It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rover captures light source on Mars!!

page: 11
95
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Neither cosmic ray nor hot pixel, thinks NASA. A 'glinty' rock, or sunlight leaking into the camera they say. This seems to account for the problems raised by the different apparent positions of the light in different photos. I doubt the first explanation. The light looks to emerge from a shaded area, not one struck by sunlight.
www.foxnews.com...
edit on 8-4-2014 by Ross 54 because: corrected spelling, added information.




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
They are now reporting on this mysterious light.

NASA photo captures strange bright light coming out of Mars




Although the space agency hasn't issued any official statement yet about the phenomenon, bloggers and NASA enthusiasts have started chiming in.


Maybe with all this hype about the bright light NASA will explore it further.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



If the light had been external it would appear in both.

Again...
No it won't, in case of that angle of light reflection or light source (with narrow beam) didn't affect left navcam.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DazDaKing
 

The bottom is at a perfect 90 degree angle because it is totally aligned with the pixel grid - surely a strike against it being natural and in favour of being a pixel artefact.

Similarly the symmetrical blooming into adjacent pixels suggests it is bleeding of electrons into the neighbouring pixels from an overloaded pixel.

Basically everything points to it being a camera artefact EXCEPT the fact that a separate photo taken on a different day shows a similar light in a similar position on the landscape.

So I am slightly mystified.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


I am not sure you know what a cosmic ray is or how it affects a camera...your post above proves that.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown
 


The angle? These cameras are inches apart facing the same direction and at the same elevation. it's literally like closing one eye and looking at the world, then vice versa.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ross 54
 

A camera light leak. That's interesting. Odd, but interesting. I wonder why Maki doesn't seem to consider it as a cosmic ray strike. Maybe Ellison should get together with him.


As Pauligirl pointed out earlier:

Update for 9 p.m. ET April 7: Doug Ellison, an imaging guru who happens to work at JPL, quickly told me in a Twitter update that the bright spot is due to a "cosmic ray hit" affecting the rover. (Later: The Surrey Space Center's Chris Bridges agrees.)

www.nbcnews.com...




edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This seems like a plausible explanation, but for my own knowledge, how is it that a cosmic ray hit appeared in two completely separate images of the same mountain range from seemingly 2 different locations?

In this pic the rover seems to be right oriented to that mound of dirt in the foreground, which puts the light more to the left out in the horizon.


This pic of the same mountain range, but this time from the left side of that same mound of dirt, shows the position of the artifact where you might expect it to be if an object were actually out in the distance and being accounted for by a change in perspective.


So how does this happen with a cosmic ray?
edit on 8-4-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2014 by PhotonEffect because: no longer the most plausible, but definitely a plausible...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

raymundoko
The angle? These cameras are inches apart facing the same direction and at the same elevation. it's literally like closing one eye and looking at the world, then vice versa.

Ah, yes, but that can make all the difference.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This image is from sol 419,its a different camera ,rear hazcam mars.jpl.nasa.gov...


And heres one from the other cam at the same time mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
It appears we have fuzzy wuzzies flying round mars.

edit on 8-4-2014 by symptomoftheuniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Ross 54
Neither cosmic ray nor hot pixel, thinks NASA. A 'glinty' rock, or sunlight leaking into the camera they say. This seems to account for the problems raised by the different apparent positions of the light in different photos. I doubt the first explanation. The light looks to emerge from a shaded area, not one struck by sunlight.
www.foxnews.com...
edit on 8-4-2014 by Ross 54 because: corrected spelling, added information.


Ya, I think now that there is actually something out there reflecting light or interacting with it in some way...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


So how does this happen with a cosmic ray?
Two cosmic rays. Chance.

How does a light from an apparently distant source strike only one camera of a pair? A very tight laser beam I suppose. But...come on.


edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 

Yup, just like that.
In PRINCIPLE, there is this possibility that narrow beam of light hit the right camera.
Keep in mind, I'm talking of principles and possibility, not that I claim that's what happened there.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Sigh...for the last time...it cannot and is not a cosmic ray. How can anyone still argue such nonsense after another picture was taken of the area at a different time and the light is there again?

Furthermore, the concept that EVERY time one NAV-CAM takes a picture, the other one does by default has to be put to rest. Please...someone provide a LINK to where it states this because I cannot find that information on any PDF about the Rover on JPL website. Both cams can take pictures independently, BUT...there is a 5.2 millisecond delay from when one cam takes a pic to when its sister takes one. 5.2 milliseconds in Physics is a lifetime.

There still hasn't been one response as to why the operator of the Rover decided to take a HUGE exposure time to take that picture. There is absolutely NO reason for the NAV-Cams to take such long exposure times, and normally the shutter speed of both are between .25 seconds-30 seconds. Neither of which would allow for the capture of ANY cosmic ray.

Furthermore, many are still poo-pooing the notion that the cameras and their computers would not filter the cosmic rays out. They DO, and the PDS I linked to went into great detail about the steps taken to prevent pixelation and blooming caused by cosmic rays. If they were so easy to catch, they'd be in every picture the Rover takes.


Some NAV-CAM data:

Each CCD includes 32 non-imaging
pixels in the serial readout registers, which allow the monitoring
of the CCD electronics offset and detector noise performance. Both
the Navcam and Hazcam CCD pixels have full well capacities of
approximately 160,000 electrons and are digitized at 12 bits/pixel.


