Isn't this just because of the processing? I imagine if you took additional logarithm of the values returned by the sensor, you could have both starts and the bright moon visible at the same time.
We could use additional "tricks" with cameras too (e.g. physically obscuring the moon and earth for one frame to shoot the stars then mixing it with the next photo) and with the additional post-processing (which would certainly include reducing the dynamic range to be able to show the photo on the screen) get something that some skeptics would think is "normal" but it's not what was being done on the photos presented, as nobody designs that much for features that actually don't bring anything: It would be easier to shoot just the sky in the same direction (the stars would look effectively the same, they are that far -- the satellite is just one hundredth of one AU away from the Earth and Alpha Centauri is some 271 thousands AU away) and photoshop it.
That's basically the idea behind HDR (High Dynamic Range) imagery in photography/photo processing. (And my understanding is that it's hard to figure out exactly what the best scaling function is in order to mimic typical human perception: it's not just a simple log.)
