This is a photo of two spacewalking astronauts working on the ISS. As you can see, the photo is taken in close proximity and the astronaut on the left is smiling for the camera.

Who took this photo?


http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...4_feature.html

Possibilities:

1. The photo was taken by a 3rd spacewalking astronaut. (Nasa's PDF of the mission says that "two crew members performed 3 EVA's.")

2. The photo was taken by the Canadarm. (The Canadarm has a "TV camera." See the hi-res version - in order to take this photo, the TV camera would have to be an astonishing 4Mpixels, far higher than 1080p or whatever is the current HDTV spec - in 1998.)

3. The photo was taken from onboard the Shuttle. (Nasa's PDF shows the shuttle docking with the space station vertically within its cargo bay, making this sideways/diagonal photo angle essentially impossible.)

4. The photo is a composite, aka fake.

Mission PDF:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenew...20spacewalk%22

I am pretty sure this was taken with a handheld camera through one of the windows in the roof of the Shuttle's flight deck. Perspective leads me to guess it's from the starboard window, but this could be deceiving. The shiny item is Unity, the solar panels are Zarya's - this direction being roughly "up" from the Shuttle. The camera view is up-rear from the flight deck, either almost straight if taken through the starboard window or slanted to the left (towards starboard) if through the port window.

Ross and Newman were out there (Smiley looks like Ross) and Currie was the RMS Op, this leaves Cabana, Sturckow and Krikalyov as suspects.

Yep, it was taken from the aft windows. See STS088-363-023.

Bingo! No consipiracy here.

Next!!!

Thanks for answering the question. I don't think your explanations make sense seeing as how the spacewalk was recordable only by the 4Mpixel (?!!!) Canadarm video recorder.

Let's see what's in the middle of the convex mirror.



Oh, look, a window.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Then I suggest you read it again.
No, it was visible from four windows of the orbiter. While windows 9 and 10 in the aft wall of the flight deck should give mainly a great view of the docking adapter (PMA) when docked, windows 7 and 8 in the roof give exactly the view of your picture.

I have searched for some pictures showing the windows and how their view is oriented to the station when docked. From last year's STS-114:

View from the station prior to docking:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...011e11014.html
and
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../ndxpage2.html

During docking from inside:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s114e5656.html

Docked from outside:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s114e6194.html

The docked shuttle with part of the station:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...ndxpage61.html
and the following page.

Window arrangement from inside:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...ndxpage64.html

EDIT:
What about this:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../s88e5155.html

I think that's very convincing JeDi (ironic that you're answering annakin's question...). Case closed.

The other little check you can make is from the original image (high res version) - take the reflection from the faceplate on the second astronaut (Newman), enlarge and there in the centre of curvature you can see the front of the orbiter and the two dark spots of the overhead windows.

And yes, "Smiley" is Ross, he's the lead spacewalker with red stripes.

I checked all your links and I don't see any evidence of a space shuttle shot except for one of the links which claims "the blackness of space."

Blackness of space???

I have it on pretty good authority that digital cameras can capture stars during the DAYTIME. I look forward to trying it myself, but it's worth noting that NASA is *incapable* of photographing stars. In space! Where atmospheric effects would be irrelevant!

This photo is shot from an angle across the ISS body, and doesn't line up with the straight-on shots of the ISS from the shuttle's cargo bay.

Pardon?

Are you saying that NASA has never produced a photo containing stars?



In any case, with regard to the photo you linked, as 01101001 and JeDi have pointed out, the faceplate of the astronaut on the right shows a reflection of the Shuttle. This would indicate the photo was taken from inside the Shuttle.

Compare the OP photo STS088-702-024 with STS088-E-5155. In the second picture, we are looking out the Shuttle's left-upper window. Notice the section of station just behind the commander's head, specifically the handholds and the curved wire. If you compare these to the first picture, you see that they are the same features, but photographed (as JeDi said) from the Shuttle's right-upper window. Note that the solar panels are rotated more towards the camera in the first image than in the second - this is a normal part of their operation.

Well, I'm glad to hear you're going to do experiments. Too many people just take someone else's word for things. That said, I predict you'll find your "good authority" is mistaken.

You see, photographing stars has very little to do with atmospheric effects. It's all about exposure: To photograph a sunlit scene, whether it's your front yard or the ISS exterior, you need a small aperture and a fast shutter speed - for example, F11 at 1/250 of a second. To photograph stars, either in space or on Earth at night (the atmophere blocks less than 50% of the starlight - something that you can verify for yourself with a simple ground-base experiment), you need to have the aperture wide open and leave the shutter open for at least 30 seconds (when the Gemini astronauts photographed the stars from Earth orbit, they used two-minute exposures).

Thus, whether you use a digital or a film camera, if you have the camera set to record a lighted scene, it cannot record stars. If you leave the shutter open long enough to show stars, any lighted object in the foreground will be hopelessly over-exposed.

