Rover captures light source on Mars!!

reply to post by MrPenny


What a laughable statement lol. Most of the time when I write something like that...I'm baiting the responder into saying what I want them to to prove an overall point.

I'm sure all of you are well versed in CCD's, Electrons, Photons, Rovers, ICER, Bandpasses, and Physics. Which begs the question as to why NONE of you writing this gibberish are working at Eastman, Cannon, JPL, NASA, or even have degrees in ANYTHING which would make any of you experts on any subject we are discussing.

I'll say this again for the last time....even NASA and JPL concluded that it is NOT a cosmic ray. So apparently you all are smarter than people who have PhD's in Physics. Congrats! You must all be so proud lol.

I think one of the issues to consider here is the speed at which each camera fires.

I certainly think that is a plasma discharge.

What could be happening here is that those discharges could be taking place like lightning strikes.

If one camera lags even slightly behind the other when they snap their pictures, the discharge could easily appear in one camera but not the other.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Why you continue down this path when every hour more NASA reps are claiming it ISN'T a cosmic ray is beyond me.

Care to provide something that backs up that statement?

Even your link to NBC News says that Mr. Malik isn't ruling out a cosmic ray strike.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

Why you continue down this path when every hour more NASA reps are claiming it ISN'T a cosmic ray is beyond me.

Care to provide something that backs up that statement?

Even your link to NBC News says that Mr. Malik isn't ruling out a cosmic ray strike.

I have provided dozens of links in this thread...none of which anyone seems to have visited. However, if you just type in "Cosmic Ray Mars Rover" and read any link which has been updated in the last few hours...you'll see that JPL isn't leaning towards a Cosmic Ray.

That alone should ring alarm bells. If cosmic ray strikes showing up on raw data is something that happens so frequently, then why not just stick with that theory in the first place?? Because they CAN'T stick with any theory that makes NO SENSE...like capturing a cosmic ray, or a cosmic ray hitting a sensor twice in the same spot in as many days.

I haven't been trying to say it's anything really, but my research on those cameras and the software ICER leads me to believe that cosmic rays cannot, nor have they EVER corrupted any raw data images from the forward NAV-CAMS. NOR...has any poster produced any such pictures which resemble the TWO that were caught by the same camera on different days.

You believe whatever you want. But at this point, no one at JPL or NASA OR the astronomy divisions of any University is claiming it's a cosmic ray. At this point, ANY theory besides that one holds more water once you visit the JPL website and actually get into all the things this Rover has in it's arsenal to combat these types of pictures from happening.

Also...while they can't rule out a cosmic ray, they also can't rule out Obi Wan Kanobi, Aliens with laser pointers, and Alf. In fact, there are hundreds of things they can't "rule out", but all of them make as much sense as a camera whose sole purpose is to make sure data isn't corrupted, getting corrupted by the exact things it's meant to NOT corrupt it. Make sense?

reply to post by Miniscuzz

.you'll see that JPL isn't leaning towards a Cosmic Ray.

That is not the same as saying it isn't for a fact which is what your implying.

There is a difference.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h



Wrong. When a Physicist at JPL or NASA say "not leaning", that's the same as you or I saying "definitely not".

This is the exact quote from the guy that RUNS those cameras: "We think it's either a vent-hole light leak or a glinty rock."

When a Physicist says "We think"....I believe that far outweighs "not leaning". Wouldn't you think?



Now that the camera operator has been locked into that statement on NBC.com. I'd like for him to explain how the exact same camera caught the exact same event on a different day from a different position if it were a "glinty rock" or a vent hole leak. You couldn't possibly make either of those two events happen on different days. The position of the sun would be different no matter what the time...the angle is different...the distance...etc.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I keep asking phage why the fuzzy part is at the top and he keeps avoiding the question. Maybe you can answer that?

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Wrong. When a Physicist at JPL or NASA say "not leaning", that's the same as you or I saying "definitely not".

If that is what will get you through the day.

But you do understand it is not even close to being the same.

JPL imaging specialists with the MSL mission have now weighed in on these images. “In the thousands of images we’ve received from Curiosity, we see ones with bright spots nearly every week,” said Justin Maki in a press release from JPL. Maki is leader of the team that built and operates the Navigation Camera. “These can be caused by cosmic-ray hits or sunlight glinting from rock surfaces, as the most likely explanations.”

www.universetoday.com...

So they see cosmic ray strikes on other pictures from there so the chance of it being one seems to go up compared to it being some light source on the surface.

reply to post by Miniscuzz


I thought there was supposed to be a stereo camera and the one side didn't capture the light? That's what phage said, is it true? I keep asking him why the fuzzy part of the light is at the top and he won't answer me. Usually when he ignores easy questions he doesn't have an answer

bottleslingguy

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

By the way, plasma discharges such as this can traverse the surface and most often appear at ridge lines.

Why would it appear in only one image of a stereo pair?

that's a good point. did you answer my question about why the fuzzy part was on top?

Fuzzy part?

Two things about this image.
1) Cosmic rays can oversaturate a pixel causing a "bleeding" effect to the adjacent pixels.
2) The image is a jpeg image. Jpeg compression manipulates brightness values.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

When a Physicist at JPL or NASA say "not leaning", that's the same as you or I saying "definitely not".

