<p>It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.</p>

<p>If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring). </p>

<p>One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:00:13.743Z
Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:03:57.923Z
@Autodidact - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.
Anders Sandberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:16:01.970Z
Once again thank you for your response @AndersSandberg, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T05:18:02.713Z
@Autodidact, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule.  If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T12:17:13.467Z
@Autodidact They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.
Luaan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T00:50:11.937Z
2019-03-18T00:50:11.937Z
Anders Sandberg
<p>The reason is that:</p>

<ol>
<li>To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.</li>
<li>Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.</li>
</ol>

<p>In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.</p>

<p>And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.</p>

<p>In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/MU8mW.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/MU8mW.png" alt="enter image description here"></a>
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:03:24.783Z
Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until Luaan in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @The_Sympathizer. Once again thank you.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:15:19.550Z
@Autodidact : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:17:17.930Z
You could see stars in "daytime" _if_ you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:19:00.123Z
A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:25:18.060Z
Armstrong did claim to be in the shadow of the moon, yes but so was Michael Collins in the shadow of the moon away from the sun and the reflection of the earth as he orbited the moon at least 18 times in the ~22hrs that Armstrong and Aldrin were on the moon. He had 18 additional chances to see stars, if Armstrong was able to see stars when he was in the moon’s shadow onboard, what was wrong with Collins? I’m sure they were perfectly physically fit men. I can’t image NASA sending astronauts with physical handicaps on the very first mission, like poor eye sight. @The_Sympathizer
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:31:22.520Z
@Autodidact : Where is this claim by Collins as to not be able to see stars? Under what context?
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:39:40.793Z
I edited the question and added the two interviews. @The_Sympathizer
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:46:44.857Z
@Autodidact : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons).  That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T04:53:46.170Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/91237/discussion-between-autodidact-and-the-sympathizer).
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T09:39:38.683Z
I hope I didn't scare you away [here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/30576/7982)! Do you plan to un-delete your answer after editing, or is it gone for good?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T09:45:06.177Z
@uhoh - Uh nah, that's okay; I was looking more to try and track down the precise mechanism and began to doubt I got it right. In particular, I'm not sure now as to why this is the first molecule to form instead of $\mathrm{H}_2$ given that $\mathrm{H}_2$, it turns out, has a _higher_ bond energy (453 kJ/mol against 178 kJ/mol). I'm tracking down the original paper on the subject to try and find out. It could be also that there is an alternative in $\mathrm{H}_2^{+}$ and this is less stable. Have to figure how all the energies sort out and need numbers for that.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T09:45:23.983Z
So I want to keep it off until I can prepare a revised and more correct answer should it need be.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T09:46:18.697Z
(Fun note: $\mathrm{H}_2^{+}$ is the only molecule you can actually solve, using analytic manipulation and not a computer simulation/approximation, for the bond energy from first principles :g:)
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T09:52:21.957Z
Whew, okay that's a relief. Yes I think this is going to be a really interesting story. I wonder how much is really known about the nature of HeH+ experimentally (rather than by numerical simulation). Maybe you can ask a Chemistry SE question about that and let that simmer while you read further?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T09:55:50.157Z
@uhoh : Yeah, maybe (with regard to posting). I'll see.
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-21T10:46:23.210Z
@uhoh : I've looked into this some more; apparently $\mathrm{H}_2^{+}$ has a bond energy of about 251 kJ/mol, which means $\mathrm{He}\mathrm{H}^{+}$ is actually the _weakest_ - bound of all 3 species which intuitively seems to make sense. Something more subtle must be going on here...
The_Sympathizer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T02:50:55.970Z
2019-03-19T02:50:55.970Z
The_Sympathizer
<p>Anders's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.</p>

