>>40581090
>photographers have said that the stars would not be captured at their exposure settings
and thats correct. the shutterspeed was set 1/250 at an apurture no wider than f5.6 for the main 60mm cameras used. you cant capture stars like that, especially with the relatively slow film stock used.
You can check this out with your own camera, or do some reading about light levels and stuff.

>>40581090
>I don't know the difference. Why wouldn't it?
the VAB is trapped protons and electrons which while energetic dont have much mass. THey are also nowhere near as energetic as cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation, at least the stuff which is dangerous, is mostly heavy atomic nuclei like from iron, moving at almost the speed of light. Its that stuff which can't really be protected against, but thankfully the dangerous ones make up less than 1% of all cosmic radiation.
The stuff in the VAB is pretty easy to shield against compared to that stuff.

>Those shadows aren't that altered. It's an illusion from the rock surface.
but it still looks like its a different angle in the picture doesn't it. thats the whole point. thats what you're dealing with in the moon photos.

>Those shadows aren't that altered. It's an illusion from the rock surface.
but it does show you the simple effect of perspective on how parallel shadows can appear. its part of what you see, along with other effects.