No. But which physicist at JPL or NASA said "not leaning?"

reply to post by tsurfer2000h




See...no matter which way you go...neither makes sense, but I'll play along.

So for argument sake, I'll take your position. It's a cosmic ray. Let's also take the position of the scientists you quote about getting spots in pictures all the time. That it happens ALOT!


Now that we agree...I wonder how many of those "ALOT" pictures could be duplicated EXACTLY on a different day, different time, different angle, with the same exact camera.

Also...you are forgetting one major thing....how many of the forward facing NAV-CAMS show these "spots"?? Those scientists are talking about ALL the cameras on Curiosity. There's 12 I think.


Do you realize that there isn't even a mathematical equation with enough gobbledygook in it to provide us with some sort of odds of that happening?

There are however, odds that it could in fact be an alien...and there IS an equation all set up for that. So speaking scientifically....you'd have NO CHOICE but to favor the ODDS right? In this case...the odds of your argument are in the losing bracket.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Do you realize that there isn't even a mathematical equation with enough gobbledygook in it to provide us with some sort of odds of that happening?

You don't seem to understand that the probabilities are quite easy to calculate.

Can you provide a source for your claim that radiation is a thousand times greater on Mars than it is on Earth? Such a source may provide information about flux levels for cosmic ray energies sufficient to produce effects on the CCDs.

Phage

bottleslingguy

Phage
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

By the way, plasma discharges such as this can traverse the surface and most often appear at ridge lines.

Why would it appear in only one image of a stereo pair?

that's a good point. did you answer my question about why the fuzzy part was on top?

Fuzzy part?

Two things about this image.
1) Cosmic rays can oversaturate a pixel causing a "bleeding" effect to the adjacent pixels.
2) The image is a jpeg image. Jpeg compression manipulates brightness values.

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

They could cause bleeding on normal digital cameras, but NOT the NAV-CAMS. The onboard computer using ICER will not allow for bleeding. Did you even read the specs?

reply to post by Miniscuzz

The onboard computer using ICER will not allow for bleeding. Did you even read the specs?

Yes, I did. Blooming can be mitigated with software but it cannot be removed. Removing it would remove data.

Did you not see the example of blooming occurring? Here it is again, at the bottom center:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Phage
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

Do you realize that there isn't even a mathematical equation with enough gobbledygook in it to provide us with some sort of odds of that happening?

You don't seem to understand that the probabilities are quite easy to calculate.

Can you provide a source for your claim that radiation is a thousand times greater on Mars than it is on Earth? Such a source may provide information about flux levels for cosmic ray energies sufficient to produce effects on the CCDs.

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

I differ to your expertise then sir. Please calculate the odds that the only man made object running on Mars was hit by a cosmic ray in one 1/2" spot on April 2nd causing pixelation, and on the next day (April 3rd), yet another cosmic ray hit the exact same 1/2" spot while in a different position, angle, and still produced the exact same event.

I mean am I the only person who can look at the above statement and not laugh?? The odds are so astronomical that they'd be the same as the light being Luke Skywalker.

Phage
reply to post by Miniscuzz

 

The onboard computer using ICER will not allow for bleeding. Did you even read the specs?

Yes, I did. Blooming can be mitigated with software but it cannot be removed. Removing it would remove data.

Did you not see the example of blooming occurring? Here it is again, at the bottom center:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

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

I see it and it's apples to oranges Phage. The blooming on your picture is from direct sunlight hitting the aluminum housing...not from some cosmic ray. Where are all the pictures of cosmic rays from NAV-CAMS? Until I see them, there's no way that I believe two rays caused the same cam to take the exact same picture of an event on different days. You can though

reply to post by Miniscuzz

I differ to your expertise then sir. Please calculate the odds that the only man made object running on Mars was hit by a cosmic ray in one 1/2" spot on April 2nd causing pixelation, and on the next day (April 3rd), yet another cosmic ray hit the exact same 1/2" spot while in a different position, angle, and still produced the exact same event.

I provided you with an estimate that odds of such an event is 1:80 (assuming enough energy to saturate, or oversaturate a pixel). The odds are the same everytime an image is taken.

Now, if you can provide a source for your claim that cosmic radiation levels are a thousand time greater on Mars than Earth, I may be able to refine that.

What do you mean by "exact same event?" The two are quite different.

Just a couple of quick theories I've come up with if anyone has knowledge of the construction of the camera's that might be helpful.


Theory 1: Is the lens assembly on the camera heated? I'd imagine it would need some form of heating element, perhaps it is slightly wearing out and a small amount of co2 has formed an 'ice' pimple and is focusing extra light in that area depending roughly on the sun angle? Could explain the light in one camera on different days.

(mind you, I still think cosmic ray is most fitting as far as can be ascertained so far)

Theory 2: Is it possible a small mote of radioactive dust has landed on the lens of the camera and causing the spike/s?

reply to post by Miniscuzz

The blooming on your picture is from direct sunlight hitting the aluminum housing...not from some cosmic ray.

The cause is the same, oversaturated pixels.