Something shooting the sun? NASA removes images

reply to post by Rob48


This would be cool to see for yourself but it might get distracting if there is a lot of it. And this is exactly what I am asking about i suppose as I get a better result in my quest for understanding if a human is there to witness the event. I was pretty much asking could this be viewed in normal time in the visible range? AND it looks like that has happened to the Astronauts. Now what it really means is a chance to spend some time pondering. Ok we can let it rest for now. thanks!!

But why does it always have to involve angels?

Sigh.

reply to post by Justoneman

Remember the "ray" itself is just a proton. Unless the same proton strikes your eye and the detector then it won't affect both. In other words if you were floating in space next to the SOHO detector (not recommended!) then, assuming you somehow survived, you would likely see plenty of cosmic ray flashes. But they wouldn't be the same events that the detector picked up, except very rarely by chance if an particle passed through both your eye and the CCD.

ngchunter
What does that have to do with anything I said? Cosmic ray strikes will still create streaks in the CCD whether it's old or new. There's nothing about my CCD that makes it inherently immune to cosmic ray strikes. The most fundamental difference is the anti-bloom gating on my CCD which automatically prevents any cosmic ray hit from causing blooming (not that I'd expect the presence of many such high energy cosmic ray hits here at sea level anyway).

I was objecting to your use of the characterization "astronomical CCDs" when technologically, such things do not exist. The CCD arrays used in every aspect of their use are for the most part identical, technologically. With the most significant alteration to some arrays being radiation hardening (doesn't work well for cosmic rays).

You are correct in that not many (actually) alpha particles reach the earth. However they are known...there is approximately 1 strike per 266MB of RAM per month on your computer...for me that works out so something like 56 alpha particle (cosmic ray) strikes per month.

By the way; IF the cosmic density were actually as high as would be required to make images like that...the SOHO electronics package would fail (too many alpha particle strikes)...(just one of the many holes in the Cosmic Ray hypothesis).

reply to post by tanka418

I was objecting to your use of the characterization "astronomical CCDs" when technologically, such things do not exist.

Really.
Astronomical CCDs

By the way; IF the cosmic density were actually as high as would be required to make images like that...the SOHO electronics package would fail (too many alpha particle strikes)...(just one of the many holes in the Cosmic Ray hypothesis).

You know this how?

During periods of normal activity (like right now) the ACE satellite (which is in the same general region as SOHO, about 1 million miles from Earth) records proton hits at a rate of about 1/cm2/sec.
www.swpc.noaa.gov...


Here is what the sensor receives during a solar proton storm, when particle flux is very high. Yet, the satellite manages to survive and has for many years.

tanka418

ngchunter
What does that have to do with anything I said? Cosmic ray strikes will still create streaks in the CCD whether it's old or new. There's nothing about my CCD that makes it inherently immune to cosmic ray strikes. The most fundamental difference is the anti-bloom gating on my CCD which automatically prevents any cosmic ray hit from causing blooming (not that I'd expect the presence of many such high energy cosmic ray hits here at sea level anyway).

I was objecting to your use of the characterization "astronomical CCDs" when technologically, such things do not exist. The CCD arrays used in every aspect of their use are for the most part identical, technologically.

Astronomical CCD vs a Sony Point and Shoot camera as previously mentioned. Context my friend, context - yes the CCD itself is used in multiple applications, but there IS a difference between an astronomical CCD camera and a point and shoot camera. Are you seriously going to try and argue that there is no technological difference between a Sony point and shoot and this?
archive.sbig.com...
By all means, I would LOVE to see you try to make that argument.

By the way; IF the cosmic density were actually as high as would be required to make images like that...the SOHO electronics package would fail (too many alpha particle strikes)...

Because you say so? No, the electronics are designed to withstand the radiation flux and just because there are cosmic ray strikes does not mean the electronics "must" fail. As you saw, my camera received plenty of strikes over a 5 hour period, but it still works just fine. They are cosmic rays, unless you think magical pixies somehow infiltrated my camera while it was indoors with the shutter closed.

Rob48

alienreality
reply to post by Rob48

 

I never said anything about the STEREO images being classified.... Another lame straw man attempt by you.

You're the one claiming they are being deleted. You're the one lying. Don't accuse me of underhand tactics.

Normally, I'd just keep out of it, but you sir...are being disingenuous at best. There is so much information out there about how many times NASA has LIED to the public, I cannot believe you'd even call someone out on that lol.

