Is there a photo of the sun taken from the moon? ( conspiracy )

submitted by WhyNoDonuts

Every now and then an astronaut space walk photo includes the sun (an apollo16 photo comes to mind). I thought that what we see on earth is filtered by the atmosphere, and that refraction explains why it is so yellow and the sky so blue. I can see how a spacewalk in the upper atmosphere might still have this effect,, but how about when you're on the moon? Would the sun still be "sunny"" as we know it? What about the invisible radiation, is it converted to light somehow? Is there a moon photo that includes the sun?

I'm asking here since there are analytical minds that won't automatically accept what they see in photos.

WhyNoDonuts

Anybody can google something and find a gem of a source like spaceanswers.com like you did. It's surprising, however, that your post referring to a "TV camera" problem with the sun,, a totally different technology altogether, was upvoted so heavily despite its irrelevance. Nice little joke there to try to distract from the matter at hand (in the spaz-approved fashion seen oon another website.)

Still-photo cameras on the moon used film and controlled its exposure through an aperture, and I'm interested in how that happened in space when the intense power of the sun was included in the frame. For your sake, maybe I should've tagged serious on there. I'm just legitimately interested in the subject.

qwop

When you don't have an atmosphere the light will be very harsh and direct. In space the sun would look mostly white, because it emits light in the full spectrum.

Invisible radiation is not converted to visible light. It will remain invisible and some of it will be dangerous to humans. For example our ozone layer protects us from UV light, which is invisible, but will burn your skin on direct exposure.

WhyNoDonuts

This is what I'm thinking,, except I was wondering if any visible light can be viewed from the sun outside an atmosphere. Is the sun emitting visible light,, or is it emitting radiation in the invisible spectrum only,, of which a part of it is refracted by our atmosphere as light instead of an invisible microwave? Cameras could use the radiation to create an image (didn't we discover atomic test radiation affecting film in 50s?), but I was looking for distortion or blurring that might indicate radiation beyond the light source. I don't know what I'm looking for besides inconsistency.

blackguard19

Apollo 16, like all Apollo missions, was a staged hoax. Come on, this is a conspiracy forum.

strix-varia

The question should be, is there is photo of the earth other than the ONE that nasa has been showing to humanity for going on 30 years. The same photo over and over and over again. No, it's because they don't have one and no, it's because the photos you are seeing of the cosmos are artist rendered photos. People actually believe everything that nasa puts out.

qwop

First. I challenge you to do some trigonometry and basic maths to calculate how you propose one would take a photo of the earth. Especially take into consideration these things:

  1. What field of view does the camera need to have?
  2. How close or far do you need to be from the earth with respect to the field of view of the camera? What is the field of view vs. distance equation?
  3. Sending space probes out into space with cameras is expensive. Can you think of any reason a wide field view camera might be useless in space, just to take one photo of the earth?
  4. In which situation is a wide-field camera actually useful (it has something to do with weather)? Are there any photos of the earth from such satellites?
  5. What is the cost vs. distance from earth for a satellite? How far do you need to be to image the earth properly? How wide does the camera need to be at this distance? Which orbits are actually commercially useful for satellite operation, and why?

Of course flat earth theory states that no calculations may ever be done. Especially in basic trigonometry. That's the premise of flat earth theory; post Youtube videos, and never calculate or prove anything scientifically.

Second:

There are plenty of photos of earth from space. How about this sequence of earth + moon taken in 1992 when Galileo was heading off to Jupiter.

http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/earth/emconj_ir.html

Or here's another sequence from 1990, 25 hours, when Galileo was rounding the earth after its first gravity assist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs

Of course these all come from NASA, so they must be fake. You didn't specify the criteria for valid photos when you asked.

Who else is sending space probes far enough to take photos of the earth? Well, we only really have the Russians. Here's one recently taken from the Russian geostationary satellite Electro-L:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/18mgsfyhb0k43jpg.jpg

Of course that one is also fake, because it's on the internet. That's the problem with cognitive dissonance. It's a very difficult disease to get rid of.

Now what about those weather satellites?

Amadameus

Taking a photo of the sun wouldn't have been very productive - you could either overexpose it and get a huge white glare on your whole image, or underexpose it and get a nice white circle on a black background.

Also, I'm sure they had more interesting things to photograph.

Gravspeed

Not sure if one exists, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't waste film on it. The view of the sun from the moon wouldn't be any different from in space, but it would require a special camera to photograph with any detail, and you probably wouldn't be able to see anything else because of the freakishly small aperture of the camera.

Antiracist2

Yes.