Something shooting the sun? NASA removes images

My guess it was another comet or ice asteroid. Right at this moment, there's a snow blizzard where I live, and this is mid April.

reply to post by tanka418

Only an MChem for me I'm afraid. So you have two degrees, presumably you are familiar with doing research, so why are you still insisting that you know better than the people who built SOHO?

Cosmic rays: High energy particles from the solar wind, and from the galaxy as a whole, whip around the SOHO spacecraft and interact with the detectors. These produce spots and streaks on the detector ranging from a single pixel, to large streaks that span a large fraction of the image.

From here: soho.nascom.nasa.gov...

See an extreme example here: sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

SOHO was designed to observe high-energy particles and is sitting in an environment where it is constantly bombarded with them. That is kind of the point of the project. It would be pretty useless launching it into space if was bricked by the first cosmic ray strike!

Why are you being so combative with people who are just providing simple explanations?

tanka418

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.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really pal, really? My astronomical CCD with thermoelectric cooling and 16 bit digitizer is the same capture system as a freaking Sony point and shoot? Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

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

Yes some of the electronic components are hardened, but there are still strict limits.

You have utterly, totally, and completely failed to show that the electrical components would fail under fluxes that produce these kinds of cosmic rays.

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.

Hey genius, try reading what I said, I CALIBRATED AGAINST HOT PIXELS, THERE ARE NO HOT PIXELS IN THOSE IMAGES. It's not digital noise, it's not "shot noise" you have no idea what you're talking about. These pixels are significantly brighter than random noise within the CCD, which is itself reduced by thermoelectric cooling. Same goes for SOHO. They ARE cosmic rays. They are random and brighter than the CCD's own noise level. I proved that already using the images and animation I posted.

reply to post by Tucket


Hi there, I'm no expert and I rarely know enough to comment here on ATS, but I know a man who is an expert "suspiciousobservers" from YouTube, I messaged him with a link to this video, and his answer is this was "Those are Cosmic Rays, they are always on those Images, and they typically precede large eruptions".... I hope this helps a lot.

I have followed this YouTuber for years and I totally trust him. For those interested I highly recommend his channel about space weather, connections between the suns behavior and earths reactions, and so much more, every day with excellent explanations.

If I've done this right here's a link:
m.youtube.com...#/channel/UCTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

(I'm only on my android phone so if it works I'll be surprised)!!

reply to post by Phage


Yes Phage, that's very interesting, and moot.

I'm talking the actual CCD "device" not the system into which it is designed. You know the support electronics etc.

By the way...thermoelectric cooling?!??You have got to be kidding right?!!!!!

20 degrees "C" oh boy...room temp. not any where enough cooling to reduce noise. Most astronomical observatories would use something like "LN" to cool sensitive electronics...you know actually get it cold! That is the only way to reduce the shot noise.

Again, there is no difference between the CCD used in astronomy and what is used in any other electronic photography device. A bleedin' CCD is still a bleedin CCD! No matter how much you want it to be different.

Oh, and Phage, I really thought you knew how NASA got those "images"...you are aware of the "amplification" NASA does to those images, right?

You might also want to "bone up" on cosmic rays, protons, alpha particles, and atomic nuclei. And, also the effect on electronic components. (my computer for instance gets "reset" at least once a week due primarily to alpha particle interaction.)

ngchunter
"Yes some of the electronic components are hardened, but there are still strict limits."


You have utterly, totally, and completely failed to show that the electrical components would fail under fluxes that produce these kinds of cosmic rays.

Seriously?!!!? Dude try this...
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

and this:
www.lems.brown.edu...

The effects of alpha particles (cosmic rays) is well known and well documented...

As I have already said...I reset my computer system at least 3 - 6 times per month due to alpha particle interaction and the "soft errors" they cause. And, Earth, is a "shielded" place.

Hey genius, try reading what I said, I CALIBRATED AGAINST HOT PIXELS, THERE ARE NO HOT PIXELS IN THOSE IMAGES. It's not digital noise, it's not "shot noise" you have no idea what you're talking about. These pixels are significantly brighter than random noise within the CCD, which is itself reduced by thermoelectric cooling. Same goes for SOHO. They ARE cosmic rays. They are random and brighter than the CCD's own noise level. I proved that already using the images and animation I posted.

Tell me, are you an Electrical Engineer? Have you designed integrated circuits? I'm betting no.

The "noise" you demonstrated in your "images", etc. is electrical in nature, and caused by system / local shot noise. IF you were to, as you seemed to indicate, operate your CCD with the "lens cap" on, the only "image" you could possibly collect would be "shot" and device noise; as there are not be enough "cosmic rays" reaching the surface to account for the "noise" you want to attribute to cosmic rays. The amount, and nature of cosmic rays / alpha particles reaching the surface of Earth is well known and documented...as indicated in the papers I linked.

Finally, what is the part number and manufacturer of your "astronomical CCD" I would like to look at it's data sheet. And, I don't mean the "camera".

reply to post by tanka418

What is your actual point here? Are you denying that the streaks that show up with great frequency on SOHO images are caused by cosmic rays and solar wind particles? If so, what are they caused by, in your opinion? And please do demonstrate why the people who designed, built, launched and operate SOHO don't know what they are talking about.

