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.

 

A Second Source of Light detected by the Rover. Curiosity Sol 568.

page: 6
82
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Philippines

darkbake
reply to post by Philippines
 


In the Opening post there are already two pictures of the same light source from different places just check out the small hill to the left of the light source it appears in both pictures.

Therefore according to your logic is a valid candidates for a third-party light source correct?

It is the same light source in both pictures
edit on 16amWed, 16 Apr 2014 05:37:02 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


It could be. From the opening post it shows one image, and a magnified image of the same one, or different. I couldn't tell clearly from the first post as it references a single image link to NASA.

If you have a link to the image set before and after the "light" was observed, then there is something to go on. If this is a single still image from one (and not both) cameras then yes the artifact/"cosmic ray" possibility is high. If the same "light" is captured on both stereo cameras, and visible in the shots before and after this one - there should be a link from NASA to the image set to see that.

I'm not predisposed to disbelieve, but when it comes to tech like this under the circumstances, there should be more than one image frame to make an informed decision


All of the images are available on the MSL Raw Images page.

Note that this "newer image" is actually older than the other two that were mentioned: this is from sol 568, and the other two were from sols 588 and 589.

The "light" is only present on a single frame, from the right navcam. Scroll down till you find "Navcam: Right B
2014-03-12 18:33:10 UTC" (or copy that text and to a CTRL+F search).

The left navcam from the same timestamp doesn't have the light. There are images taken from the same camera 30 seconds before and 38 seconds after the one with the light, but the camera is not pointing in the same direction so that area is not visible. There is no light on those frames either.

From the same page you can navigate to different sols and find the other images that have the "lights".

Edit: I thought I'd found another one on the most recent batch of images for a moment there, but it turns out I just needed to clean my monitor



By the way, just to clarify - in the opening post of this thread, the second image is just a zoomed version of the first one.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

imod02
It gives some people some thing to do, and I dont have a problem with that unless it becomes " Lets worship the great light on mars " and then start to kill non believers wile shouting " Mars light is great".
Well who knows how things get started.
edit on 16-4-2014 by imod02 because: (no reason given)


They've even got their own metal insignia:



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Rob48

Philippines

darkbake
reply to post by Philippines
 


In the Opening post there are already two pictures of the same light source from different places just check out the small hill to the left of the light source it appears in both pictures.

Therefore according to your logic is a valid candidates for a third-party light source correct?

It is the same light source in both pictures
edit on 16amWed, 16 Apr 2014 05:37:02 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


It could be. From the opening post it shows one image, and a magnified image of the same one, or different. I couldn't tell clearly from the first post as it references a single image link to NASA.

If you have a link to the image set before and after the "light" was observed, then there is something to go on. If this is a single still image from one (and not both) cameras then yes the artifact/"cosmic ray" possibility is high. If the same "light" is captured on both stereo cameras, and visible in the shots before and after this one - there should be a link from NASA to the image set to see that.

I'm not predisposed to disbelieve, but when it comes to tech like this under the circumstances, there should be more than one image frame to make an informed decision


All of the images are available on the MSL Raw Images page.

Note that this "newer image" is actually older than the other two that were mentioned: this is from sol 568, and the other two were from sols 588 and 589.

The "light" is only present on a single frame, from the right navcam. Scroll down till you find "Navcam: Right B
2014-03-12 18:33:10 UTC" (or copy that text and to a CTRL+F search).

The left navcam from the same timestamp doesn't have the light. There are images taken from the same camera 30 seconds before and 38 seconds after the one with the light, but the camera is not pointing in the same direction so that area is not visible. There is no light on those frames either.

From the same page you can navigate to different sols and find the other images that have the "lights".

Edit: I thought I'd found another one on the most recent batch of images for a moment there, but it turns out I just needed to clean my monitor



By the way, just to clarify - in the opening post of this thread, the second image is just a zoomed version of the first one.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the info and the link - bookmarked. It does only show up on one camera again. You seem very informed on this, is it the same "Right" camera the one showing the lights in the related threads, or is the other one also showing the "light" at times as well?

