why can't you see stars in photos taken in space?
410220
The shutter exposure time is too fast. On the moon, the sun was up, and the astronaut suits were white. It was really really bright, so they changed the exposure time. Ask any professional photographer.\n\nOh, and to the first answerer, bull s***.
387674
You can't see the stars during the day due to a process call Rayliegh scattering.\nBasically the sun radiates many visible colours of visible light even though it looks yellow. The blue light that the sun radiates is scattered by the atmosphere in all direction whilst other colours are unaffected. This gives the sky a blue appearance during the day. The blue sky is much brighter than the stars and thus we cannot see them.\nStrange fact: It is because the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen that the sky is blue, if the atmosphere was mostly oxygen it would be green.
3683
It is actually not possible to photograph, or "see" an atom. This is because they are to small for light to bounce off of, making them impossible to "see".\nThere are electron microscope pictures of atoms, but they are made by running electricity through something, feeding the data into a computer, then the computer shows an image of what the atoms would look like. (it's a little more complicated than that, but very hard to explain)
1100389
sorry but on earth our atmosphere acts like a lens (it magnifies)\nif in space, the sun itself would seem as a pale red star, if you could ask neil armstrong why the controversy, it would probably be because of what he saw ( or didnt see) that kept the hushh going. :)
928062
Well you can use spectroscopy to find out the composition of distant objects in space.  IE if a star emits light near (usually a slight red shift from distant objects) the emission lines of helium or mercury you could conclude that those elements are present.\n\nMike
654051
Neither one actually blinks.  Satellites are visible at night because they reflect sunlight hitting them just like the moon does.  Stars emit their own light, but are hundreds of millions to billions miles away, and so the light from those giant suns looks like tiny pinpricks in our sky.\n\nThe blinking and twinkling of the lights of these bodies is due to shifts in the atmosphere.  Different temperatures of air and smog/pollution from cities create variations in the atmosphere that cause the light to bend, shift and warble on its way to us.  This tends to be more noticeable when observing stars because the relative size of the light source is so much smaller when you compare the percentage of the sky they take up.  A small patch of warm air passing between you and Betelgeuse can make it seem to blur and twinkle.\n\nSo either one can 'blink', but it's a quality of the atmosphere in between you and what you are viewing, and not a feature of the light coming from the object.
794830
There's a prominent red emission line of hydrogen that dominates the color profile of emission nebulae for CCDs and most films. The eye, however, is not very sensitive at that wavelength, so it's the blue-green hydrogen emission that you see. Astrophotographs are generally color-balanced to show the contributions of significant spectral lines, rather than to reproduce any sort of "realistic" color.
937717
A lot.  Only 1% or less of the light actually makes the image.  This is why digital photography is so much better when it comes to astronomy.
612427
Nice question....stars shine because it is millions of light year away from us...in the case of planets its nearer than stars...not sure though..but i think so...
416509
You can see many of them with the naked eye, and some of the get pretty darn bright.  You can even see the inetrantional space station when it passes overhead.  Of course any of these objects will jusst look like a star moving across the sky at a decent rate.  But it is pretty cool.\n\nhttp://www.heavens-above.com will tell you exactly what is visible from your location on any night, as well as where to look.  You'll need a little bit of amature astronomy knowledge (magnitudes, reading a starchart) to get much out of it, but it is an awsome resource for this kind of thing.
498872
I think what you need to do is start looking at the picture in a different way.  \n\nYou're looking at the things that are THERE.  \n\nStart looking for what ISN'T THERE.  \n\nIt may be technically accurate to say that you can't see a black hole, because of the fact that our eyes register things that have light reflected off of them.  However, this doesn't change the fact that we can take a picture that displays the black hole, if only because of its nothingness.