<p>However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The core of Anders's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera <em>might</em> be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T13:05:12.817Z
Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T13:12:42.100Z
@Autodidact Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.
Luaan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T13:23:14.573Z
Neil Armstrong claimed to have also been in the moon’s shadow and seen a corona from the sun which poses a problem in itself because the moon should completely cover the sun the closer you approach but certainly if the Apollo 11 mission whilst in the moon’s shadow could see the stars why didn’t Neil Armstrong? *“However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon“* @Luaan.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T13:31:34.153Z
@Autodidact Those quotes are from Neil Armstrong (in the transcript, he's CDR). I don't think it gets any clearer than that :) And yes, he's also talking about the corona there, describing it's size as "two lunar radii". I don't see why you'd expect the Moon to completely cover the Sun the closer you approach - you're not heading for the center of the Moon, you're inserting yourself into a lunar orbit. Even then, the Moon only obstructs the Sun if it's in the same direction as the Moon from your point.
Luaan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T13:46:34.440Z
I just realized that now. Which makes even less sense given his interview where he said he never saw ANY stars. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T14:09:12.630Z
as for your corona question *”A corona comes during a solar eclipse. A solar eclipse starts in the day. To form, Earth moves behind the Moon, leaving sunlight on the Moon. Use sunglasses to protect your eyes. When you look at the Moon, the corona sticks out on the edge of the Moon.”* So I’m trying to visualize how if the moon is offset as most of the times there is no solar eclipse on earth the astronauts would still have seen the corona, based also on your comment. Maybe you can enlighten me. Thank you in advance.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T17:53:21.257Z
He said the only things visible, that’s in the positive tense and then proceeds to enumerate. But I agree there is a difference between the two statements. Likewise if I hold a round dinner plate at distance tocover the sun and expose the corona and then proceed toward the plate do you think the corona will continue to be visible or the closer I get the greater my view will become obstructed by the dinner plate until I’m right in front and it completely covers my line of sight obstructing everything from view. Same with being in the shadow of the moon closer to the moon than on earth.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T18:41:22.570Z
@GalacticCowboy *”The sky is a deep black as viewed from the moon, as it is when viewed from cislunar space...”* N. Armstrong in the link I provided from the BBC. Are you watching a different documentary or interview? Also the reporter said he had very little time to look up and yet he was on the moon for 22 hours. But anyway. I wasn’t there, it doesn’t explain the lack of stars being visible and I’m sure there is a very good explanation. Michael Collins in a different interview despite circling around the moon even on the dark side and moon shadow said *“I don’t remember seeing any (stars)”*.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T19:04:15.790Z
@GalacticCowboy my question also includes referencing eye witness testimonials of astronauts. I could try to post those too like I have of the BBC clip not just photos. But I didn’t disagree with the answers. I said that makes sense. I started asking questions when Luaan said that they did see stars on occasion and then I got confused because I was fine with no visible stars and the explanations given.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-19T08:04:46.870Z
@Autodidact - he was on the moon for 22 hours but outside of the LEM for just 138 (rather busy) minutes. The two main windows looked out over the lunar surface with only a rather small overhead window to help with docking with the CM: seeing stars through that while standing on the floor of the LEM would have been hard, especially with the glare of the lunar surface coming through the windows (Armstrong & Aldrin reported that even with the window blinds drawn and cabin lighting off it was too bright to sleep effectively)
Tom Goodfellow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T12:33:27.927Z
2019-03-18T12:33:27.927Z
Luaan
<p>It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this. </p>

<p>Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation? </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/pgojT.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/pgojT.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/uMbTP.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/uMbTP.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XCoDo.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XCoDo.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/17rRa.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/17rRa.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/zwlVl.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/zwlVl.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwIu" rel="noreferrer">Minute 47-49 stars, press conference all three Apollo 11 astronauts </a></p>

<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o" rel="noreferrer">BBC interview with Neil Armstrong only</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:11:50.597Z
See also [What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/12256/12102)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:18:22.183Z
I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:21:21.753Z
*no need* for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T01:57:35.393Z
That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T11:14:56.480Z
It might be interesting that the visibility of stars from the Lunar surface, by human eye and news camera, was a minor plot point in Arthur C Clarke's novel _A Fall of Moondust_, published in 1961.
JdeBP
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T17:35:37.740Z
NASA does have some [Black Marble](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79803/night-lights-2012-the-black-marble) images of the dark side of the Earth, but they appear to be assembled from narrow-angle satellite images so they don't have any stars either.
JPhi1618
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T17:54:36.717Z
Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?
Tin Wizard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-18T17:56:11.643Z
Not in space I haven’t. But I’d image with the lack of pollution and light pollution whilst in the moon’s shadow the stars would have been brilliantly lit.
Autodidact
<the-moon><earth><space><star-systems>
Why are there no stars visible in cislunar space?
Autodidact
# Why are there no stars visible in cislunar space?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-17)

