You can't see the stars in the middle of the day. Why is this such a confusing idea?
Join Team FranLab!!!! Become a patron and help support my YouTube Channel on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/frantone
#franlab #frantone #NASA
- Music by Fran Blanche -
Fran on Twitter - https://twitter.com/contourcorsets
Fran's Science Blog - http://www.frantone.com/designwritings/design_writings.html
FranArt Website - http://www.contourcorsets.com
Join Team FranLab!!!! Become a patron and help support my YouTube Channel on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/frantone
#franlab #frantone #NASA
- Music by Fran Blanche -
Fran on Twitter - https://twitter.com/contourcorsets
Fran's Science Blog - http://www.frantone.com/designwritings/design_writings.html
FranArt Website - http://www.contourcorsets.com
I thought they specifically set up the moon to block any signals from the dark side because that's where Pink Floyd has their lunar station, and they don't want anyone to know. (There were hints of this in a disc issued around 1972.)
It frustrates me no end to realise that so many people have no concept of “how things work”. Do people not look up at the night sky from a brightly lit city, and from the countryside at night, and during the day in either location and see the difference?
School, education, teachers.
I might be missing one, pare n t or something?
My mistake, maybe the parents didn't go to school.
For the same reason you can't see stars when standing under a street lamp
Thanks, Fran; your explanation is great (although the day/night idea seems unnecessary). When I take a photo of the moon on a clear night, I set the exposure for what is essentially sun on sand. Very few (if any?) properly exposed photos of the moon show stars in the background, because, as Fran says, the dynamic range of brightness between stars and sunlit sand (or a white-painted spacecraft) is so extreme. The film or digital sensor just doesn't capture it. If you expose for the stars, the moon becomes a featureless white disc. Can't have both without some very HDR processing. Generally, mission documentation cameras aren't set for HDR because the multiple exposure HDR scheme produces offsets and parallax distortions.
Oh Fran……everyone knows some Germans escaped WWII by going to the Dark Side of the Moon and then hiring Udo Kier . Pink Floyd even chronicled the event in their same titled album….hellOo…._On the Run_ anybody? Us and Them?
Carl Sagan as a child;
"Wow, look at all those stars, there must be hundreds of them "!
When you go away from city lights and the moon is not illuminating the atmosphere , you get a beautiful view of the milky way.
There is no dark side of the moon really.
Matter of fact it's all dark..
Hi, Fran, good video–sad that it's even necessary, however.
I do have one question: While I think I know what you mean when you say "a trillion times dimmer", it's hard to quantify. If a light becomes 100% dimmer, it is off. Zero light. So how can something be many times more dim than off? Yet I understand what you mean–that sunlight is a trillion times brighter than starlight. But that does not seem to work for dimmer . Is English broken? Or is it Math?
I saw one comment that mentioned dynamic range. It would be interesting to compare the differences between challenges with cameras to what we could see. Would an astronaut be able to see stars? It’s pretty easy to demonstrate that correctly exposed images at dusk have a real problem with seeing any stars at all. But we see them easily. How to quantify that, I guess, relies on believing the math. Maybe a bridge too far for some?
Fakespace overdrive engaged !!!!
Thank you for the astronomy refresher course, Fran!
There are many misunderstanding about lights. I remember being on the eifeltower at night and seeing someome filming Paris by night, trying to illumunate the city and its streets with the lamp on his camera.