Thanks again for the reply and info, I too need to clean my monitor more often haha



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 

All of the three that have been discussed this month have been from that same right navcam, yes. But, as Phage has posted pictures of, there have been plenty of other cosmic ray strikes on both cameras in the past.

As for being well informed, not really. I hadn't been taking too much interest in the rover pics but this has spurred me to look through then. There's some interesting terrain out there!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 

Dam I hate been right sometimes



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I get it, I don't believe it's a Martian flashlight, just interesting how it lined up on the horizon. Of course, if you draw a line on the ground and throw rice on it, you will get quite a few kernels landing right on the line. IMHO, if there are any Martians or visiting aliens there, they really have no motive for the level of shyness we are seeing (a joke)
edit on 16-4-2014 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Deaf Alien
reply to post by smurfy
 


Here are the sources. Perhaps you can show it?

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...


Well, not really, that was what I was getting at, you can see artifacts that appear in your animation all the time, whereas they are not seeable in each picture, or that they are not easily visible to pick out. That's what makes your animation so useful.
I have a need to know what happens to each frame from each camera before it is sent back to Earth.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker
 

There are several things at work.

1) The angle at which the particle strikes the CCD sensor. This determines how long the streak will be. The more oblique the angle, the longer the streak, depending also upon:

2) The energy level of the particle. This determines how many pixels surrounding the pixels through which the particle passes will be affected as well as how long a streak may be. The energy of a very high energy particle will "overflow" into adjacent pixels.

3) The images we are seeing are not raw images directly from the instruments. They have been subjected to jpeg data compression. The compression algorithm itself can produce artifacts by sort of "blending" neighboring pixels together.

edit on 4/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



This is why you don't take someones word for things without scrutinizing the liberties taken...such as the nonsese posted above.

First, (and I posted this numerous times in the thread I started last week about a light source on Mars), Curiosity is supposedly protected heavily to combat any digital artifacts caused by cosmic rays.
The first, and only time a cosmic ray was thought to hit the rover, the rover shut itself down and went into safe mode. Now...we have THREE STRIKES in a week showing up on pictures, but Curiosity still rolls on...not shutting down. Strange.

Second, "The compression algorithm itself can produce artifacts....". This statement by Phage is misleading at BEST. The onboard computer which is connected to the NAV-CAMS uses a software (ICER) which was specifically designed to stop such "cosmic ray" damage to resulting images. It also uses "lossy compression" at 3/bits per pixel. Furthermore, raw images sent by the forward NAV-CAMS do not undergo compression before being sent through space. Here are some snippets about the NC's from JPL website. (Link below)

" 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."

The gibberish above means the following: In order for a CCD camera to even produce an image of a cosmic ray, the exposure time MUST be over ONE MINUTE and the light settings on the camera MUST be set to the highest setting. The NC's have a daily SET EXPOSURE TIME of just .25 seconds. No matter if you're on Mars, deep space, Earth....you will NOT catch a cosmic ray using a shutter speed of just 1/4 sec. Anyone who knows cameras is aware of this, but here's a snippet saying what the exposure settings are for the NC's. (same link as above)


Optics
======
The Navcams have f/12 cameras with a 14.67 nm focal length. They
have a 45 x 45 degree field of view, with a 60.7 degree diagonal.
They have an angular resolution at the center of the field of view
of .82 mrad/pixel. The field depth of the Navcams ranges from .5
meters to infinity. The nominal exposure time for a noontime image
on Mars is approximately .25 seconds. This time is 50 times the
frame transfer time of 5.1 ms. This ensures that the image signal is
significantly than the image smear acquired during the frame
transfer.

LINK:starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov...


JPL stating parameters for capturing a cosmic ray in an image (see exposure time and light requirements):



Optional Activity
If dry ice is unavailable, you can construct an alternative cosmic ray detector using a digital
camera able to keep its shutter open more than a minute. Cover the lens so that no light
penetrates the camera. Use the highest ISO (International Standards Organization) setting
available; this makes the film as sensitive as possible to light. Then set the exposure time for
about 5 minutes. You should see small streaks in the resulting image. These are the tracks of
secondary cosmic rays. Digital cameras have noise-reducing programming built into their
computers, so some cosmic ray tracks may be erased. For further details, see Kendra
Sibbernsen’s article, “Catching Cosmic Rays with a DSLR,” in Astronomy Education Review,
vol. 9, issue 1, 5 August 2010.

