Rover captures light source on Mars!!

Well, if its in one camera but not the other on the same spot at the same time, then logically it must be something to do with the camera itself.

So...yeah. sadly no martians (this time)

ignore

reply to post by Phage



To the naked eye...they are no different and honestly Phage...NO two events caught by ANY camera could be magnified to look exactly the same. Use some common sense.


1/80 huh? Really? You're telling me that the odds I could get a cosmic ray to hit the head of a dime on two seperate occasions and actually catch both events ON FILM is merely ONE out of 80 tries??? Are you kidding me LOL??? How utterly preposterous!!

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Are you kidding me LOL??? How utterly preposterous!!

I guess you don't understand probabilities.

Given the parameters of a cosmic ray flux of 200/m2/s with enough energy to oversaturate pixels, the odds of a strike appearing on any given image is approximately 1:80.

Just like flipping a coin, it doesn't matter how many times you get heads the odds of getting heads on the next flip is always 1:2.

Fourth theory, sorry coffee kick, also I'll put all my quick theories in this one post.

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.

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

Theory 3: I'd imagine the circuits are extremely well protected from EMF from the electronics, but maybe a nearby capacitor is on the way out and is causing interference... (Lame theory, just trying to add possibilities)

Theory 4: I wonder if some co2 has actually gotten into the assembly and is shorting the ccd?

I like this theory, can explain the one camera, separate days and approx same area of the photo...?

Just adding some thoughts, not researched at all yet and I'm still on the side of cosmic rays - but all things must be discounted!

reply to post by Qumulys

Any idea on why CO2 would short anything? I mean, CO2 extinguishers are used for electrical fires.

reply to post by Miniscuzz


Whatever it was, it was odd enough to make it onto the evening news today.

reply to post by Phage



I get that, but you apparently aren't making the correlation buddy. Those two pictures...April 2nd, and April 3rd show the same event taking place in the exact same spot but with the rover in a completely different position as well as different camera angle.

The equation you're using signifies ALL pictures by ALL 12 Rover cams, not just the forward NAV CAMS. This is important because I haven't found more than ONE other black and white NAV CAM picture which shows any of this pixelation, nor have YOU provided any. In fact, you've posted every single kind of picture EXCEPT those from the forward NC's. You are deflecting...and not even well really. If one out of 80 black and white NC pics has this pixelation...show me just 3. 3 and I walk away and claim you the victor of the debate. Hows that?

Also...your equation doesn't include the odds that the event captured would be in the exact same position on the resulting images. Find me any JPL images that will show two cosmic ray hits appearing in different pictures but in the exact same spot on the resulting image. That's rhetorical obviously, because they don't exist.


Your equation has to make up for the above two things before you can make any claim sir.


So I repeat my mantra that there is NO way to calculate this happening because the odds are completely fantastical.

reply to post by lance_covel

Or created enough of a buzz on the internet to do so.

reply to post by Miniscuzz

Those two pictures...April 2nd, and April 3rd show the same event taking place in the exact same spot but with the rover in a completely different position as well as different camera angle.

Only if you assume the event is external to the camera. It appears in two different places in the image frame.

The equation you're using signifies ALL pictures by ALL 12 Rover cams, not just the forward NAV CAMS.

No. My calculation involves a single CCD.

Also...your equation doesn't include the odds that the event captured would be in the exact same position on the resulting images.

You are assuming that these are external events. The fact that it appears in only one of the stereo pair indicates otherwise. As far as the CCD is concerned, the event happened in different locations.

Find me any JPL images that will show two cosmic ray hits appearing in different pictures but in the exact same spot on the resulting image.

The ones you are talking about do not do so. The first is located at pixel position 66,92. The second is located at pixel location 229,122.

So I repeat my mantra that there is NO way to calculate this happening because the odds are completely fantastical.

Even if that were true (it isn't), it doesn't mean it can't happen. What are the odds of a family winning the lottery three times in a month?
wtkr.com...

reply to post by Miniscuzz


I don't know if that is good or bad.

reply to post by Phage


Nope, perhaps since the ccd is highly sensitive some co2 might carry a static charge rather than causing a short? No idea if that's possible though, how about those other quick theories I came up with?

reply to post by Qumulys

1) No heater on the optics AFAIK. A heater, in fact, could be problematic.