Yes...let us set aside Apollo 11 like you mention. How about everything thats wrong with the other footage as well as the nonsense that humans can travel safely in space...land on a rock...run around and drive cool dune buggies...then fly off this rock and return to the planet safely. All with equipment made 60 years ago that doesn't even have 1/10th the ability of a PS3....built by the lowest bidder.

How about the following links to drive the point home. The first one is about how NASA "lost" hundreds of moon rocks. While not damning...it certainly alludes to the fact that they aren't very thorough and apt to let mistakes fly.

The second one is about how NASA has been lying to the public....the same public which pays the taxes required for them to operate....about global warming. If you can lie about global warming...you can lie about anything...a liar is a liar. Period.

One only needs to type the following into Google "NASA CAUGHT FAKING..." and you'll receive 18million hits. Most are garbage, but many have made mainstream news reports.

If any ETs were indeed mining our sun, one would think they would wait until night time when it would be much easier.

reply to post by tanka418


What is it about this message board that so many people who know very little about physics imagine that they know better than expert astrophysicists, including the very people who built and launched the detector that creates the images we are discussing?

Is it some kind of anti-intellectualism — an automatic distrust of anyone with letters after their name — or what?

Miniscuzz
Yes...let us set aside Apollo 11 like you mention. How about everything thats wrong with the other footage as well as the nonsense that humans can travel safely in space...land on a rock...run around and drive cool dune buggies...then fly off this rock and return to the planet safely. All with equipment made 60 years ago that doesn't even have 1/10th the ability of a PS3....built by the lowest bidder.

I know this is hard to comprehend for people who have no experience in orbital mechanics and haven't done the math, but it doesn't take large amounts of computer processing on board the spacecraft to get to the moon and back.

Miniscuzz
How about everything thats wrong with the other footage as well as the nonsense that humans can travel safely in space...land on a rock...run around and drive cool dune buggies...then fly off this rock and return to the planet safely. All with equipment made 60 years ago that doesn't even have 1/10th the ability of a PS3....built by the lowest bidder.

That is because it was designed by clever people. I don't expect you to understand but please don't project your own limitations onto the whole human race.

a liar is a liar. Period.

Quite so, and anyone who denies the reality of the Apollo landings in the face of all the evidence is a liar and a fool. And what does Apollo have to do with this topic anyway?

One only needs to type the following into Google "NASA CAUGHT FAKING..." and you'll receive 18million hits.

How many do you get for "the earth is flat"? It doesn't make it true. The internet is full of rubbish. If you can provide one verifiable example of NASA "faking" anything then fire away.

By the way, the links were missing from your post, along with any sense of coherent argument. Here's a hint: just because you cannot personally understand something does not make it impossible.

ngchunter

Miniscuzz
Yes...let us set aside Apollo 11 like you mention. How about everything thats wrong with the other footage as well as the nonsense that humans can travel safely in space...land on a rock...run around and drive cool dune buggies...then fly off this rock and return to the planet safely. All with equipment made 60 years ago that doesn't even have 1/10th the ability of a PS3....built by the lowest bidder.

I know this is hard to comprehend for people who have no experience in orbital mechanics and haven't done the math, but it doesn't take large amounts of computer processing on board the spacecraft to get to the moon and back.

That's the exact point I'm making. Why does my calculator watch have more computing power than the onboard computers of a space craft destined to land on a rock? Can you really say with a straight face that one doesn't really need a strong computer to fly in space? Sure...we all just believe that astronauts whom have never ever flown in space are able to make minute adjustments to fuel pressure, life support systems, and God knows what other functions....on the fly having zero precedence with which to have some sort of learning curve. Not possible...which is why no other country has ever, nor will ever, go to the Moon.

Furthermore, when the whole paragraph is taken into context, computers being a small part of that, it's patently obvious (to me) that there are serious flaws to landing any craft on the moon. But that's probably hard to comprehend for people who have no experience in common sense.

Your condescending attitude alluding to what I do or do not have a grasp of has no bearing on the discussion.....the same discussion in which you're cherrypicking random nothings to prove some point that has nothing to do with what the reply meant in the first place.

Miniscuzz

ngchunter

Miniscuzz
Yes...let us set aside Apollo 11 like you mention. How about everything thats wrong with the other footage as well as the nonsense that humans can travel safely in space...land on a rock...run around and drive cool dune buggies...then fly off this rock and return to the planet safely. All with equipment made 60 years ago that doesn't even have 1/10th the ability of a PS3....built by the lowest bidder.

