Rover captures light source on Mars!!

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation



Because it's not the "first"...it's the second time...in two days. The second time in two days that the rover has snapped a picture of the same event happening in the exact same spot while in different positions. Perhaps you'd like to read the thread before making comments?

Phage...I do get what you are saying and honestly...I don't have the knowledge to continue it further. You are arguing that the pixel difference of a few sectors is mind blowing...when in all actuality, it could just as easily prove that there IS a martian there who lights a fire. How can you prove otherwise with any amount of credibility when even the JPL scientist who built the cameras suggests its a reflection? Are you smarter than him? Are you in possession of material that he isn't privy to? NO. Neither am I. So let's just agree to disagree and be happy that ATS was talking about this days before the media...AGAIN.

The light on the horizon in this image is from sol 505 mars.jpl.nasa.gov... months ago.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

The second time in two days that the rover has snapped a picture of the same event happening in the exact same spot while in different positions.

saying that. It's not true. If you would take your own advice:

Perhaps you'd like to read the thread before making comments?

You would know this.

symptomoftheuniverse
The light on the horizon in this image is from sol 505 mars.jpl.nasa.gov... months ago.

Good find! It's either another instance of a pixel overload, of a light shining off of a bright rock, or one of those wookie campfires. (I saw this earlier when symptomoftheuniverse posted it on the anomalies thread, which went over this entire event, with Phage included in the discussion, hours before this thread was put up)

reply to post by Qumulys

Obviously a very different atmosphere, but there is plenty of co2 up there, so a tiny 'lens' acting bubble (like, millimeters) could has started to form on the lens...?

1) The pressure is too low for liquid CO2 (or water) to form and the temperature is not low enough for it to solidify. stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com...
marsweather.com...

2) Very.

3) Self diagnostics would indicate something amiss. She's a pretty smart machine.

4) I don't know what effects a static discharge may have, other than frying something.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Artifacts, pixelation, sun spots, and data loss probably make up the majority of those. But in realty, I don't know. I just think the mathematical probability argument is weak.

AAC

reply to post by Miniscuzz

You are arguing that the pixel difference of a few sectors is mind blowing

The odds of a cosmic ray strike in any position on any given image are equal.

How can you prove otherwise with any amount of credibility when even the JPL scientist who built the cameras suggests its a reflection?

Does he say it can't be a cosmic ray strike? That's what you have been saying.
Was he aware that it did not appear in the stereo pair? That is not at all clear.

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

The second time in two days that the rover has snapped a picture of the same event happening in the exact same spot while in different positions.

saying that. It's not true. If you would take your own advice:

Perhaps you'd like to read the thread before making comments?

You would know this.

What are you even talking about?? April 2nd and April 3rd. Two separate events from different positions appearing to come from the same location.


LINK: www.nbcnews.com...

Phage
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

You are arguing that the pixel difference of a few sectors is mind blowing

The odds of a cosmic ray strike in any position on any given image are equal.

How can you prove otherwise with any amount of credibility when even the JPL scientist who built the cameras suggests its a reflection?

Does he say it can't be a cosmic ray strike? That's what you have been saying.
Was he aware that it did not appear in the stereo pair? That is not at all clear.

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

I'm sure that scientist was aware of everything concerning that picture or he wouldn't have been interviewed right? When asked if it was a cosmic ray strike he replied that it was a reflection. Are you paying attention? I've posted that link once already at your request.

Also, while he doesn't say it can't be a cosmic ray, he doesn't say it can't be Alf either. Noone will ever know who is right. I claim your theory is asinine. I'm entitled. Just as you're entitled to not walk away two posts ago when I called a truce so as to further the discussion for others. Sometimes in life...we learn that we cannot be right all the time...this is one of those times for you Phage.

The first task was to decide if the light "source" as seen in the two images was external or internal to the rover.

Taking each image we created a 2 second animation of the two images. (SOL588: NRB_449700848EDR_F0301254NCAM00252M_ , and SOL589: NRB_449790582EDR_F0310000NCAM00262M_) .

In that time Curiosity moved forward meaning that if the light source was external to the rover (i.e. in the distance, on a ridge, whatever) the angle of that light in relation to the camera should have changed(1). Here is the animation:

Sources:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

(1) Note that this understanding assumes (rightly or wrongly) that the light source is not mobile and cannot track a specific-sided camera extremely well, a conclusion that in the positive would assume a higher life form, a sentience of some sort, controlling the light source.

The angle of the light source did not change over the two images:


FYI: For anyone interested, the NavCams can be seen in this picture of the rover mast and head:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov... pg and in this one: www.nasa.gov... .jpg
There are four navcams, set A being the upper pair, set B the lower pair. Set A is not currently in use. It is a fully redundant system:

The Navcams are attached to a camera mounting plate with a left/right stereo baseline of approximately 42 cm. There are two pairs of Navcams on the MSL Rover (four Navcams total). One Navcam pair is con-nected to the Rover Compute Element (RCE) “A-side” electronics and the other pair is connected to the RCE “B-side” electronics. Only one RCE is active at a time, the second RCE is for fault redundancy.