The absolute CCD quantum efficiency (QE) of the CCDs has been
measured between 400 and 1000 nm at four operating temperatures
ranging from 218 K and 278 K. The QE of the MER CCDs is typical
of a silicon CCD detector, with sensitivity peaking at 700 nm with a
QE value of approximately 43%. The SNR of the detector system is
essentially Poisson-limited because of its low readout noise and
small dark current rates in the Martian operating envirionments.



Once you factor in that these cameras have a 99% Quantum Efficiency (the ability to convert Protons into Electrons such as these CCD cameras do)....there is NO WAY enough electrons were corrupted in that photograph to be able to manipulate all of the pixels that are showing light. Especially in conjunction with the ICER program which scrubs corrupted data packets before sending them through space, and with the THREE BANDPASS filters on each lense to STOP the cams from capturing cosmic ray light.

Do those of you who still foster the cosmic ray theory think that NASA is stupid enough to just send run of the mill digital cameras to MARS?? Did they just code ICER for the fun of it knowing it wouldn't work? Did the scientists decide to use 3 bandpass filters on each camera just because it sounds cool? NO. They used these safe-gaurds explicitly because the NAV-CAMS are the first line of defense against the Rover hitting anything. Dead pixels, blooming, cosmic rays, anything that corrupts data is so detrimental that they included those extras to WORK ALL THE TIME...not just once in awhile.

Again...IDK what the source is, but I know what it isn't....a Cosmic Ray hitting a mm wide sensor on the only (working) man made object on another planet at the exact time this object took a picture. How absolutely ludicrous.

Glad the topic has caught on though



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


So how does this happen with a cosmic ray?
Two cosmic rays. Chance.

How does a light from an apparently distant source strike only one camera of a pair? A very tight laser beam I suppose. But...come on.


edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


But come on, what exactly? I'm only asking. Now we need two cosmic rays to appear at the same spot along the same horizon at around the same time of day to make that theory plausible. Chance is one explanation, I guess. Although I have not a clue what the chances are of that happening...

To your question- I don't know why it doesn't appear in the other camera. But Im not so sure it means cosmic ray



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Now ABC News has picked it up:

abcnews.go.com...


On the two different days that the images were taken, the sun was in the same direction as the bright spot, Maki noted.

The light also could be caused by a technical error, which has occurred previously on other Curiosity cameras and other Mars rovers, Maki said.

“The rover science team is also looking at the possibility that the bright spots could be sunlight reaching the camera’s CCD directly through a vent hole in the camera housing,” Maki said. "We think it’s either a vent-hole light leak or a glinty rock.”


They publicize this and not the shell-like potential fossil that Arken has a thread up on?

edit on 8-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 



BUT...there is a 5.2 millisecond delay from when one cam takes a pic to when its sister takes one. 5.2 milliseconds in Physics is a lifetime.
Source for that delay between cameras? In any case 0.00052 second is hardly a lifetime.
 



There still hasn't been one response as to why the operator of the Rover decided to take a HUGE exposure time to take that picture.
There is no reason to think there was a HUGE exposure time.


Neither of which would allow for the capture of ANY cosmic ray.
Why not? A cosmic ray strike happens very, very quickly. Less than 5.2 milliseconds.


Furthermore, many are still poo-pooing the notion that the cameras and their computers would not filter the cosmic rays out. They DO, and the PDS I linked to went into great detail about the steps taken to prevent pixelation and blooming caused by cosmic rays. If they were so easy to catch, they'd be in every picture the Rover takes.
I saw no mention of "pixelation" or cosmic rays in the documents you linked. I provided an example of blooming occuring.
 



Once you factor in that these cameras have a 99% Quantum Efficiency (the ability to convert Protons into Electrons such as these CCD cameras do)....there is NO WAY enough electrons were corrupted in that photograph to be able to manipulate all of the pixels that are showing light.
Cosmic rays can be very, very energetic. Upwards of 0.3 GeV.

and with the THREE BANDPASS filters on each lense to STOP the cams from capturing cosmic ray light.
How would bandpass filters stop cosmic rays. What makes you think cosmic rays have to go through the filter or lens?
 



Do those of you who still foster the cosmic ray theory think that NASA is stupid enough to just send run of the mill digital cameras to MARS??
No. Do you think they are stupid enough to send this camera to study the Sun when it can be so badly affected by cosmic rays?

 



Again...IDK what the source is, but I know what it isn't....a Cosmic Ray hitting a mm wide sensor on the only (working) man made object on another planet at the exact time this object took a picture. How absolutely ludicrous.
More ludicrous than a light being captured by only one camera of a pair? Even if there is a 0.00052 second delay between pair images, it would seem the chances are no less extreme that the camera would just happen to catch such a brief flash of light.

edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


But Im not so sure it means cosmic ray
I'm pretty sure it does.
I would like to hear more about that "light leak" thing that JPL mentioned, though. That's a new one on me.

edit on 4/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Quite the anomaly! I was firmly with Phage and the cosmic ray strike as the appearance in one camera but not the other pointed to exactly that... a cosmic ray strike or imaging artifact in one of the cameras... boring, story over...BUT the same thing appearing in the same area in other images??

A puzzler... a light source that has a narrow focus is the easy (well, only) answer... a reflective, moving surface? A piece of metal catching light from the sun (but the sun is behind it in the first image)? And natural light sources light enough to be moved by wind on Mars... maybe stray tinfoil??

This is now 'officially' interesting (despite the poor understanding of science shown in the first few chaotic posts of this thread).

Hmmmm... and that doesn't mean aliens, darnit, but it IS ...odd.

I await the stepladder to the shoulders of giants to explain this...



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join