2) Would need to be a gamma emitter to get through the lens and a would probably produce an effect on more images.

3) Would probably be alarms going off.

reply to post by Miniscuzz


Why are you stuck on the odds argument? Do you know how many pictures the rover has taken and this seems to be the first with a cosmic ray? So if this is the first, and the rover has taken 10,000 pictures, this would be a 1 in 10,000 chance of it happening.

If those are the mathematical chances of it happening, it looks like it happened right on Que.

AAC

With so many of the major news sources reporting on this event, at a minimum what that does is remind people that the Rover is still on Mars and roving. It also gives them a mystery to talk about to remind still more people that the Rover is on Mars (still roving), and adds an element of "Gosh, are there Martians lighting campfires or something?" - thus bringing the public's imaginations into the process. So then this nudges the public just a little bit more into the feeling that exploring Mars is worth the time, money, and trouble involved as long as they can get "golly gee" stories like this once in awhile. Not bad feedback for a couple of energetic cosmic rays to elicit.

I just wish that a good Martian potential fossil find (like the curly potential sea shell image that Arken has highlighted in a recent thread) would get the same attention, so that geologists and marine-biologists would be interviewed for their comments and analysis.

Until then, this pixelated pixel story will have to do. "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine"

Nasa wont waste a precious day of research?? Isn't it researching if they check it out? www.iflscience.com...

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

Do you know how many pictures the rover has taken and this seems to be the first with a cosmic ray?

Well, actually they did say that they see a white spot in pics at least once a week, so it is very doubtful this is the first time this has happened.

Miniscuzz
reply to post by Phage

 

You mean where you postulate that it could be a picture of a cosmic ray lol?? You can't possibly be serious with that assumption right?

First, Mars has no atmosphere to interact with incoming particles to cause a cosmic ray on the ground. And even if there was a chance of that happening, I doubt that the Mars Rover was just in the right position at the right time to snap a shot right when a cosmic ray hits the ground. Then you have to factor in that the camera on that Rover does not have the shutter speed to capture a damned cosmic ray emitting light. That would be like me trying to capture a perfect picture of a lightning strike on a TracFone camera.


The more obvious answer is that whomever was operating the mast camera saw the light an snapped a shot.

SNIP

 

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on 4/6/2014 by Blaine91555 because: Rude comment removed for TAC violation.

People are just illiterate I guess and spout facts without simply googling.

Mars does have an Atmosphere

Asking Google Voice:

Yes, Mars does have an atmosphere. The Martian atmosphere contains about 95.3% carbon dioxide (CO2) and 2.7% nitrogen, with the remainder a mixture of other gases. However, it is a very thin atmosphere, roughly 100 times less dense than Earth's atmosphere.

Links to sites proving Mars has an atmosphere

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

blllllllliiiiiipppp.


www.slate.com...

reply to post by Phage


1, Interesting if there's no heating element (I'm talking subtle heat here, when I take terrestrial night photo's I sometimes put a heated bean bag on the camera as condensation builds up on frosty nights. So, I wonder how it works on Mars? Obviously a very different atmosphere, but there is plenty of co2 up there, so a tiny 'lens' acting bubble (like, millimeters) could has started to form on the lens...? It's an idea at least to consider.

2, Agree that it would be in more images, and likely to produce multiple spikes. But perhaps it got inside the camera body and near the ccd and is a very weak source? Very unlikely...

3, What kind of alarms? Like say a drop in voltage? I've known some gear to still work fine, but be producing some annoying emf noise at the same time. Very unlikely though, and I mostly agree that they probably have something that would bring up an irregularity in the circuits operations. But...? Maybe?

4? Would static from a co2 build up on the ccd cause disruption?


I just do not think the cause is anything outside of the rover. But, again, I guess there is a slim chance of a narrow beam of light reflecting off co2... But like you said, that beam at that distance is over 20 foot... Just some other ideas to work with as arguing odds is not much fun.