Rover captures light source on Mars!!

looks like a glitch.

Are they driving over to it?

I'm very much inclined to think this is an image artifact rather than a real light source. Notice how the "light" is totally vertical, just affecting one column of pixels (with slight blooming into the adjacent columns).

Any time you see an alleged "anomaly" that is precisely aligned with the pixel grid, the alarm bells should ring.

Glad that my prediction is confirmed...

Keep up the good work Arken...someday, I'm sure if something really phenomenal turns up. You'll be the first to find it, and bring it to ATS. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks Des, for your kind words.

I'm not sure about your prophecy...

Maybe you, or another ATS member if you have time to watch carefully some images from Mars...

More more more (No not Billy Idol)

I just want more!!!!


Please........................???

only one way to find out for sure...Go over there and poke around.

The "light source" looks like a digital glitch, or as suggested -- perhaps is due to an outside source, say a cosmic ray hit. Was this just in one photo, and not a number of them?

As for the "vehicular tracks", it looks more like erosional or moving rock tracks.

I really hate when posters give their threads misleading (and that's a very polite way to say it) titles. A hearty two thumbs down.

I think whatever it is, it is coming out of the ground. Now considering that's exactly what it looks like to those who don't know enough about cosmic rays well... Anyway, I'm ready to be slaughtered by the experts.

reply to post by Biigs


They never do, which is a shame because they are closer than us.

I guess the post I wrote got lost, so I'll try again.

First, things that are supposed to happen synchronously rarely do. They probably are off by hundreds of milliseconds. The designers would see no need to synchronize them more accurately because they are taking pictures of static landscape.

I don't think packet loss can be blamed. Lost packets are re-sent or the entire bunch are discarded. There could be errors, like flipped bits, but there are error detection and correction algorithms to fix them. There would have to be a lot of bits flipped to get this kind of result, and I believe it would be more likely to be horizontal than vertical.

One thing that leads me to question that these are just bad pixels is the fact that the flare is "anti-aliased," in other words it's not just a one-pixel-wide line of uniform brightness surrounded by a variety of grays, but it fades on the sides. It also seems a little too convenient that a glitch happened right where the land "ends." Those facts make me think it captured something real. But, I also notice that for such a bright light, it doesn't appear to be lighting up the area around it.

So, all in all, I don't know what to think.

reply to post by mbkennel

reply to post by eriktheawful



This whole assumption is based on the fact the 2 cameras are actually synchronized. I don't know how they work BUT...

...if they are somehow slightly out of sync it's possible to consider something was caught only in one camera.

Then it could some reflection indeed.

The geography and alignment suggests something other than then a cosmic ray for me. Glitch is more likely.

reply to post by Phage


O k now just so we don't get all bent out of shape I'm just asking you nicely to explain why the fuzzy part isn't at the bottom?

Almost defiantly a geyser.

reply to post by Miniscuzz


Hows this for an idea Nasa drive the rover to the source to see what it is. I mean the rover can go in 4 directions and its all boring old rocks so what the hell, drive it towards that direction. If it turns out to be nothing, then nothing lost of gain. Exploration is not about explaining stuff away its about driving the rover where the curiosity takes you. This is what has been lost from Nasas vision of exploration.

All Phage was doing was to offer a possible explanation, nothing more. So i don't get the insta flaming against him?

It was suggested this could be a geyser. This was ruled out since they only appear at the poles.

Dead pixels was also suggested. Upon reading about digital camera's there is a function called “Manual Sensor Cleaning”, on some Canon camera's that can fix dead pixels for later pictures.
canon site
I'm not sure if the camera's on the rover has this function?

I thought it was a small meteorite to begin with, but thanks to Phage posting the left-side(?) picture, where the light isn't visible, that cannot be correct either.

So what do we have left.
A geyser? If so, it would be a first time observation ever. But it still does not explain why it isn't visible on the other stereo picture.
Dead pixels? Due to lack of knowledge, i'm not sure yet. But possible i guess.
Cosmic ray? It's plausible, and also explains why the blip isn't in the other stereo-picture.


Zoomed in, and inverted.

Miniscuzz


I don't see how this could possibly be debunked or debated. It's dark and the light is a very bright white...pointing directly up from the ground about a half a mile to perhaps a mile away from the rover. The picture is a raw JPL image. Link provided below.

Kinda really easy to do both really debunked or debated. We all know well most of us, have learned that NASA has been touching up pictures in the past and present. Mistakes are to be made. Yes its that simple. only thing that comes out of nasa anymore is what they want you to see and know. we do not even have a trusted news source anymore you really think these guys are honest with the pictures?? At this point i would trust a no named person with a telescope over nasa.

reply to post by skuly


Geyser seems to a very plausible answer as I have seen similar effects whilst on my travels through the pennine hills.
There could be water deep down there after all.

Magwes
reply to post by skuly

 

Geyser seems to a very plausible answer as I have seen similar effects whilst on my travels through the pennine hills.
There could be water deep down there after all.

You keep forgetting, there were two pictures taken, a stereo image, and only one of the images shows a "geyser".

LordAdef
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

This whole assumption is based on the fact the 2 cameras are actually synchronized. I don't know how they work BUT...

...if they are somehow slightly out of sync it's possible to consider something was caught only in one camera.

Then it could some reflection indeed.

The geography and alignment suggests something other than then a cosmic ray for me. Glitch is more likely.

edit on 7-4-2014 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

Here are links to pdf files on the cameras, how they work, engineering specs, etc:

Mars Science Labratory Engineering Cameras

Mars Science Laboratory Navigational Cameras

Curiosity has to RCEs (Rover Computing Element) onboard, one is always active to run things, while the other is kept off as a back up. The RCEs use a RAD750 CPU (link to the pdf file for specs), which operates at 200 Mhz, hardened against extreme radiation.

The RCE controls two cameras on the rover at the same time. The navigational cameras are commanded to take an image, they do so at the same time. The only delay would be any resistance in the conductors between the cameras and the RCE, in which case any delay in that command reaching a camera would not be measured in "hundreds of milliseconds", but would be instead measured in pico to femto seconds (difference of 0.1 to 0.9 seconds to 0.000000000001 to 0.0000009 seconds).

Light is fast. But not that fast. When the navcams are told to take a picture, they do so at the same time.

fenian8

OK... I don`t know nearly enough of this cosmic ray stuff to comment properly on that tbh, but i do know what dead pixels on an image look like and given the rover is on Mars....maybe....there could be a fair few dead pixels on some images.

Just my opinion.

Unless I'm mistaken you're both right inasmuch as the cosmic ray strikes a pixel, or number of pixels, depending upon its angle of incidence, resulting in temporary "dead pixel(s)".

If it's a reflection of an object, the object itself has to be huge.

Whatever it is, it STANDS OUT and that may be a hint.