Rover captures light source on Mars!!

It's a plasma discharge.

By the way, plasma discharges such as this can traverse the surface and most often appear at ridge lines.

reply to post by Subterranean13



Yes...let's nitpick. I believe you understood that when I said "film" I meant "picture" or "photograph".

Either way...please describe to me the following:


If cosmic rays are just things that corrupt data on pictures, why must I have over a minute exposure time to capture one on my camera???????

Also, if these "rays" are bombarding MARS, why don't far more pictures have them in it?????

Listen...a cosmic ray hits the sensor on a camera and corrupts the electrons...I GET IT. What I don't get is how this happens when every single piece of hardware and software on a billion dollar machine is meant to filter these types of things out?

Furthermore, in order for those "corrupted" electrons to even show the "light", it MUST be viewable in the visual spectrum or else the pixels would just be DEAD and not BRIGHT. To catch ANY residual particle light from a cosmic ray at all...you would have to have a minute exposure time...not the scant .25 seconds the NC's operate at.

So...it doesn't matter where this cosmic ray hit the camera ie: lens, sensor, circuitry....the residual is still not within the visual spectrum, so the digital image would not have any light at all. It would be just dead pixels because neither the camera, processor, ICER, or bandpass filters would allow for the light to be visible in the first place.


Also...if it's so easy to capture such light, why are there special cameras and filters designed for them? Why also can I not see any residual light in my eyes from cosmic rays since they work under the exact same principles as the NC's do??

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Assuming I'm incorrect, and they are indeed a half an inch, how exactly does that make the scenario any more plausible??

It makes it about 250 times more likely that a cosmic ray would strike the sensor while an image was being taken.

Using an Earthly average we would expect a cosmic ray to strike the CCD once every 20 seconds. The exposure time for a noontime image is 0.25 seconds. So, we can expect a ray in every 80 images on average. Now, not all the hits are going to be strong enough to saturate one or more pixels so they won't all show up in daytime images.

Plasma discharges in the lab:

i1.ytimg.com...

www.casetechnology.com...

www.me.memphis.edu...

www.st-andrews.ac.uk...

The Martian atmosphere is near vaccuum level, which allows discharges like this to take place on the surface.

The same electrical forces causing the observed discharge are also responsible for the dust devils on Mars. The air is far too thin for them to be created mechanically by air pressure.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

By the way, plasma discharges such as this can traverse the surface and most often appear at ridge lines.

Why would it appear in only one image of a stereo pair?

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

By the way, plasma discharges such as this can traverse the surface and most often appear at ridge lines.

Why would it appear in only one image of a stereo pair?

Simple.

The ridge line is covering it up.

Open up these two pictures and flip back and forth between them.

It's getting hidden behind the ridge line.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

The parallax is what's causing it to be hidden from view on the left.

This does look like a cosmic ray hit, and there are scientists at JPL and the Surrey Space Centre who said the same thing recently:

So what is it? The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has yet to respond officially to press requests (including ours) for some context here (Update: see NASA's best guess at what that light is below), but a few people who would know have weighed in already. As NBC News spotted, one JPL employee said that the light was probably a "cosmic ray hit," an explanation that Surrey Space Centre's Doug Ellison agrees with.

Source: The Wire

However, MORE recently it looks like NASA and JPL have been leaning toward the "glinty rock" or "vent hole light" ideas as the official explanation, probably because the light appeared in the same position from the same camera, at the same time the following day. (also explained in the above link, if you scroll down to read the update)

To me, this looked like some kind of lens flare / sunlight reflection, so I'd put my money on the "vent hole" explanation.

NOTE: That is not to suggest a "vent hole" in the ground, but rather sunlight that is coming in through a hole in the camera housing. Also, for the record, since there seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread regarding cosmic rays, I recommend web-searching the difference between cosmic rays and gamma rays. I needed a little refresher myself, and I think there is some mistaking one for the other going on.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

What about here:
www.slate.com...

The cameras are 16 inches apart. Horizontally. Not vertically.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

www.nbcnews.com...

Thanks for the link man. So that's the other photo. Nice.

2nd Image [different angle and day]:

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I guess we can conclude its not a product of ANYTHING to do with the quality/surface of the rovers right lens. It could still be an image or pixel problem that is occurring in the right camera system as a whole. It's still showing a strong light gradient (now a sphere) around the source.

Actually, on closer inspection, it is 2 parallel horizontal lines and 2 vertical lines emitting the light source (once again perfectly in line with the cameras horizontal plane and 90 degrees to eachother) or rather a equal arm cross in the middle giving rise to the spherical light gradient.

At the magnification that allows you to see the 'cross', you can also see the surrounding pixels are very large in relation, and that it also appears to be infront of a rock. The directly surrounding area of that light is actually more pixelated than the surrounding area.

That would actually suggest the object behind it is most likely (if not an pixel artefact) reflecting from the light source - hence the increased resolution. That doesn't exclude the possibility of the light source being directly there rather than it being an effect of the sun.

Still, a shiny rock reflecting the sun sounds ridiculous. It is apparently 1km away also. As if that was NASA's go to explaination lol.

I guess that theories easily verifiable though. Just re-align the rover to that position and wait. It should happen again if its just the function of the sun cycle and a stationary large shiny rock.

