Wonderful pictures of the Space Station!

Fantastic photos! Where'd you get them?

awesome photos

i love the picture of the south island (new zealand)

Flat Earth??? Can some still claim Earth is flat?

Canada rocks! Nice to see our robotics in action and part of the big picture. Go Canadarm! Go Dextre! Go Canada!

NO one calls it flat anymore smartass.

they sure look fake, though...(i gotta admit)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

Flat earth society, smart ass.

Why are there no stars? or anything other than black darkness? Doctored photos? WTF?

dumba**, on the sunlit side of the earth, that close, it's too bright from reflected light to see the stars. You have to be further out than the ISS to see the stars on the dayside. On the nightside, however, the srats would be more than you could see from Earth at night. Amazing photos!

this is obviously all staged

this question of seeing stars from orbit is interesting. the idea of the sunlit earth being too bright doesnt quite make sense. without an atmosphere one light source doesnt necessarily wash out another. does the hubble only take photographs when its on the 'dark side' of the earth? we need a nasa guy to speak up here.

11 - by Anonymous Jul 5, 2008
this is obviously all staged

yes, yes it is. i would imagine it's particularly difficult to get candid photos in space.

Looks like to me,its another reason to keep it flying until we get the next generation rockets ready to fly,why be stagnant?be agressive,If I was an astronaut,and i had to depend on a communist country for my trip to the space station and back ,Id be very nervous,esp one that is problem plagued,at least keep one in a flight ready condition in case of an emergency.

shuttle that is lol

This is a photoshop. I can tell from some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few photoshops in my day.



:p



Actually, this is pretty cool, and while one can argue that these are faked, it does little other than make one look like an idiot.

I think that the reason you don't see any stars in the photo has more to do with the dynamic range of the camera than anything else. The camera is set to expose the photo for the earth and the space station. Being that both are significantly brighter than the stars, the photograph would be taken at an exposure setting that would register the area of sky around the spacecraft as being pure black. This effect is heightened when using digital photography which has a much narrower dynamic range than film.

I seriously hate all you "it's a photoshop" trolls, why don't you f**k off and get some education or at least try to think about what you are saying.

The reason you cannot see stars is because the shutter speed/exposure time has to be very high due to the brightness of the incoming light, it overwhelms the film OR CDD chip in the camera. The star light is not strong enough to be read by the film or the CDD due to the need for a really fast shutter speed approx 1/10,000 or more depending on conditions.

But it doesn't matter because you won't believe me anyway so as before...... f**k you photoshop commentors.

Boom Dee Ada!

LIES!!those would be really great examples of the intellectual prowess of mankind, were they all not so obviously and offensively FAKED! Did you notice the on the third photograph, the reflection of the man's helmet allows the viewer to see what is actually taking the picture...its a guy in a navy blue onesie for GOD'S SAKE!!and how about the supposed space walker in the 5th picture? READ YOUR BIBLES AND REPENT FOR YOUR SINS!!!! MARTIAL LAW MARTIAL LAW! SAVE US FROM OURSELVES BIG BROTHER!!!

If these are photoshoped then there must have been an amazing amount of work done to them, almost as impresive as if they were real.

About the stars thing: GO OUTSIDE AT NIGHT AND TAKE A PICTURE OF THE SKY. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU GET A TOTALLY BLACK PICTURE, THAT IS WHY YOU CANT SEE THE STARS ON THESE PICS.

Anonymous wrote:
"Why are there no stars? or anything other than black darkness? Doctored photos? WTF?"

Learn a bit about photography and also Astronomy. Firstly:
Look up the inverse square rule of propagation of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square should be a good starting point.

The intensity of light falls off in relation to the square of the distance from the source. In other words, Mars, which is twice as far from the Sun (approx) than the Earth, receives a total light power of , not half but one quarter the amount Earth does. Other than the Sun, the next closest star (Alpha Centauri)_ is 4.2 Light years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri
Other stars in the local Cluster such as Sirius 12 LY and Barnard's star 6.2 LY spread their light out over a much greater area. The Earth is about 8 or nine light minutes from the sun. Alpha Centauri is four and a bit light years, or put another way 2296872 times as far from us than the Sun. That's about 2.3 million times. Consequently If a star of the same brightness as the Sun was put at this distance it's light would be 1/distance squared. This is about 1 divided by 2 to the 36th power, or o.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo5 as much light on the film plane compared to Solar output. Most stars are a lot further away, so the light from them would be even less.

The scenes seen could be rendered OK with an exposure of say 1/125 sec at F8.0 or F11 with ASA 100 film or equivalent sensor. To see Stars with the same camera, film or digital the an exposure of at least a few minutes if not hours would be needed. As a result the astronaut, shuttle and Earth would be completely washed out if you exposed for the stars.

Pixelation. The image is a JPEG image published on the world wide web. One would expect pixelation.

Lastly, for all the flat Earthers How comes in a lunar eclipse is the shadow of Earth on the Moon's surface always round. If Earth was flat or disc shaped then sometimes the shadow it cast would be rectangular!

It is easier to read one good book than a whole bunch of hard ones.

That anonymous who claims these photos are fake surely has an astounding imagination. He says that the third photo is taken by "a guy in a navy blue onesie"(...). I've tried to see every pixel on the reflection in the astronaut's helmet and I'm unable to find "someone" else taking the picture... Pal, don't smoke that s**t before watching the pictures!

Amazing pics. Its rare you get to see the parts of the the station that are more utility than flash, and its quite a treat to see something other than the module of the day! Any idea what the chemical composition is of the bronze-like metal they are using on a lot of parts? Is that dichromate of some kind or a gold alloy?

Interesting how in all the pics that show two astronauts, they are both pointing the same way. Wonder if that's just coincidence, or if they decide on some arbitrary "up" direction for the mission...

The metal they use is trinium

Anyone else think Milander needs to pull a stick out of his\her ass?

Exposure settings prevent stars from showing up. Same problem on the moon, (considering it's a giant white orb that reflections light).

@"Photoshop trolls." Keep on truckin.' making a mockery of every idiot out there who thinks a photograph cannot possibly be real because they know nothing about everything.

i makes you wonder what its like floating around out there - they did see the stars - can anyone say vertigo?

@ the 'navy blue onsie' comment... Don't astronauts have navy blue jumpsuits that they wear? You tend to see them wearing them in press releases and such...

The reason why there are no stars is not because earth is too bright to mask them. With no medium to disperse light one light source does not mask another. However, remember that these photos are taken with a camera. when there is a bright object you try to limit the amount of light that passes through the lens (fast shutter speed)since earth is relatively too bright compared to stars at the camera settings that would give you a good picture stars do not excite the photosensitive material (film or ccd)