I know this is hard to comprehend for people who have no experience in orbital mechanics and haven't done the math, but it doesn't take large amounts of computer processing on board the spacecraft to get to the moon and back.

That's the exact point I'm making. Why does my calculator watch have more computing power than the onboard computers of a space craft destined to land on a rock? Can you really say with a straight face that one doesn't really need a strong computer to fly in space?

Yes. I've tested the original Apollo guidance computer software running emulated hardware in silico in a simulated solar system with very realistic physics, and it works. You don't need large amounts of computing power to do it, you just need relatively simple functions and a knowledge of physics. Have you done the same and found that it DOESN'T work?

Miniscuzz
Your condescending attitude alluding to what I do or do not have a grasp of has no bearing on the discussion.....the same discussion in which you're cherrypicking random nothings to prove some point that has nothing to do with what the reply meant in the first place.

Demonstrating your extreme ignorance of the computing power needed to make it to the moon and back is not "cherrypicking random nothings." They're your words, defend them.

Miniscuzz
There is so much information out there about how many times NASA has LIED to the public,

You keep claiming that, yet are unable to back that claim up with any evidence....

How about everything thats wrong with the other footage

Like what exactly? All those claims boil down to some people not understanding anything about physics or photography and how things actually work.

as well as the nonsense that humans can travel safely in space...land on a rock...run around and drive cool dune buggies...then fly off this rock and return to the planet safely. All with equipment made 60 years ago

What nonsense, according to your stupid reasoning Concorde never flew commercial passengers as you cannot fly at supersonic speeds commercially today.... Steam ships never existed as you cannot travel on a steam cruise ship today.... black and white TV never existed as you cannot buy one today.... etc etc.

Looks to me like a glitch of the 'ccd sensor' onboard, probably the result of a cosmic ray strike upon the components.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ATSZOMBIE


Yes, or the data stream coming down from the spacecraft was compromised in some way. Like static on the TV.

ngchunter
Astronomical CCD vs a Sony Point and Shoot camera as previously mentioned. Context my friend, context - yes the CCD itself is used in multiple applications, but there IS a difference between an astronomical CCD camera and a point and shoot camera. Are you seriously going to try and argue that there is no technological difference between a Sony point and shoot and this?
archive.sbig.com...
By all means, I would LOVE to see you try to make that argument.

Okay...the image capture system is virtually identical. In that; the CCD array itself is no different in anyway, with the possible exception of radiation hardening, I've not seen any "hardened" CCD arrays available. The support electronics can be anything it wants as it doesn't affect the image capture, only processing and final assembly. And, if you get a new Sony...it's CCD is far superior.

"By the way; IF the cosmic density were actually as high as would be required to make images like that...the SOHO electronics package would fail (too many alpha particle strikes)..."

Because you say so? No, the electronics are designed to withstand the radiation flux and just because there are cosmic ray strikes does not mean the electronics "must" fail. As you saw, my camera received plenty of strikes over a 5 hour period, but it still works just fine. They are cosmic rays, unless you think magical pixies somehow infiltrated my camera while it was indoors with the shutter closed.

No...not because I say so...wtf???

Yes some of the electronic components are hardened, but there are still strict limits. Here on earth it only takes 1 alpha particle to go through my computer and I'll have to restart it. If the same particle went through my hard drive I could lose an entire application, database, or other important file...perhaps a dll that the system requires to operate...

Those spots on your camera were not cosmic rays...they are probably "shot noise". Shot noise is common in semiconductors, I also noticed a bit of "digital" noise from your CCD...tell me; "How does SOHO deal with CCD noise?"

Oh, and some of them could be "Hot pixels"...you know...always on.

Rob48
reply to post by tanka418

 

What is it about this message board that so many people who know very little about physics imagine that they know better than expert astrophysicists, including the very people who built and launched the detector that creates the images we are discussing?

Is it some kind of anti-intellectualism — an automatic distrust of anyone with letters after their name — or what?

I know; Right?!!??

I only got a couple of MS's (MSEE, MSCS), how bout you?

Miniscuzz
it's patently obvious (to me) that there are serious flaws to landing any craft on the moon.

Pray do elaborate. How is landing on the Moon, which has weak gravity and no atmosphere, is harder than landing on a planet with strong gravity and a thick atmosphere (like Earth for example)?

You evoke common sense, but it's the physics and maths that matter. Besides, when you're sending a spacecraft to another Solar System body, most calculations are done here on Earth, with powerful computers. Apollo astronauts only had to do some navigation by stars and some other calculations to keep them on an already calculated track.