Try it for yourself and let us know how it comes out.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

This seems more appropriate in Conspiracy Theories than Space Exploration.

Moved.

I didn't even notice this before.
Yes, it's even written in the caption. I didn't look at annakin's link in the first place but just picked the according page from Astronautix to get a summary of what was going on during this mission. Then knowing the mission objective of Unity-Zarya mating, the crew composition and task assignments, and the fact that Unity was mated with the shuttle during the procedure (I wasn't sure about this from memory before) the picture was crystal clear. And then I guessed the identity from looking at the face.

Maybe you lack some spatial imaginative faculty.
I won't bother dealing with this old misconception of photographic capabilities, exposure and dynamic range.
They are capable, they did, they do, and they will be doing. Like others do.
Maybe that's one of the reasons NASA and other agencies/nations maintain a bunch of space telescopes.
Yes, in the picture on page 5 of the PDF you linked to, the camera location of your "suspicious image" is behind the dark cone at the bottom end of the ISS (that's the PMA), perhaps 2 or 3 metres behind it, slightly below the top of the "white arc" - that is the top portion of the forward fuselage, which makes the rooftop of the flightdeck. Note that this is about as far below the bottom end of Unity (the lower, wider part of the ISS) as it is off from its axis, therefore Unity is seen from an angle when looking through this overhead window. The perspective is similar to that of an astronaut sitting on the edge of the cargo bay right beside the station.
It's just another viewpoint and they fit perfectly together. The picture in the PDF is taken from somewhere near the aft end of the cargo bay, and it's not at all straight on. But due to the greater distance the angle at Unity is different, closer to perpendicular. Note that the bottom (actually the forward end) of Unity is visible but the top (aft end) is "seen from inside" i.e. hidden by the cylindric surface.

Credit correction: Joff was the second faceplate analyzer.

it's worth noting that NASA is *incapable* of photographing stars. In space!

It's worth noting that's completely wrong.

With still cameras from the crew compartment:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...3-410-011.html
http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/info;jsessi...51-022&orgid=8

With telescopes mounted in the payload bay:
http://archive.stsci.edu/uit/project..._pictures.html

With a UV camera during Apollo 16:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...s72-36972.html

With a still camera from the ISS:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...007e06083.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...006e40537.html

I'm also pretty sure I recall seeing payload bay camera images of stars during orbital night, though a cursory look-around didn't turn up anything handy.

Where atmospheric effects would be irrelevant!

Sunlight is never irrelevant.

Apparently you failed to notice that these images (with the exception of the one from the specially-designed A16 UV instrument) were not taken in daylight.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Which is really a shame. This thread started off as a very good question. (I "suspected", but certainly didn't immediately know the answer) But Annakin's refusal to accept a rational explanation has sent this thread into "conspiracy land".

Tis a shame...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Where are you going with this argument? Why would anybody even try to fake a space shuttle or ISS photo?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

It sure must be a surprise to the people working on the Hubble that NASA can't photograph stars in space.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I regularly take digital images of stars at night. Here a few such shots.







To get them I had to set the f-stop and aperture to night settings. Even then keep the shutter open for 12 seconds and still ended up using Paintshop Pro (which I use instead of Photoshop) to manipulate the resulting images so as to lighten them enough to see the stars well.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Where is this going? Is annakin suggesting that the ISS and Shuttle are hoaxes?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Right.

Try this one or these or this too or this

Took me five seconds of goggling.

I don't know who your authority is, but there's nothing magic about digital cameras that makes them capable of capturing stars in the daytime. No matter the technology, the basic problem of exposure is the same. To get a properly exposed image of astronauts on the ISS or on the Moon, in full sunlight, requires a much shorter exposure than required for an image of stars.

This is a ridiculous statement. Where do you think all of the images from the various space telescopes come from? Whereever did you get the idea that you can't take images of stars in space?

Regardless of where you take the image, (the Earth, space or the Moon), the exposure issue is the same. If you want to capture faint stars, you need a long exposure to give the detector time to capture enough photons to create an image. Doing the required long exposure in a brightly lit environment would cause the image to be overexposed and useless.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

I think, by now, annakin has left this thread to work on another intelligent, well-researched conspiracy theory.

Luckmeister

__________________
Plan as though you will live forever, but live as though you may die tomorrow.

Yes, that's what I'd like to know too.

Hoaxes? Now that would be some trick. I've seen both the shuttle and ISS. And many people have taken pictures using a telescope. For instance:

http://www.satcom.freeserve.co.uk/one.htm

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

As I've seen what's claimed to be the Shuttle and ISS fly overhead, and have seen multiple people who've been to the ISS, and someone on this board films the ISS passing by, this sure is a strong basis for a hoax . My brother saw the shuttle being launched. Must have been a faked scene as well. It all makes sense eh, why else wouldn't they allow you to take a closer look of the launch? No, you need to stand miles away, so you don't see the wires.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.