Sorry for double post and
really late response;
a different look. I answered the question I posited here and thought I'd share it ffs. Without any major scientific quotations, equations, or the like; simple since that's the way I came to understand it (again).
It might have been observed already here, but it hit me recently, maybe I can help someone else 'get it'.
Question: Where are the stars?
Emphasis/Context: Day-launch balloons, NASA photos, etc
Explicit: Why don't we see stars in "space" or "high altitude balloon footage"?
What is this guy on about: This Video is a good example (ignore the Flat Earth context for a second, it's the 'blackness' that I'm focused on IE
no stars)
Answer: Simple misconception. During "Day Time" launches of high-altitude balloons or rockets, no stars are observable. Nevertheless, the sky is 'black'. This probably has something to do with the nature of light; specifically, it's concentration level (ie bleed - 'blackness'). So, this means, that stars are only visible when the sun is 'hidden' or 'occulted'.
Exception: you can see the stars come in/out of focus in the evening/morning; a kind of 'fade effect'. A general rule; the more intense the sun's local presence, the more impossible it is to see stars (unless you pass out).
Now, this means that any 'satellites' should not see stars, outside of a few very rare circumstances; if the sun dictates that stars are not visible in it's presence, we shouldn't see stars (spoiler: we don't). Though the black expanse of day-launch high altitude balloons can be disconcerting, and is what led me to make the original post here. The idea that stars only appear in the 'shade' of the Earth, is very interesting in itself, with implications I can hardly fathom; though we all 'know' it already. This of course, also
shifts the suspicion from NASA images that don't have stars in them, to any pictures of 'outer space' that
DO have stars in them,
as being potential hoaxes. Understanding the fundamental nature of light is something I am not sure I'm capable of achieving in a single lifetime, personally... but there are academic resources for that, if
you are interested. For example, Hubble Deep Field (if not a hoax) shows what is possible through long-exposure. This is by no means a scientific explanation, just my own [belated] response to a question I happened to ask [over 120 days ago].
In any case I can see why The Flat Earth never really looses
tract; [if even considered, it] calls for reevaluation of things you already 'know' and 'take for granted'. Anyway that was probably boring af, but thought I'd [embarrass myself and] share.
Edit: In sum, I realize the naivete of my original question; but I also understand where it came from - trying to understand (or make!) a flat earth model. To be more succinct with my answer: the 'blackness' of space is not indicative of an absence of light; it is the default form that an
abundance takes. As for what I stated about 'the shade of the Earth that the stars hide in':
The Penumbra represents the 'evening' and 'morning'; the 'umbra' represents the 'night time'; the only place where we can see stars. Anywhere 'in space' outside of the ubmra of a planet, means... no stars. Not sure how this works on the Flat Earth (of course,
without resorting to daoism); thats why I asked this initial question, I now realize. That's all.