This cosmic ray “noise” is a big problem with highly sensitive digital cameras used for
astronomy. Astronomers need to detect faint objects, so they must keep the shutter open for
many minutes.


May I suggest a quick scan of what the program ICER actually does for pictures taken on MARS...HERE: en.wikipedia.org...


You will see that when it comes to compression, or image quality, ICER is there to make sure that cosmic rays or any other "noise" does not make it to the image. This is because the forward NC's are "tactical" to the mission. These pics have priority and are compressed at 3 bits/pixel. This does not allow for image losses...especially when you find out that theres a deep space channel open specifically to receive images from the front NC's and nothing else.


Add to all of the above that the bandpass filters which are on the NC's are in the visual light spectrum ONLY. 580nm-800nm. This means that these cams act exactly as our human eyes. Since particle light is NOT visible to humans, it is not visible to these cameras.

No matter how many times Phage comes here and claims "cosmic ray"....it just isn't possible with the equipment ran on that rover. Shutter speed is way too fast, the cams use a visible light spectrum not able to detect particle light, ICER is designed to stop "noise" in pictures, and the last time a "ray" hit the rover...it shut down. Now we have three strikes in a week without nary a hiccup from Curiosity.


While these lights may not be aliens, I just cannot see how they could be cosmic ray strikes when you apply the above paragraphs. IDK why it's not on the left NC, but you can't just use that as the basis for why it ISN'T something.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
cosmic ray strikes seem to like the area of the photo where the ground is



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
All vertical
All terminate on surface
They appear to be self luminous
The events are super quick, not to get captured by only one in stereo pair.
Scenario is a micro impact of some kind, or
some object that is rapidly blinking.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Wow, really well written. I love reading about the technical workings of our space-bound mechanical minions, bravo!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Just a thought.. could this be lightning or some sort of static discharge in the iron dust rich atmosphere? I'm no scientist but just a thought I had?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Yeah sorry I'm not really buying into all the hype. It'd be one thing if it was pitch black at night and we could rule out such phenomena as reflection but we really can't. I get that we all want to find that controversial object that points to something else out there in the universe but I just don't think this is it.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Astronauts have reported seeing minute flashes of light when they close their eyes. That's cosmic radiation striking their retina. If human eyes can see them, why not cameras? en.wikipedia.org...

How exactly can any image compression software detect and erase a cosmic radiation strike on the sensor?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

parad0x122
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Wow, really well written. I love reading about the technical workings of our space-bound mechanical minions, bravo!


It really isn't. Don't fall for the long words: he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.


You will see that when it comes to compression, or image quality, ICER is there to make sure that cosmic rays or any other "noise" does not make it to the image.


Nonsense. ICER was chosen because it preserves the original data well while greatly reducing the file size (as well as not being too computationally demanding). That means that if there is a cosmic ray strike on the image it is MORE likely to be preserved than if a more lossy algorithm was used.


Add to all of the above that the bandpass filters which are on the NC's are in the visual light spectrum ONLY. 580nm-800nm. This means that these cams act exactly as our human eyes. Since particle light is NOT visible to humans, it is not visible to these cameras.


Also nonsense, and clear evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The particles aren't "light", and they are not entering through via the bandpass filters. How many times does it have to be spelt out? The rays interact directly, physically with the CCD. There is no process that goes ray -> light -> sensor. It goes ray -> sensor -> electrons.


Shutter speed is way too fast

No it isn't. How fast do you think cosmic ray particles are travelling? How long do they need to interact with the sensor?


the cams use a visible light spectrum not able to detect particle light,

Again, there is no such thing as "particle light". The sensor isn't detecting light.


ICER is designed to stop "noise" in pictures,

No it isn't, it is designed to give a good trade-off between lossiness and compression. Noise is a totally separate issue.


and the last time a "ray" hit the rover...it shut down.

