Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:12:40 PM
Also, a camera is less capable of capturing different intensities of light than a human eye. So in many situations even if a person could see stars over another light source, a camera couldn't record them. The difference between the brightness of sunlight and the brightness of starlight is far too great. Any setting that would record starlight on the photo would be utterly whited out by the sunlight.
The camera settings used on moon missions are public knowledge (and anyone with the relevant knowledge could calculate appropriate settings anyway). Set a camera to them and take a photo of the night sky from Earth. There will not be any stars on the photo.
Here`s a good example of how just one variable, shutter speed, greatly affects what is recorded on a photo:
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:00:46 PM
why are there no stars?
How many stars can you see from Earth at noon on a bright summer's day?
It`s a lot brighter than that on the moon during daytime because there`s no air to diffuse the light from the sun.
If you were on the moon during lunar night, you`d see a lot of stars. Well, you would if you had some way to survive, because you`re going to freeze to death very quickly. It gets down to about -150C at night on the lunar equator and maybe as low as -270C at the poles.
Which is another reason why a permanent base on the moon is a lot more difficult than short visits (which take place entirely during the lunar day, which is a month long). You could bury the base to reduce the huge variations in temperature, but it`s not a trivial thing.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:51:19 PM
Wouldn't it be better to practice learning how to live on another planet by learning on the moon? That way if something goes wrong you`re only 3 days away from earth, compared to mars where you`re S.O.L?
If you`re on the moon and something goes wrong, you`re S.O.L. anyway. The only difference would be how long you`ve been dead before anyone can retrieve your corpses. Space ain`t safe.
1) They`re not planning on living on Mars. Not yet, anyway.
2) Conditions on the moon aren`t the same as on Mars, so what might be learned about living on the Moon might not apply to living on Mars. It might even increase the risks by getting people used to different conditions.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:45:14 PM
I always thought it was kind of lame that we could go to the moon but that we didn't go back.
The point of going to the moon was to go one better than the Soviets. It wasn`t just "Hahaha, up yours!" for the sake of it. It was a way of convincing people which was the better system of running a country, which one produced the best results. It was a genuine national defence issue, affecting international influence.
After that was established by doing it several times to show that it wasn`t a fluke, there was no point that was worth the risk and expense. There still isn`t. Research into the moon? Use robot probes and telescopes. Tourist destination? Not a hope. It`s far too expensive just to get people there, let alone build a permanent base that`s safe and comfortable enough for tourism.