It’s very puzzling that the moon landing had no stars in the background, the ISS clips have no stars in the background. I listened to multiple astronaut interviews speak on what it looks like up in space and about half of them speak of the “darkest black space”. I’m sure there is a very good explanation for this.

Is star light only visible through the medium of earth atmosphere? But once in the vacuum of space where there is no medium they disappear? What’s the explanation?

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/pgojT.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/pgojT.jpg)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/uMbTP.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/uMbTP.jpg)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XCoDo.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/XCoDo.jpg)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/17rRa.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/17rRa.jpg)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/zwlVl.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/zwlVl.jpg)

[Minute 47-49 stars, press conference all three Apollo 11 astronauts](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwIu)

[BBC interview with Neil Armstrong only](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o)

**Tags:** the-moon, earth, space, star-systems

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: See also [What did the sky actually look like from the Moon?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/12256/12102)  
> **username_0**: I’m sorry, I did search my question prior to posting it but this did not come up. Thank you for that.  
> **username_1**: *no need* for "I'm sorry!" That's in a different Stack Exchange site, so it is not a duplicate. It's just nice to add links to related questions in different sites so future readers can have more to read. I'll add a comment there as well.  
> **username_0**: That makes sense, it wasn’t obvious to me when I clicked the link that I was in a different stack, until you pointed it out that it was a different stack. Once again thank you for the link.  
> **username_2**: It might be interesting that the visibility of stars from the Lunar surface, by human eye and news camera, was a minor plot point in Arthur C Clarke's novel _A Fall of Moondust_, published in 1961.  
> **username_3**: NASA does have some [Black Marble](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79803/night-lights-2012-the-black-marble) images of the dark side of the Earth, but they appear to be assembled from narrow-angle satellite images so they don't have any stars either.  
> **username_4**: Ever tried to take a picture of someone with the stars as a backdrop?  
> **username_0**: Not in space I haven’t. But I’d image with the lack of pollution and light pollution whilst in the moon’s shadow the stars would have been brilliantly lit.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2019-03-18. Score: 14 | Accepted answer

username_5's answer is entirely fine, but I'd like to add some extra information. As evidenced by the transcripts, reflected Earth light is quite strong even at this distance:

> The earthshine coming through the window is so bright you can read a book by it.

That is, even with the lights turned off, it would probably be tricky to see the stars unless you turned in a way that didn't allow the earthshine through the windows.

However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon (a pure accident - they didn't plan for the approach to go this way), there comes:

> Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

So for a few minutes, they did see "the sky full of stars". Other than that, they've seen a few stars once in a while, but only singular, bright stars (perhaps also when looking in a way that minimized the brightness from the Earth and Sun):

> Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

The core of username_5's answer is still true, though. Exposure is the main problem here - both cameras and human eyes have a certain dynamic range, and even the brightest stars are entirely too dim in comparison with both the Sun, the Earth (in distance comparable to the Moon's distance from the Earth) and the Lunar surface (if you're in sunshine, as most of the mission was). A modern camera *might* be able to take a HDR picture that would allow the stars to be visible at the same time as the Earth or the Sun, and it'd be quite easy to do if you could occlude the main light sources (the same way we do it when photographing the Sun's corona etc.). But technically, that would be a "doctored" image - taken at two different exposures and combined in a way that uses different exposures for different parts of the image.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Could you please refer me to transcript you are quoting from and the year of publication from the corresponding Apollo mission. Thank you.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 Comes straight from NASA for Apollo 11 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.html. It's right at the end of the third day in mission time, but you can easily find the quotes with a text search anyway.  
> **username_0**: Neil Armstrong claimed to have also been in the moon’s shadow and seen a corona from the sun which poses a problem in itself because the moon should completely cover the sun the closer you approach but certainly if the Apollo 11 mission whilst in the moon’s shadow could see the stars why didn’t Neil Armstrong? *“However, as the capsule comes into the shadow cast by the Moon“* @username_7.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 Those quotes are from Neil Armstrong (in the transcript, he's CDR). I don't think it gets any clearer than that :) And yes, he's also talking about the corona there, describing it's size as "two lunar radii". I don't see why you'd expect the Moon to completely cover the Sun the closer you approach - you're not heading for the center of the Moon, you're inserting yourself into a lunar orbit. Even then, the Moon only obstructs the Sun if it's in the same direction as the Moon from your point.  
> **username_0**: I just realized that now. Which makes even less sense given his interview where he said he never saw ANY stars. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o  
> **username_0**: as for your corona question *”A corona comes during a solar eclipse. A solar eclipse starts in the day. To form, Earth moves behind the Moon, leaving sunlight on the Moon. Use sunglasses to protect your eyes. When you look at the Moon, the corona sticks out on the edge of the Moon.”* So I’m trying to visualize how if the moon is offset as most of the times there is no solar eclipse on earth the astronauts would still have seen the corona, based also on your comment. Maybe you can enlighten me. Thank you in advance.  
> **username_0**: He said the only things visible, that’s in the positive tense and then proceeds to enumerate. But I agree there is a difference between the two statements. Likewise if I hold a round dinner plate at distance tocover the sun and expose the corona and then proceed toward the plate do you think the corona will continue to be visible or the closer I get the greater my view will become obstructed by the dinner plate until I’m right in front and it completely covers my line of sight obstructing everything from view. Same with being in the shadow of the moon closer to the moon than on earth.  
> **username_0**: @GalacticCowboy *”The sky is a deep black as viewed from the moon, as it is when viewed from cislunar space...”* N. Armstrong in the link I provided from the BBC. Are you watching a different documentary or interview? Also the reporter said he had very little time to look up and yet he was on the moon for 22 hours. But anyway. I wasn’t there, it doesn’t explain the lack of stars being visible and I’m sure there is a very good explanation. Michael Collins in a different interview despite circling around the moon even on the dark side and moon shadow said *“I don’t remember seeing any (stars)”*.  
> **username_0**: @GalacticCowboy my question also includes referencing eye witness testimonials of astronauts. I could try to post those too like I have of the BBC clip not just photos. But I didn’t disagree with the answers. I said that makes sense. I started asking questions when username_7 said that they did see stars on occasion and then I got confused because I was fine with no visible stars and the explanations given.  
> **username_9**: @username_0 - he was on the moon for 22 hours but outside of the LEM for just 138 (rather busy) minutes. The two main windows looked out over the lunar surface with only a rather small overhead window to help with docking with the CM: seeing stars through that while standing on the floor of the LEM would have been hard, especially with the glare of the lunar surface coming through the windows (Armstrong & Aldrin reported that even with the window blinds drawn and cabin lighting off it was too bright to sleep effectively)  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-03-18. Score: 37

It is a matter of exposure and dynamic range. A sensor like a camera can only handle inputs in a certain range of intensities, and much of photographic skill (or smart presets) is about mapping the outside light onto this range so the details you care about show up rather than turn into white or black.

If you take a picture of a brightly lit scene, in order to make out the details of the bright parts (such as a lunar landscape, the Earth, the ISS etc) you will have to adjust the exposure making faint objects like the stars too dim to see against a dark sky background. You could try to set the exposure to show the stars instead, but now the landscape and Earth would be too bright (and likely also mess up the picture by causing flaring).

