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.

 

So NASA says THIS is a "1 millimeter dirt" in the lens of SOHO spacecraft, BUT...

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by observe50
 




Bout all I want to say is........... what you see on SOHO is the real deal.......... don't fall for NASA nonsense.

You mean that this is actually from SOHO and not STEREO A?
Wow. I had no idea. They had me completely fooled.

edit on 3/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I could wrap my mind around this if it was a speck of dust or dirt but in those gifs even when theres no flash of light i can see a whole circle and if its a fiber ive never seen a circular fiber



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Let's be frank , if this has been stated metaphorically shoot me down... but if said spectacle was a solid object in space , it would be illuminated on the side facing the sun and clearly be visible. Also judging from the picture an object of that mass would be a more rounded body.

My two pence as it were.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RomeByFire
 


i see the circle as well. it seems to only to light up when it is being struck. Now if this were an object why would its trailing edge,with respect to the sun, only show up?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Like I said before, I had this impression that this anomaly reflects sunlight as a physical object, though I'm not sure whether this is just a visual trick or not.

So, is that only a "1mm dirt" told by NASA, or actually something else???


What you're saying could certainly be right, but we also have to take into consideration that the object would become more lit-up as the picture becomes brighter, it could be the craft reflecting the light, or it could be a spec of dust being back-lit by brightness of the image.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Like I said before, I had this impression that this anomaly reflects sunlight as a physical object, though I'm not sure whether this is just a visual trick or not.

So, is that only a "1mm dirt" told by NASA, or actually something else???


What you're saying could certainly be right, but we also have to take into consideration that the object would become more lit-up as the picture becomes brighter, it could be the craft reflecting the light, or it could be a spec of dust being back-lit by brightness of the image.


Prime example of posting before reading any replies. This had been debunked over and over again.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by L.A.B
Let's be frank , if this has been stated metaphorically shoot me down... but if said spectacle was a solid object in space , it would be illuminated on the side facing the sun and clearly be visible. Also judging from the picture an object of that mass would be a more rounded body.

My two pence as it were.


If it were to be from another dimension would it not have its own laws and not ours?



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Nasa needs to work on cleaning their lenses. They're dirtier than the camera I have at home, and considering all the dust particles in my house that's kind of sad. Is space really that dirty that particles get stuck in/on the lenses?
Because this happens a lot.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Here's my 2 cents worth...
Haven't any of you ever got a rock chip in your windshield? Watch what the headlights from a passing car at night does to that rock chip. Now would NASA want to admit there is a chip on the lense, (possibly from a small high speed particle speeding thru space in the orbit of this equipment). I would guess they say it's a small fiber rather than say the lense has a chip in it. After all a few heet/ cold cycles will do nothing to a fiber but will have a devastating effect on a crack. just saying...



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


OMG.. OMG... It's, It,s Niburu..!!

I am so, so, so sorry for doubting...

HAng on, it is just apeice dust.

Sorry, my bad.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 

Since it is a fiber on the sensor it will be illuminated by the same light which strikes the sensor.

Since its position in the frame exactly corresponds to the roll angle of the spacecraft, it is obviously "attached" to the imaging system.



How did said fiber get onto the imaging system , arent these satellites and probes built with the utmost care and in dust free, contamination free environments. If this is truly a fiber on the imaging system then it should have been present since the beginning in all images . How could it have got inside the SOHO after launch if its sealed ?
Are NASA suggesting that they built a multi million dollar system to sit in the harsh environment of space and somehow fiber particles can get inside the sealed imaging system ?
the designer needs to be fired in that case as he clearly hasnt done his job correctly or the guys who built it
if you can explain that to me then I'll consider the fiber angle that nasa are giving .



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sure fire him.
And fire the guy who messed up on the Hubble telescope too!

Thank you for your consideration.

edit on 3/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
Had you read through this thread, instead of counting Phage's and Chadwickus' stars, you would have known where the fiber came from.
Milt


Well I did see the lame explanation Phage provided...


Most Likely this fiber came off of one of the clean room wipes used during the assembly of the camera. Even though the material of the wipes is selected to shed as few particles as possible, the occasional particle does end up inside the instrument.


Most likely, so NASA doesn't know for sure... and this spaceship has been up there a very long time and this fiber just appears now. Must be all that wind blowing up there that blew it in front of the lens, right?




edit on 26-3-2012 by zorgon because: NASA did it




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Sure fire him.
And fire the guy who messed up on the Hubble telescope too!


NOW yer talkin


Better yet just put NASA on the shelf altogether along with that old rust bucket shuttle. Lets get a REAL space agency out there that actually can get the job done

"NASA = No Access to Space for Americans" - Robert Bigelow (who had to get the Russians to launch his private space station
)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What is 'the job' you'd be referring to. Also tell us what space agency has done more and provides more data of space exploration than NASA. We'll be waiting for the scintillating answer to that.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Most likely, so NASA doesn't know for sure... and this spaceship has been up there a very long time and this fiber just appears now. Must be all that wind blowing up there that blew it in front of the lens, right?


Now?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If since 2006 is now.. well in astronomic timescale.. you are correct.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Most likely, so NASA doesn't know for sure... and this spaceship has been up there a very long time and this fiber just appears now.

No.
It's been there since first light.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If its likely from the clean room wipe, then how likely is it that it would have shown up in earlier SOHO images?
as mentioned by others .
Why has taken this long to surface on the imaging system
how can it move onto the imaging system from another location inside SOHO if the compartments are sealed.
Has some gravitational effect or other effect moved the fiber onto the imaging system.

You would think that NASA being the leader in space technology up until now woudl be able to develop a system that doesnt leave particles in their imaging systems.
Yet they still use clean wipes ?
I thought they would have used some sort of vacum suction system to inhale all of the particles to keep it particle free!

If I was the lead project manager and after so many months or years that SOHo was running then suddenly a particle is getting shot in every image making the resulting images disturbed by this fiber , i'd be pretty annoyed about it !

Why not fire him , people get fired over less , mistakes are made and cost money
so this kind of thing happens alot in the space industry is what your saying , you mention the hubble
scope as well . Then If I was the project lead on that Id be rather upset too.
After all its primary function is taking clean images, not ones with 1mm fibers on the imaging system
that obscure results.
That isnt getting the job done , as zorgon mentioned !



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


If its likely from the clean room wipe, then how likely is it that it would have shown up in earlier SOHO images?
as mentioned by others .

Please see above. And it isn't SOHO.



I thought they would have used some sort of vacum suction system to inhale all of the particles to keep it particle free!

I'm sure NASA would be interested in your suggestion.

edit on 3/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
-facepalm-

@ this entire thread, and at the human race.







It's one thing to go against an explanation provided by board members and NASA, it's another thing to keep going against it with the exact same accusations and questions

At least ponder the evidence provided and give some reasoning why it isn't a valid explanation. Although it is....



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join