537296
Mainly because the sun is so much closer than any other star. The twinkling effects our atmosphere causes on other stars is simply overcome by the brute force of sunlight.\n\nDistant stars twinkle due to Earth's atmosphere, but then why don't planets also twinkle; they look to be about the same size? Here's a good explanation I cut-and-pasted for you from an astronomy website --\n\n"Just like a computer screen, your eye is composed of a certain number of 'pixels,' each represented by a single light-receptor cell in your retina. If two (or more) points of light are close enough such that they are focused on the same receptor cell in your eye, you will experience them as a single point of light. This is the 'resolution' of your eye. \n\nNow, a star on the sky is in a true sense a single point of light. All the light comes through the atmosphere in exactly the same direction, through exactly the same atmospheric turbulence, and thus is bent in exactly the same way. So when it gets to your eye, the amount of light you see varies. It also strikes (primarily) only a single receptor ('pixel') in your eye. \n\nOn the other hand, light from a planet is different. Each of a few receptors in your eye sees a large number of light rays coming from the planet, each of which has been bent differently by the atmosphere (since the planet has size on the sky, they are arriving in slightly different directions). Some of these rays will become brighter, some dimmer. But because they all illuminate the same receptor in your eye, that receptor only sees the total amount of light hitting it. There will be about the same number of enhanced rays as dimmed rays, so you experience a steady light, not a twinkle."
86706
The pictures you see that are released by nasa or whoever are doctored. If you were out in space you would basically see what you see now. There are some differences in colors of stars, for example bettleguise ( forgive my horrible spelling) is a red giant and is a red colored star. However this really isn't what were talking about here. When you see nebulae and such in those pictures they are quite pretty, blue, red, all sorts of stuff going on there. In the truth of the matter if you could actually "look" through the hubble it would be just plain ole grey's and white's. Sometimes a picture is taken in several different wavelenghts and has each wavelength given as a different color. This is really not as common as some people think. I assure you that those amazing pictures that are full of color were processed to look amazing and not becasue they have these incredible colors themselves.\n\nOh one last thing, if you were up in space and you got a look at the sun it would appear bright white and not the yellow that we are used to here on the ground- the atmosphere gives it the color
300540
Observed from Earth’s surface, stars appear to twinkle because the atmosphere bends light on its way to the ground.  Stars are so far away that they appear as points of light in the sky, so when the atmosphere bends light from a star, it actually prevents the light from the star from reaching our eyes entirely—in other words, the tiny beam of light from the star that could reach our eyes at that point in time gets deflected away from our eyes briefly.  Thus, stars appear to twinkle on and off.  At one instant, a star’s light reaches your eye; at the next instant, it doesn’t.\n\nThe sun is simply too large to twinkle.  Yeah, one beam of light may get scattered away (perhaps to enhance the blueness of our sky), but the beam of light next to it will make it to your eyes, and on average, the whole sun appears nice and bright and untwinkling in the sky.  (Likewise, the moon doesn’t appear to twinkle, either.)\n\nIn space, there’s no atmosphere, no air to change the trajectory of light reaching your eyes (assuming your eyes are safely enclosed in a spacesuit with the rest of you), so the stars will not twinkle.  \n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
874063
You might have seen a planet if it was bright, but also a lot of stars are red.  Cooler stars give off a red color.  There is nothing unusual about it.
212043
90% of stars of Red Dwarfs, but they are dim, and difficult to see, and the person above me is wrong , only about 3-5% of stars are like our sun. you cant see them because they dont put out very much energy, and are quite small. You may be able to see more of them if you had a telescope.
508585
There have been many systems identified, some with multiple planets and a few with asteroid belts. The problem is that they are mostly discovered by measuring the minute movements of the star caused by gravitational influences of nearby orbiting objects, so most of the discoveries to date have been systems with relatively large planets (many times larger than our Jupiter) and quite close to the star so that the movement is more easily detected. Recently however, there have been more sensitive sensor arrays which have been able to resolve more "normal" configurations using sophisticated imagery, so there is hope for discoveries of systems more similar to our own in the near future. In any event, given the tremendous distances involved, the resolution of optical telescopes available in the foreseeable future would pretty much preclude any traditional photograph of such a system if it were to be found. There have been some rather blurry computer images generated from these other imaging systems, but I'd hardly call them photographs. Try monitoring <space.com>