One can try to work around it by taking several pictures at different exposure levels and later digitally compositing them together. But this requires a lot of extra work.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you for your input. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder what you can make of Neil Armstrong’s interview with the BBC 1970, the first minute into the clip should suffice, where he speaks of ocular testimony and not camera photographs, that no stars were visible except the earth, sun and moon. Possibly planets though he didn’t see any himself. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o  
> **username_5**: @username_0 - Same thing. When you walk around in a brightly lit night-time city you will not see any stars unless you manage to shield your eyes from the rest of the glare. The lunar surface is very bright during the day.  
> **username_0**: Once again thank you for your response @username_5, makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming therefore that for the 8d 14h 12m that Neil Armstrong was in space he was always on the side of the sun, despite the interview saying that at one point they were traveling in the shadow of the moon eclipsing the sun 1:20-1:30 in the link above. I would have imagined that at that point stars would have been visible, but evidently the sun’s corona must have been still far too bright, or am I mistaken?  
> **username_6**: @username_0, the problem wasn't the Sun (usually), it was the interior lighting of the Apollo capsule.  If you read the transcripts of the radio transmissions, you'll see that the only times they mention stars, it's when they're looking through the sextant or telescope to take an alignment sighting -- and both those instruments were shielded to prevent outside light from interfering.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 They planned for the mission to be in sunlight for the whole time, for obvious reasons. And as Mark already noted, while in Moon's shadow, they were still in the lit capsule. Even if they did turn off all the lights, I have no idea how long it would take for their eyes to adapt to the new lighting conditions - if you walk out of a lit room during the night on Earth, it takes a few seconds before you're able to see the brightest stars, and a few minutes to see the dim things like the Milky Way. I don't know how long they spent in Moon's shadow.  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-03-19. Score: 2

The reason is that:

1. To take a photograph under different lighting conditions, you need to use different camera settings to get a useful image.
2. Cameras (and the human eye) do not have unlimited range in any given set of conditions, that is, they cannot represent objects of every brightness satisfactorily within one single image.

In particular, if one is photographing a subject that is brightly illuminated, one has to use camera settings that greatly limit the amount of light being recorded by the camera's sensor, otherwise it will be overwhelmed and fail to show useful detail. In the case of taking a subject that is only dimly illuminated (or, in this case, emitting only what amounts to a dim light), such as the stars, one needs to use settings which maximize the amount of light that the sensor absorbs to get useful detail in the image, or one will record nothing. These two types of settings are logically incompatible, and thus it is impossible (with existing camera technology) to capture simultaneously a very dim and very bright subject in a single (i.e. not a composite) photograph and have both of them look sensible.

And the Moon and stars are just such an incompatible pair. The Moon's surface is lit up effectively as brightly as the landscape of Earth in broad daylight. The stars are so dim they can only be seen at night.

