Rover captures light source on Mars!!

Phage
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

And, the answered another question that has been asked, but no one has been able to answer: how long the time is between shots of the left and right cameras. Answer: within one second.

Erm...

The two images were taken at the same second.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Uhm.....the post you linked?

Could you check it Phage?

ETA: never mind you fixed it.

Hey, do you have a link to that spec? All the PDF files I have on the cameras, they do not discuss the time other than what you said: time to pull the data. I always thought that they were commanded to snap at the same time....but of course, none of the PDFs even talk about that. They only say that the RCE can command two cameras at the same time.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Yup. It's the post where I said both images were taken in the same second.

BTW, .52 ms is 0.00052 seconds.

Phage
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Yup. It's the post where I said both images were taken in the same second.

BTW, .52 ms is 0.00052 seconds.

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

Yes.....my eyes again.

aka 520 u seconds.

reply to post by Phage


Very good Phage. Indeed, a quick look at the two picture samples you have presented does lead one to the conclusion that yes, the light "source" did move, changing angle in relation to the peak on the crater rim.

However, if we use this conclusion for anything - namely what would such a light source be? (one that moves in relation to what NavCam Right B sees) - we lead ourselves into territory that we soon flounder therein.

I agree, the light source does seem to move, as the following image shows if we trace the light source along the colored track lines, seemingly apace with Curiosity:



We can assume that the light source moved, OR that the apparent angle of the light source in relation to the camera is the same in both pictures.

If the light source was stationary, the rover's movement from Sol588 to Sol589 would have meant the angle between the light source and the camera would have changed. It did not.

Given the connotations of assuming the light source moved, using the simpler explanation that the angle of the light in relation to the rover is unchanged seems more productive.

Naturally, nothing is ruled out. Yes, the light source may have actually moved; it may be a brightly reflecting object; it may be a cosmic ray, etc.

Sorry Nasa, I don't buy light leakage or reflection. I'm 99% sure both are cosmic rays.

The second image, taken in isolation, could be a reflection, but after many years of photography I've never seen light streak up as seen in the first image.

As for light leakage... the hole must be tiny meaning light would disperse over a larger area - it's far too close to being one pixel wide. The only other thing that could cause this would be a tiny flaw (scratch) on the surface of the sensor which is catching the light.

Everything about the first image is simply 'too digital'.

reply to post by page101


Well, now you're back, and hopefully staying this time. The NASA announcement on their website, quoted earlier, still seems to keep open the cosmic ray explanation, although this whole question has both exhausted the topic while at the same time educating us who have been keeping track of it off and on during the day. And isn't it great just to be one of the people who gets to (although by choice) look at the Mars landscape? If only Ray Bradbury had lived to see the photos and the progression of Curiosity he'd have jumped for joy (although not very far, due to age).

Blue Shift
This makes it appear that it is situated somewhere closer than the distant ridge. Not that it is.

Makes me want to poke around some of the older images to see if it shows up in any of them. Although, if it is something actually on the horizon, then it might just now be being seen.

As for stereo images, there's another way to get them other than relying on the two navcams. Just get different images from the same camera that has moved slightly horizontally.

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

Seeing those two pictures, the electro-dust-devil theory is my most favorite. Maybe it's just reflecting sunlight if nothing else. Though I'm wondering about the contrail line at the top of the animation.

reply to post by Blister

We can assume that the light source moved, OR that the apparent angle of the light source in relation to the camera is the same in both pictures.

Both assumptions also assume the bright spot is external. Piling up assumptions is not generally a good practice.

reply to post by stormcell


EDIT: Never mind, it's just an image of the top of the photo, which had to be turned to create the gif
______________________________
Well, now there's a new frog into the pond. Has anyone noticed that before? When I look at some other postings of that pic, and turn the screen out, the line is there. I must have missed BlueShift's post (haven't read every inch of the thread)

I haven't read the whole thread. I saw the photos last night. I received a degree in photography and cinema film in 1988 at a big ten college. In my opinion this photo appears to be just what it is. A light source shining upwards from a source or exploding upwards. Digital spots are squares. The bottom part of the light appears to be round then it shoots upward in a flare triangle tube. It is very odd. Too bad we cant just walk over to it and see what it is. Since I saw two orbs in April 2009 from a great distance for a few brief seconds, I would say anything can and is possible. To those in denial that may feel safe, but that is not reality. We will probably never know what that was. It looks real because it shoots out of the ground into a short limited space in the air like an explosion not like a flood light. Since it starts from the ground instead of in the image it looks very realistic.

Admittedly, I didn't look much into the photo before commenting. But after further analysis, I think it could easily be a cosmic ray, but I also think there is a great chance it's a "light leak."

Example...



If you notice the flat bottom that seems to match the Mars photo.

AAC

Phage
reply to post by Blister

 

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

Can you explain in more detail how you determined this? It appears to me that the angle did change. In the second, the bright spot appears to be directly beneath the distant high peak which it is to the left of in the first.

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

It was fun to watch Phage get quiet when that second pic of the "light source" showed up. He was forced to either choose

1) Two rare events in close time proximity and even rarer coincidental circumstances (two cosmic ray strikes showing up near the horizine line in both of those photos) OR

2) ALIENS :-P

Neither of which he was comfortable with. :-)

So glad that he made this post though. Everyone else is applauding the other guys "lines on a map" + micro-presentation without question -- and just how did he come up with those lines being parallel like that etc.? Jeesh.

This is what makes Phage a legend here. He breaks down posts with science/facts, regardless of which team you are playing for (for ex., this post he called out/debunked was on team "NOT ALIENS!"). :-)

Phage
reply to post by Blister

 

We can assume that the light source moved, OR that the apparent angle of the light source in relation to the camera is the same in both pictures.

Both assumptions also assume the bright spot is external. Piling up assumptions is not generally a good practice.

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

Yes, assumptions are not good. The possibility that the "bright spot" (your words), or the "light source" (my words) is external is an assumption - after all, even if the detector head is leaking, where else is the light coming from but externally?

But if we work with the idea that the bright spot in each image is not externally caused we can direct our efforts in other directions. That is interesting. Thinking aloud. Bye.

reply to post by AkumaStreak

It was fun to watch Phage get quiet when that second pic of the "light source" showed up. He was forced to either choose

I've been aware of both for a couple of days.

reply to post by Blister

Yes, assumptions are not good. The possibility that the "bright spot" (your words), or the "light source" (my words) is external is an assumption - after all, even if the detector head is leaking, where else is the light coming from but externally?

Ok. Then a cosmic ray is also external.
The point is that the bright spot probably does not represent an imaging of a distinct light source.

AnAbsoluteCreation
Admittedly, I didn't look much into the photo before commenting. But after further analysis, I think it could easily be a cosmic ray, but I also think there is a great chance it's a "light leak."

Example...

If you notice the flat bottom that seems to match the Mars photo.

AAC

Aren't these typically associated with analog/cheapo cameras? Hard to imagine such a pinpoint light leak imo. Particularly in such an expensive... camera.

Just a reflection off of something like this, minus monkeys... no big deal, am I right?

i.imgur.com...