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: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb
reply to post by nineix
 


Thats an understatement. The sheer capacity to deny reality and ignore the evidence here is stunning. I'm loosing hope for humanity based solely on this thread alone.

I have no idea how an object that moves with the camera and has been there since the cameras inauguration can be rationalized as anything other than an artifact of the optical system. It doesn't even look like a spaceship!


And yet you are still here... What a martyr...




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 

Can you provide the source image information for that gif?
In any case, yes, the Sun is not corrected in it.

edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


My statement was quite clear.

How does nasa explain a fiber of that substantial size getting into that satellite.

What, was the slapped together in someones garage?

If it is a 1 millimeter fiber, it is inexcusable.

I am not, at the moment, even slightly curious about rotations or axes.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The truth is like a diamond in the sewage,grab it and replace the shine.I will not buy the firework of lies nasa is telling.

As if they would allow a bit of fabric to ruin the lens of a multi million dollar machine.It would take 10 seconds to brush the thing off,or just shove a vacum nozzle in there.

In our local pub a woman who worked with some scientist said he told her they airbrush weird things off the soho anp shots all the time,,
edit on 24-3-2012 by paperface because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
Huh what? I responded to someone. Was that it?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by emberscott
I find it lacking adequate explanation that a $1.2 billion satellite has a 1 millimeter fiber inside it. Just does not make sense.


I don't know about NASA quality control, but I don't understand how a 1 millimeter fiber has lots of surface areas for reflecting the whole lasting of CMEs...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by emberscott
 


How does nasa explain a fiber of that substantial size getting into that satellite.

1 mm long fiber is substantial?


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.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...


edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by paperface
 


As if they would allow a bit of fabric to ruin the lens of a multi million dollar machine.

It's not the lens and it's not ruined. The imager works very well.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 

Can you provide the source image information for that gif?
In any case, yes, the Sun is not corrected in it.

edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


SECCHI-B EUVI 284A

I set the search for March 10, plus 9 days. The tilt happens in March 13/14. And btw I didn't change anything in the animation. It's just like I recorded in the screen.

secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
edit on 3/24/2012 by 1AnunnakiBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Ooooo shut'em down case closed!
Glad to see its consistent so.. time to move along and grab that tinfoil hat.

Just had to say something heh. Continue to do what you do.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by emberscott
 


How does nasa explain a fiber of that substantial size getting into that satellite.

1 mm long fiber is substantial?


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.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...


edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




Oh yes, that is substantial. As the filters used in the facilities are Ultra low particulate air filters rated at 0.1 µm or 0.0001 mm. So to say 1mm is not substantial is fallacy. For anything 1mm in size to get through the filters is virtually impossible.

And now to say, as you posted, that nasa is using handi-wipes to clean the satellite sensors. I will say again, as I posted previously, I find lacking adequate explanation.





edit on 24-3-2012 by emberscott because: (no reason given)








And just for emphasis. From nasa

TheCleanlinessAspectofSOHOSatellite.pdf
e dit on 24-3-2012 by emberscott because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2012 by emberscott because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Not sure what that means but I'm actually here because I design imaging systems and other remote sensing instrumentation, thus am interested in threads of this type. I see there are all sorts of experts still here.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by emberscott
 

You're right. It's shameful. Someone should be fired. I hope they were.
Or, there is an object which tracks the movement of the satellite and has been for years.


And now to say, as you posted, that nasa is using handi-wipes to clean the satellite sensors. I will say again, as I posted previously, I find lacking adequate explanation.

They need to be cleaned with something don't they? What would you suggest? (It doesn't sound exactly like handi-wipes).

edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 

Ok. I see that there are some images which show a rotation but they don't show up here:
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I don't know if the spacecraft actually rotated or if it was a software thing. But, as I said, it demonstrates that the orientation of the Sun was not corrected in those frames.


edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by emberscott
 

You're right. It's shameful. Someone should be fired. I hope they were.
Or, there is an object which tracks the movement of the satellite and has been for years.


And now to say, as you posted, that nasa is using handi-wipes to clean the satellite sensors. I will say again, as I posted previously, I find lacking adequate explanation.

They need to be cleaned with something don't they? What would you suggest? (It doesn't sound exactly like handi-wipes).

edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



Oh I dunno, maybe we should find out through nasa.



A multi-use technology, which for years has shielded space missions from devastating effects that the tiniest particles can make, produces scratch- and lint-free results in CleenEzy™'s lens wipes. A tiny speck of dust could trigger a malfunction in a sensitive spacecraft system, so NASA developed contamination control technology in the 1960s to prevent particle contamination during production and assembly of flight equipment in hospital-like "clean rooms." This technology has produced several offshoots, such as a line of contamination control garments used by hospitals, pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers, aerospace and electronic plants, and other industrial facilities where extreme cleanliness is vital.


Uh oh! Contradiction from nasa. Still lacking adequate explanation.

Wait... in use by nasa since the 1960s? Scratch- and lint-free? So nasa uses lint-free wipes and that 1mm fiber came from one of those acclaimed lint-free wipes?

You didn't read the that link I posted about cleanliness of soho did you?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
So where'd this dirt come from in the depths of space? The odds of a tiny spec of dirt landing on the lens of that camera are astronomical(no pun intended).
You can send a spacecraft through the asteroid belt without using any guidance system to keep track of the asteroids, and the spacecraft has like a 99.9999% chance of making it through unscathed. That's how big space is and how spread out the 1 million or so asteroids are.


edit on 25-3-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


The face has horns like a devil. i think it is fake



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Well when it lights up you can see it's a full circle.

So is the fiber a full circle ?

Because when it lights up it looks like a planet or moon lighting up.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, it is substantial since it seems to impact directly in the missions goal, on the other hand we all agree that 1mm fiber has little substance in it, and even that can be a topic for discussion it all relates to significance that 1mm existence and how it came to be possible seems very significant and something that NASA should address.

----
I read one of the above posts that you say the same visual artifact ("fiber") is visible in other images is it so ? It is freaking hard to fallow a thread in ABS if one has no intention to read all the posts..

edit on 25-3-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 


Well when it lights up you can see it's a full circle.

So is the fiber a full circle ?

Because when it lights up it looks like a planet or moon lighting up.


Actually what I wanna know, is how a ONE MILLIMETER speck of fiber reflects the light of an ENTIRE CME on its surface?? This makes absolutely no sense. A "regular" CME lasts about one hour. How come a microscopic 1 mm dirt can reflect it???


Most flares are quite short really, less than hour. The longest flare that we've seen with the Japanese Yohkoh satellite was 12 hours though. Compared to flares on other stars though the Sun is a bit of a wimp - some of those flares are a thousand times more energetic than the Sun and can last up to 10 days!

www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk...


I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how a 50, 60 min. solar blast could be reflected in a 1 mm surface.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join