In fact, you can demonstrate this right from Earth itself. Here are two photographs I took with my own camera about ten megaseconds or so ago, as of this posting. Both were shot at night, on the same night. The left hand photograph is shot with the camera set to daylight settings. Yes, these are the same settings you'd use to shoot a photograph in actual daylight, only being used at night, and the Moon registers loud and clear. That is how bright it is. Since surface brightness is not affected by distance, the Moon effectively amounts to a little piece of sunlit landscape in the sky, from our point of view, just like on a bright, sunny day on Earth. As you can see, the Moon's surface features are cleanly visible and, moreover, it is similar in coloration to your last photograph - as it should be, because that is its actual color. Note the complete absence of stars, exactly as in the NASA images. In the second photograph on the right, the camera was set to "bulb" mode to expose the sensor for a long time, and its sensitivity was greatly increased. You can now see the stars, but the Moon looks almost like a second Sun - its surface features completely obliterated as the sensor has been saturated with photons like a sponge that has already soaked up too much water and has now had enough, while bloom contaminates the rest of the image.
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/MU8mW.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/MU8mW.png)
The reason you "expect" to see stars is likely because you have watched too many sci-fi movies. Movies depict stars for artistic effect. In reality, images capturing such, taken in a single bout, are not possible with today's tech, and the reason is that the factor between the two is on the order of a billion (90 dB) in brightness. (You could composite the above two images suitably to fake it, but it would be just that.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Appreciate the response. Thank you. I was convinced of what you are saying until username_7 in his answer pointed out the Neil Armstrong said he could see stars, and yet Michael Collins claim he never saw any stars but it’s most likely Collins would have seen stars, especially if Armstrong’s eyes adjusted. Then I got recommended a clip by a Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and he says that if you go to the edge of the atmosphere and even if the sun is out in the sky you can still see stars. I was looking for clarification not confusion. @username_8. Once again thank you.  
> **username_8**: @username_0 : The atmosphere filters about the equivalent of 0.25 magnitudes, IIRC, of starlight, so that above it, they will be somewhat more visible, but not by a huge amount. Further added visibility may be provided due to the lack of any skyglow, haze, and other such effects. It would still be too dim to see alongside a brightly-lit (daylight-level) surface, though. Your Armstrong quote suggests that they passed into the Moon's shadow, thus it was like a nighttime.  
> **username_8**: You could see stars in "daytime" _if_ you could completely block or orient yourself so as to remove the Sun and other brilliant objects from your field of view to stare at the pure "blackness" of space, and also sat staring thereat for enough time for your eyes to adapt themselves as unlike a camera, the human eye takes some time to adjust itself for low light levels (Likely you also need some way to not get reflections from your spacesuit/ship windows/etc. that would add stray light, which may be difficult). Perhaps there was some occasion to do that, not sure.  
> **username_8**: A camera, of course, could photograph those stars without an adjustment period - just set it to the right settings and point it at the blackness and make sure not to let anything else in the view field.  
> **username_0**: Armstrong did claim to be in the shadow of the moon, yes but so was Michael Collins in the shadow of the moon away from the sun and the reflection of the earth as he orbited the moon at least 18 times in the ~22hrs that Armstrong and Aldrin were on the moon. He had 18 additional chances to see stars, if Armstrong was able to see stars when he was in the moon’s shadow onboard, what was wrong with Collins? I’m sure they were perfectly physically fit men. I can’t image NASA sending astronauts with physical handicaps on the very first mission, like poor eye sight. @username_8  
> **username_8**: @username_0 : Where is this claim by Collins as to not be able to see stars? Under what context?  
> **username_0**: I edited the question and added the two interviews. @username_8  
> **username_8**: @username_0 : Ah, thanks. It looks like they were asked about, and mentioned they were talking about, the possibility of seeing stars from the daytime side specifically, particularly, when landed (all landings were done [early] in the [~1.3 megasecond long] lunar daytime for various reasons).  That will be a hard sell because you would need to somehow get all sources of day-like bright objects and glare, including reflections, out of your field of view for a protracted period of time so your eyes can adjust properly. So not surprised they could not pick out any stars.  
> **username_0**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/91237/discussion-between-username_0-and-username_8).  
> **username_1**: I hope I didn't scare you away [here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/30576/7982)! Do you plan to un-delete your answer after editing, or is it gone for good?  
> **username_8**: @username_1 - Uh nah, that's okay; I was looking more to try and track down the precise mechanism and began to doubt I got it right. In particular, I'm not sure now as to why this is the first molecule to form instead of $\mathrm{H}_2$ given that $\mathrm{H}_2$, it turns out, has a _higher_ bond energy (453 kJ/mol against 178 kJ/mol). I'm tracking down the original paper on the subject to try and find out. It could be also that there is an alternative in $\mathrm{H}_2^{+}$ and this is less stable. Have to figure how all the energies sort out and need numbers for that.  
> **username_8**: So I want to keep it off until I can prepare a revised and more correct answer should it need be.  
> **username_8**: (Fun note: $\mathrm{H}_2^{+}$ is the only molecule you can actually solve, using analytic manipulation and not a computer simulation/approximation, for the bond energy from first principles :g:)  
> **username_1**: Whew, okay that's a relief. Yes I think this is going to be a really interesting story. I wonder how much is really known about the nature of HeH+ experimentally (rather than by numerical simulation). Maybe you can ask a Chemistry SE question about that and let that simmer while you read further?  
> **username_8**: @username_1 : Yeah, maybe (with regard to posting). I'll see.  
> **username_8**: @username_1 : I've looked into this some more; apparently $\mathrm{H}_2^{+}$ has a bond energy of about 251 kJ/mol, which means $\mathrm{He}\mathrm{H}^{+}$ is actually the _weakest_ - bound of all 3 species which intuitively seems to make sense. Something more subtle must be going on here...  

---