Source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

In conclusion, the light "source" is local to the rover and probably unique to the Navigation Camera Right B. Please note that investigations of Navigation Camera Left B images and data (later date) are continuing, specifically to rule-out any similarities that may undermine the current understanding that the light "source" was unique to Right B. If it is confirmed that the light "source" is unique to Right B, as seems initially to be the case, then we understand two serious options to remain: Cosmic Ray (highly unlikely due to repeated incidence), and Light Leakage (probably the Detector Head).

If the Detector Head internal shielding is leaking light, then MSL may have a problem - but only a minor one in my opinion. Close inspection of the detector head may be possible to help investigate any incurred damage or wear to the detector head. However, given the minor and non-scientific nature of the inquiry I would expect a negligible chance of follow-up at the current time.

reply to post by Blister


Very well presented!

reply to post by Miniscuzz

I'm sure that scientist was aware of everything concerning that picture or he wouldn't have been interviewed right?

He wasn't interviewed. He responded to an email.

When asked if it was a cosmic ray strike he replied that it was a reflection. Are you paying attention?

Can you provide the questions he was asked? I do not see that he was asked about cosmic ray strikes.

I claim your theory is asinine. I'm entitled.

Of course you are. Every one is entitled to wallow in ignorance.

eriktheawful
reply to post by Blister

 

Very well presented!

Yup...gotta agree there lol. Nicely done! I'm just glad that the quote from your source said that cosmic rays probably weren't the cause because of the repeat event. Been trying to convince someone here of that and as childish as this is....I'm glad that person is wrong lol.

I'm going back to JPL to find something new. C'mon Arken!

Miniscuzz

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

The second time in two days that the rover has snapped a picture of the same event happening in the exact same spot while in different positions.

saying that. It's not true. If you would take your own advice:

Perhaps you'd like to read the thread before making comments?

You would know this.

What are you even talking about?? April 2nd and April 3rd. Two separate events from different positions appearing to come from the same location.


LINK: www.nbcnews.com...

Neither the location in the frame nor on the planet is exactly the same.

ETA: And from your link here to NBC News

He noted that the rover team usually determines the source of a bright spot by checking both the left and the right views from the navigation camera. If it doesn't show up in both views, it's probably a cosmic ray glitch. "In this case, it's not as straightforward because of a blocked view from the second camera on the first day," he said.

reply to post by Phage


1, Interesting that you say solid co2 cant form due to pressure. I'm sure your aware there can be flakes of co2, flakes are technically a solid yes? Although, a hard ice type structure is a different animal entirely, so I will agree this theory is very unlikely....
I wonder if there are different atmosphere pressures in between each of the lens elements? Maybe? Oh... If the CO2 could get in there, the pressure would be equal to outside.... Hmmm... Unless there was h2o inside the assembly by accident, but surely nasa aint that careless!

2, I'm not going to completely rule out this idea just yet, taking a 500:1 long odds on this one for $5.

3, The static would not have to actually be a huge discharge like when you zap a finger on getting out of a car.. We're talking a highly sensitive ccd, millions of micro-connecting conducting joints, I'd love to know more about this idea, but I never had the luxury to study chemistry in my schooling sadly. Can't carbon be an electrical conductor?

It's surprising how little I actually know about CO2's properties considering I have a 40kg bottle of it in my house to feed my aquatic plants!

reply to post by Miniscuzz






" I'm sure that scientist was aware of everything concerning that picture or he wouldn't have been interviewed right? When asked if it was a cosmic ray strike he replied that it was a reflection. Are you paying attention? I've posted that link once already at your request.

Also, while he doesn't say it can't be a cosmic ray, he doesn't say it can't be Alf either. Noone will ever know who is right. I claim your theory is asinine. I'm entitled. Just as you're entitled to not walk away two posts ago when I called a truce so as to further the discussion for others. Sometimes in life...we learn that we cannot be right all the time...this is one of those times for you Phage."






I guess phil plait (a professional /Explanation=cosmic ray) is wrong.
I guess Emily Lakdawalla(a professional /Explanation=cosmic ray) is wrong.
I guessDoug Ellison(a professional image expert for nasa /Explanation=cosmic ray) is wrong.
I guess Ziya Tong and Dan Riskin (hosts of Discovery Channels "Daily Planet"/ Explanation= Cosmic ray) are wrong.


I guess they are all asinine and you (an undercover genius?) are right... you sound silly

reply to post by Blister


I always enjoy reading one of your posts, and there are only 193 of them. Within that small amount you have shared lots of information and valuable data and analysis, and your present post does not disappoint. Thanks.

reply to post by Blister


Interesting that there is a what looks like a sharp cliff in the distance. I'm reasonably convince it's local to the camera, but here's an image of co2 cascading down a mars cliff ridge.

Miniscuzz

eriktheawful
reply to post by Blister

 

Very well presented!

Yup...gotta agree there lol. Nicely done! I'm just glad that the quote from your source said that cosmic rays probably weren't the cause because of the repeat event. Been trying to convince someone here of that and as childish as this is....I'm glad that person is wrong lol.

I'm going back to JPL to find something new. C'mon Arken!

Just to clarify regarding the possibility of a cosmic ray strike on navcam right B.

The data required to fully assess this is not yet available. I am sure that when it is available nothing will indicate cosmic rays as relevant in this matter. But that is simply my opinion.