Absolute and total nonsense. Cosmic rays are hitting the rover all the time. In fact the rover even carries around an instrument specifically designed to monitor such particles! Even down here on Earth there are thousands of cosmic rays passing through your body every minute, and you are incredibly well shielded compared to the surface of Mars.

Repeat: don't fall for the flannel and the cut & paste. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

wildespace
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Astronauts have reported seeing minute flashes of light when they close their eyes. That's cosmic radiation striking their retina. If human eyes can see them, why not cameras? en.wikipedia.org...

How exactly can any image compression software detect and erase a cosmic radiation strike on the sensor?



The astronauts didn't "see" anything. The light was merely the optic nerve reacting to a particle hit. To "see" something, our eye lids must be open, not closed. It's the same thing with a CCD camera, with its eye lids or shutter open, it doesn't have the capability to capture particle light.

It's not the "cosmic strike" that's erased...its over exposed and blank pixels that are erased. I can't explain without getting so technical I'll lose you, but short version: CCD's work using a certain number of electrons for each image. Photons...or Cosmic Rays will react with these electrons and if the ray is powerful enough, it will excite a large amount of the electrons in the CCD imager leaving streaks in pictures.


While a CCD camera CAN capture cosmic ray hits, I contend that the onboard software, bandpass filters, and exposure times all don't allow for cosmic rays being captured on an image. Especially the forward facing NC's. These cameras are the life-blood of Curiosity and those pictures have tactical priority over any other of the 11 cams on the rover. So important, that there is a designated sub-space channel specifically there to receive images from the forward NC's.

Admittedly, I cannot say what these "lights" are or are not with certainty. However, I'd like to point out that the two pictures referred to in my thread last week about a similar light were deemed NOT cosmic ray hits by both NASA, and the scientist who built the NC's. If NASA claims they aren't cosmic ray hits, why would anybody believe the exact opposite from some armchair physicist who consistently claims that they are?? Strange days.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob48
 


I whole heartedly agree. Miniscuzz has shown time and again he doesn't understand the hardware, the software, what cosmic rays actually are, or the frequency at which they appear. No offence Miniscuzz, but your opinion on this matter is misleading at best, grossly wrong at worst.

Put simply, cosmic rays are a pain in the backside for every digital sensor in or near a space environment. Unless you happen to deliberately recording cosmic rays, that is!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Miniscuzz
 


Well, according to avatars, I'll go with the astronaut over the muppet in most technical discussions...

But, after days of toil, I now know exactly what is causing these flashes that appear in one camera but not the others... and all one has to do is send me 25$ for my incredible discovery!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Miniscuzz


The astronauts didn't "see" anything. The light was merely the optic nerve reacting to a particle hit. To "see" something, our eye lids must be open, not closed. It's the same thing with a CCD camera, with its eye lids or shutter open, it doesn't have the capability to capture particle light.


Right, you've got it! Don't you see the analogy? The optic nerve reacts to the cosmic rays whether your eyelids are open or not.

The CCD reacts to the cosmic rays whether they go through the lens or not. As long as the CCD is "on" it can record them. It's the same principle: visible light is not involved, it is a direct physical interaction. So why are you arguing the opposite?



These cameras are the life-blood of Curiosity and those pictures have tactical priority over any other of the 11 cams on the rover. So important, that there is a designated sub-space channel specifically there to receive images from the forward NC's.

What does that have to do with anything? The strike is captured on the sensor. It doesn't matter what you do with the image after that, or how you transmit it to Earth. Unless you do a manual clean-up of the image then the strike is going to be there.
edit on 16-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Miniscuzz
...I contend that the onboard software, bandpass filters, and exposure times all don't allow for cosmic rays being captured on an image...


The software doesn't remove cosmic ray strikes.

The filters remove photons, not protons.

A cosmic ray strike is a nanosecond type event. The shutter merely has to be open to 'see' it.



Whether of not we are seeing cosmic rays or some other artefact is still somewhat open to debate, but either way, it's an internal camera event, not an external 'feature' of mars. Of that I am 99.9% sure.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join