering not a shadow. This has the benefit for us that the sun is not so stark, but that it's effect is spread on the surface of the Earth, enabling plants to grow in shadowy valleys, etc. They get some light. Without this scattering, the sun would be like a bright arc light, so very stark.

I liken it to being on a dark road and seeing a car's headlights. You don't see other lights because of the overpowering nature of the starkness and brightness, but if you put you hand over the sight, then you can begin to see the other lateral lights (stars/surroundings, etc). Because of this starkness because of being out from the filtering of the atmosphere, the astronauts had a mirrored face shield, like fighter pilots as they get high into the upper atmosphere with less filtering & backscatter.

The inabilty to answer a question which they would have experienced, is a big mystery though.

Exactly !

Who would be able to resist the temptation (just out of curiosity) not to look out of the porthole to see and experience what the sky looks like from outer space ?

Who would land on the moon and not look at the moon's horizon and be able to report what is visible above it ?

Why were both astronauts so visibly uncomfortable and reluctant to answer Patrick Moore's "idle, throwaway question" when he posed it on TV ?

For those of you latecomers to this thread, the question Patrick Moore asked in his televised interview was "Whilst you were on the mooon.... (could you)...did you see the stars ?"

 

[Conachair]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examin...raphs#There_are_no_stars_in_any_of_the_photos




And Elvis is dead as well.

 

[wklein]

Not sure if this is the interview your talking about, but fascinating none the less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o&feature=related

 

[DaveS]

Not sure if this is the interview your talking about, but fascinating none the less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o&feature=related

Excellent link, thanks very much. Patrick Moor interviewing Neil Armstrong in 1970, presumably the interview referred to earlier - I can't think there would have been many. I couldn't see any evidence of hesitation or uncertainty at all. The sky was black. While in sunlight, the stars could not be seen, nor the sun's corona. While orbiting in the moon's shadow they could. The discussion on ground and dust colour was interesting, also the difficulty of correct distance perception.

As an entirely weird side issue, the U Tube clip has a series of related clips claiming that Neil Armstrong converted to Islam after hearing strange noises during the flight later identified as the call to prayer... (Neil Armstrong flatly denies all of this.) This lot make the moon landing deniers appear as bastions of common sense. I didn't look at many of the clips, but their creators appear to have little understanding of the mechanics of space flight, and helpfully illustrated their nonsense with a picture of a Space Shuttle.

 

[wklein]

I agree completely, i watched quite a few of the side video's and they are completely nuts. There must be far more compelling conspiracy theories which have not been categorically denied by the only person who would know. Its like having a video on UFO's when the guy who was abducted claims nothing unusual happened.

 

[VO5]

Not sure if this is the interview your talking about, but fascinating none the less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o&feature=related

No. It was an early "The Sky at Night" programme in which both astronauts were interviwed together by Patrick Moore. What made it remarkable was the perplexity of both intervieweees, who were lost for words when challenged.

 

[Conachair]

No. It was an early "The Sky at Night" programme in which both astronauts were interviwed together by Patrick Moore. What made it remarkable was the perplexity of both intervieweees, who were lost for words when challenged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

From some conspiricy nutter.

Perplexed and lost for words?? Remarkable?

Where did you get that from?

 

[DaveS]

That's not from a Sky at Night episode, it looks more like a NASA press conference and with all three astronauts. Patrick Moore's question does appear to cause hesitation, but the thing is edited: video stopped and with comment inserted by the deniers to support their case, so it's hard to form an impression of what really happened. A clean, unedited, copy would be helpful.

 

[VO5]

I have a friend in Washington who went to school with Neil Armstrong.
They went their separate ways. Neil went to the Annapolis Naval Academy
(all the astronauts came from the military) and my friend did something different. Despite gentle prodding, the stars riddle has never been clarified to my friend either, being the recipient of what is interpreted as evasive, unclear answers.

 

[webcraft]

.
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

- W

 

[VO5]

Here is another fact that deepens the riddle...
The Lunar Module made an orbit round the moon before landing...
It orbited and passed the dark side.
If we replicate what happens on earth at night, then the stars should be visible from the dark side.
The moon is one quarter the size of the earth.
This means the horizon is much shorter, smaller.
Then because the moon does not have civil, nautical and astronomical twilight, because it does not revolve, therefore the contrast between light and dark must be more defined than on earth, which revolves.
Yet....

 

[dt4134]

Then because the moon does not have civil, nautical and astronomical twilight, because it does not revolve, therefore the contrast between light and dark must be more defined than on earth, which revolves.
Yet....

Is that what causes it?

And to think I believed the conspiracy that it was caused by the atmosphere.

 

[boatmike]

Is that what causes it?

And to think I believed the conspiracy that it was caused by the atmosphere.

You are all wrong. The moon as Wallace and Grommet will tell you is made up entirely of Wensleydale cheese. The cheese is on our side so that it can be reached easily. On the other side it is cold and dark all the time and there is absolutely no point at all in going there because there is no cheese. And it's not silver or grey its yellow. The darker bits are where you have to scrape the mould off before eating it.

Now please stop all this scientific nonsense and get the garibaldi biscuits out.

 

[Moonshining]

Here is another fact that deepens the riddle...
The Lunar Module made an orbit round the moon before landing...
It orbited and passed the dark side.
If we replicate what happens on earth at night, then the stars should be visible from the dark side.
The moon is one quarter the size of the earth.
This means the horizon is much shorter, smaller.
Then because the moon does not have civil, nautical and astronomical twilight, because it does not revolve, therefore the contrast between light and dark must be more defined than on earth, which revolves.
Yet....

Can I step in and say that you've now made three absolute howlers in this thread.

1. You had to ask whether the moon revolves or not.
2. You think the stars are illuminated by the sun
3. You think that twilight is somehow caused by the revolution of the earth rather than through atmospheric scattering of light.

You seem to know nothing at all about the subject, yet feel qualified to blather on about conspiracy theories about whether NASA sent men to the moon.

I'd call it a day now if I were you and stick to sailing.

 

[Angele]

Then because the moon does not have civil, nautical and astronomical twilight, because it does not revolve, therefore the contrast between light and dark must be more defined than on earth, which revolves.
Yet....

Erm, as stated at least twice above, the moon does rotate about its axis. It happens that the period of that rotation is the same as the time it takes to orbit the Earth, so we always see the same side. But, all parts of the moon (except, possibly, the poles) experience "night" and "day".