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.

 

Sensationalist Headline Black Tic-Tac on Mars

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: data5091
that is interesting. Was this not a subject on here awhile back though, correct me if wrong, but still interesting.


Nice Pussycat.Looks just like mine.




posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

Mine too! My other cat is black. His nickname is Mark Denace. For obvious reasons.



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Almost all are somewhat spherical, like a hot spot, but very few pixels involved. It would tend to provide more credence to longer, angular and thicker streaks as not being cosmic ray generated.
Maybe you missed this part of your link:

"The camera may be placed upright, with the sensor in the vertical position, which should, in theory, result in more "streaks", and fewer muon trails overall."

So the lack of streaks is attributed to the camera pointing straight up with the sensor in the horizontal position. With the vertical position of the camera sensor on Mars more streaks would be expected, is how I read it.

However, the artifact being discussed in this thread doesn't look much like a streak to me, and it doesn't look much like the cosmic ray strikes shown in your source, but I doubt there was anything in the sky, it looks like a digital artifact of some sort as others have said.



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, I read that further and they do indeed say that that arrangement would cause more pixel exposure to the rays, but they did not have any good examples of that. The object in question could be an artifact, but again, what kind? It involves a lot of "missing" data.



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, I read that further and they do indeed say that that arrangement would cause more pixel exposure to the rays, but they did not have any good examples of that. The object in question could be an artifact, but again, what kind? It involves a lot of "missing" data.
Is there a higher resolution photo than what the OP posted in this link?

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

The missing data in that image is for 2 pixels tall by 6 pixels wide, so 12 pixels out of 524288 pixels, only .000023 of the image. Is that really "a lot of "missing" data"? One possibility I'd consider is whether or not a cosmic ray could affect some other part of the electronics besides the image sensor.

Another point to consider for why the Earth photos of cosmic ray strikes might not be representative of the surface of Mars aside from the sensor orientation is that only 3% of primary cosmic rays (mostly protons) striking the Earth reach the Earth's surface due to Earth's atmosphere. But the atmosphere on Mars is only about 1% the density of Earth's atmosphere, so I think considerably more than 3% of primary cosmic rays reach the Martian surface. Exactly how much more I couldn't find in a quick search but somebody probably knows the answer or a good estimate based on data collected from the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL).



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I’ve reviewed and edited (not photoshopping in) a lot of images of mars for clarity and understanding.

I have no doubt there are crafts on Mars. “Ours” or “theirs” I couldn’t say. But crafts none the less.

NASA can’t sway me with their commentary and I hope they can’t sway anyone.



posted on Jul, 13 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




The missing data in that image is for 2 pixels tall by 6 pixels wide, so 12 pixels out of 524288 pixels, only .000023 of the image. Is that really "a lot of "missing" data"?


For a sub-atomic particle, I think it is. I was an engineer at DEC back in the 80's and we blamed defects in magnetic core memory on high energy sub-atomic particles. The cores were huge compared to a pixel on a CMOS/CCD, and the parity checks usually only called out one bit. I would also like to find out the statistics for other components like the CPU itself and the FPGA's and ASIC's used in today equipment.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

"Oh, very possible. That "cosmic ray" explanation is one that gets trotted out every once in a while, although I'm not sure how anybody would actually prove that. It seems big, and not like other "cosmic ray" flashes I've seen. It didn't seem to permanently damage the camera. It doesn't show up in any of the preceding or following images. So...? I thought it was interesting enough to start a thread on it that has a provocative headline."

Trotted out... Cosmic rays showing effects on CCD happens all the time. How big it is depends on the size of thee pixel, which in this image are large. Cosmic rays travel at near the speed of light, so yeah they don't hang around in different frames for long.
Common sense please.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: Blue Shift

Trotted out... Cosmic rays showing effects on CCD happens all the time. How big it is depends on the size of thee pixel, which in this image are large. Cosmic rays travel at near the speed of light, so yeah they don't hang around in different frames for long.
Common sense please.


You do realize that common sense argument really doesn't prove anything. It's easy though, and I catch myself using it sometimes myself. Without claiming anything outrageous I presented my thoughts as to why this one appears different than the dozens or more image irregularities I have seen after looking at this stuff for many years now, and even posted an example of the kind I'm familiar with, which is obviously different. If you're willing to simply accept the standard non-explanation without looking into it yourself or presenting a comparable example to illustrate your point, that's fine. We're all busy with our lives.

I would suggest, however, that we all avoid falling into that easy trap of consensus authority, even though it makes us feel smart and that reality is a tidy place where there are no mysteries just faulty observations due to lack of data. It's not only weak, but it kills the sense of wonder most of us who visit a site like this are still hoping to experience.

So I think it's something odd. What specifically, I don't know. I can live with that. I've often thought that the real motto of this site should be "embrace ignorance," rather than apply a convenient or weak explanation to something out of the ordinary.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The missing data in that image is for 2 pixels tall by 6 pixels wide, so 12 pixels out of 524288 pixels, only .000023 of the image. Is that really "a lot of "missing" data"?



originally posted by: charlyv
For a sub-atomic particle, I think it is.

It's really not. Your experience with 80's tech is interesting but a lot different than what is on Mars. Also your experience was on Earth's surface, so two big differences to consider.

Consider how many pixels can be affected on a spacecraft image sensor, it can be hundreds of pixels. This is a paper from 2018 showing a single cosmic ray impact where the streaks are long and skinny, over a hundred pixels long and only 1-2 pixels wide. A less energetic particle could make shorter streaks, perhaps as seen in the Mars image.

Observation of galactic cosmic ray spallation events from the SoHO mission 20-Year operation of LASCO
This is from figure 3, with an approximate calibration scale showing how long the cosmic ray streaks are compared to 50 pixels.


So this is why 12 pixels doesn't seem like much to me. Now you could say this doesn't look much like the Mars image but to make a shorter streak just takes a particle with lower energy and those are more plentiful than the higher energy particles.

The reason this would be a rare occurrence on Earth is as I said, it's rare for primary galactic cosmic rays to reach Earth's surface because of the density of the atmosphere, but it would be a less rare occurrence on Mars with 1% of the atmospheric density of Earth, and less rare still on spacecraft which have no atmospheric protection.

That interaction was with the image sensor, but given how tightly packed transistors can be, it's not inconceivable to me that a cosmic ray could have affected 12 pixels via interaction with some other part of the electronics besides the image sensor, such as memory.

edit on 2019714 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
I propose that 120,000 pitchfork-wielding UFO fans should buy a one-way ticket to Mars courtesy of Elon Musk or Virgin Galactic.


Isn’t that the reverse of the Kurt Vonnegut book Sirens of Titan.? They attack earth with pitchforks.



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Storm Mars, they can't stop all of us!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join