The second image is definitely interesting in the sense that the vertical and horizontal lines are much less aligned to the natural pixel grid it seems. They are also at a greater resolution. Why is that? Image artefact or genuine and very powerful concentrated light source?

I still doubt its a cosmic ray due to the detailed and 90 degree geometry and light gradients. The impact length of such a collision would be too short to even catch it on a 0.25s shutter (if that really was the setting at the time) anyway. Or it would be so faded that there is no chance we'll see something this bright.

Definitely more mysterious now either way.

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

The cameras are 16 inches apart. Horizontally. Not vertically.

Of course, which is why it is getting hidden behind the ridge line.

Open up the pictures and flip back and forth.

It's obvious the ridge line is in the way.

The left camera is too far left to view it around the ridge.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

What about here:
www.slate.com...

Miniscuzz
reply to post by Subterranean13

 

Yes...let's nitpick. I believe you understood that when I said "film" I meant "picture" or "photograph".

Either way...please describe to me the following:


If cosmic rays are just things that corrupt data on pictures, why must I have over a minute exposure time to capture one on my camera???????

You don't, it would just make it more likely that you would capture one, or more.

Also, if these "rays" are bombarding MARS, why don't far more pictures have them in it?????

NASA say they see a little less than one a week. Thats just how likely they are to interact with the cameras.

Listen...a cosmic ray hits the sensor on a camera and corrupts the electrons...I GET IT. What I don't get is how this happens when every single piece of hardware and software on a billion dollar machine is meant to filter these types of things out?

As far am I'm aware, there is nothing particularly special onboard to specifically block cosmic rays. I apologise if I've got this wrong and you can show me where they say this is the case. Its mostly bloom and other artifacts that they try to get rid of.

Furthermore, in order for those "corrupted" electrons to even show the "light", it MUST be viewable in the visual spectrum or else the pixels would just be DEAD and not BRIGHT. To catch ANY residual particle light from a cosmic ray at all...you would have to have a minute exposure time...not the scant .25 seconds the NC's operate at.

So...it doesn't matter where this cosmic ray hit the camera ie: lens, sensor, circuitry....the residual is still not within the visual spectrum, so the digital image would not have any light at all. It would be just dead pixels because neither the camera, processor, ICER, or bandpass filters would allow for the light to be visible in the first place.

Cosmic rays do not emit light into the CCD. I think this is where you're struggling to understand how it works. They pass energy into the CCD, which it registers as bright light in a very small area. There was no em waves (light) that caused this.

Also...if it's so easy to capture such light, why are there special cameras and filters designed for them? Why also can I not see any residual light in my eyes from cosmic rays since they work under the exact same principles as the NC's do??

There is no residual light. It sounds like the cosmic ray may be able to pass enough energy into your retina to make it look like you saw something, if the story from the astronauts is true. But even if true, its not actual light they would be seeing, just a physical interaction between the ray and the eye.

You've come a long way in your understanding, considering on the first page you thought Mars had no atmosphere, and that the photo was taken when the cosmic ray hit the ground and emitted light. I hope you can understand this final part.

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

What about here:
www.slate.com...

I'm looking for the raw images on NASA's site now.

I can't seem to find that pair of images.

I want to see if the timestamps are identical between them.

Subterranean13
You've come a long way in your understanding, considering on the first page you thought Mars had no atmosphere, and that the photo was taken when the cosmic ray hit the ground and emitted light. I hope you can understand this final part.

Yeah....15 more pages and he'll be all "of course! I get it now!.....it's not actually light!"

reply to post by Phage



Why bother using Earth as an extrapolation to how many cosmic rays would hit a sensor on any given day? There's a HUGE difference of occurences between the two. Furthermore, Mars doesn't have the magnetic field of Earth so the cosmic ray impacts are a thousand times greater. Which means that when you factor that in to your scenario of 1 out of 80 pictures...it becomes EVERY picture.

Why you continue down this path when every hour more NASA reps are claiming it ISN'T a cosmic ray is beyond me.


I kinda like the idea touted that it's a plasma thingy lol. Far less arbitrary calculations by an armchair physicist to come up with that one

I usually don't wade into this forum often, but this subject popped up on my FB feed from the Blaze sight.

They are thinking it could possibly an electrified dust devil. I'll leave it too the experts.
www.theblaze.com...

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Mars doesn't have the magnetic field of Earth so the cosmic ray impacts are a thousand times greater.

A source for that figure?

Why you continue down this path when every hour more NASA reps are claiming it ISN'T a cosmic ray is beyond me.

You have not quoted a single one as yet.

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Yeah I just found them.

Timestaps match.

What doesn't match is the background ridge line quality.

Notice how the ridge line that is far in the distance looks pixelated on the left, but smooth on the right?

Zoom in and flip back and forth, you'll notice the difference.

I'm not sure if the left might have some kind of issue going on or what, but they don't look the same.

Not sure why we can't see the light on that one, but the other one is obviously a ridge line obstruction.

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

By the way, plasma discharges such as this can traverse the surface and most often appear at ridge lines.

Why would it appear in only one image of a stereo pair?

that's a good point. did you answer my question about why the fuzzy part was on top?