Rob48
reply to post by tanka418

 

What is your actual point here? Are you denying that the streaks that show up with great frequency on SOHO images are caused by cosmic rays and solar wind particles? If so, what are they caused by, in your opinion? And please do demonstrate why the people who designed, built, launched and operate SOHO don't know what they are talking about.

My point? Not all things thought to be "cosmic ray" are! As for the alternative? Anything else so ever Even simple probability dictates that not all of those spots, streaks, etc. are caused by cosmic rays. Further, IF the "Ray density" was as high as it would need to be to produce what y'all are calling "cosmic rays" them there would be serious issues with the electronic package operating for as long as it has.

Do you really think NASA is going to give the public a serious technical description of what is going on? Most people would be lost by the third word. It is far easier, and practical to simply stretch reality a bit and attribute it all to a single source. The "masses" will be better served with an "untruth" (as differentiated from lie)...not to mention that the real truth would only confuse those not properly educated...for instance, it is entirely understandable that an astronomer doe not understand Electrical Engineering.

And please do demonstrate why the people who designed, built, launched and operate SOHO don't know what they are talking about.

The people that designed and built the SOHO systems was most certainly NOT NASA, they contracted some civilian company to do that. I'll give you launched. It is currently operated by someone other than NASA. In fact all NASA really did was approve the space mission and carry it out. And of course try to take all the credit from those who really deserve it.

tanka418
In fact all NASA really did was approve the space mission and carry it out. And of course try to take all the credit from those who really deserve it.

Nonsense. NASA and ESA are completely open about who did what. Incidentally, one of my close family members used to work for both ESA and Matra Marconi, which was mostly responsible for the actual building, so I do actually have some idea what I am talking about here. I'm sure she and her former colleagues would be amused to hear that the spacecraft which was designed to observe massive amounts of particle flux would not work if it was struck by cosmic rays.


Edit: Just to show NASA are not "trying to take all the credit"...

About the SOHO Mission


SOHO, the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory, is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA to study the Sun from its deep core to the outer corona and the solar wind.

SOHO was launched on December 2, 1995. The SOHO spacecraft was built in Europe by an industry team led by prime contractor Matra Marconi Space (now EADS Astrium) under overall management by ESA. The twelve instruments on board SOHO were provided by European and American scientists. Nine of the international instrument consortia are led by European Principal Investigators (PI's), three by PI's from the US. Large engineering teams and more than 200 co-investigators from many institutions supported the PI's in the development of the instruments and in the preparation of their operations and data analysis. NASA was responsible for the launch and is now responsible for mission operations. Large radio dishes around the world which form NASA's Deep Space Network are used for data downlink and commanding. Mission control is based at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

Source

And for more detail see the fact sheet. Names and affiliations of all the main individuals who took part. Credit duly given.

tanka418

ngchunter
"Yes some of the electronic components are hardened, but there are still strict limits."


You have utterly, totally, and completely failed to show that the electrical components would fail under fluxes that produce these kinds of cosmic rays.

Seriously?!!!? Dude try this...

That has nothing to do with you showing that the amount of cosmic rays received by my camera or SOHO's would cause hardware failure on the spacecraft.

As I have already said...I reset my computer system at least 3 - 6 times per month due to alpha particle interaction and the "soft errors" they cause. And, Earth, is a "shielded" place.

Your computer is an apples and oranges comparison, your computer is not hardened for spaceflight.

Tell me, are you an Electrical Engineer? Have you designed integrated circuits? I'm betting no.

Tell me, are you an astrophotographer, have you worked with astronomical CCDs and image calibration? I'm betting no.

The "noise" you demonstrated in your "images", etc. is electrical in nature, and caused by system / local shot noise.

No it is not. I calibrated against the hot pixels natively in the CCD, it is caused by cosmic rays.

IF you were to, as you seemed to indicate, operate your CCD with the "lens cap" on, the only "image" you could possibly collect would be "shot" and device noise;

Circular logic. You're claiming it's not cosmic ray noise because it's "shot" noise because it must be "shot" noise because it couldn't be cosmic ray noise. The readout noise level in the CCD is nowhere near this bright nor is the thermal noise (which is actively reduced by cooling), it is cosmic rays.

Finally, what is the part number and manufacturer of your "astronomical CCD" I would like to look at it's data sheet. And, I don't mean the "camera".

I already gave you that information. If you knew what you were doing you would have already realized that.

Rob48
reply to post by tanka418

 

What is your actual point here? Are you denying that the streaks that show up with great frequency on SOHO images are caused by cosmic rays and solar wind particles? If so, what are they caused by, in your opinion? And please do demonstrate why the people who designed, built, launched and operate SOHO don't know what they are talking about.

Hell, he's denying it there AND in my camera, and this from a guy who didn't even know there was such a thing as an astronomical CCD camera! It's insulting to the extreme.

ngchunter
That has nothing to do with you showing that the amount of cosmic rays received by my camera or SOHO's would cause hardware failure on the spacecraft.

Seriously?!!?? I give you two articles about the effects of alpha particle interaction with modern digital electronics; and you tell me its irrelevant? What universe do you live in?

Your computer is an apples and oranges comparison, your computer is not hardened for spaceflight.

And neither is the "spacecraft". The radiation hardened electronics is typically reserved for military electronics as it was originally designed to survive a nuclear war. The spacecraft relies on shielding, that is quite a bit less effective than Earth's atmosphere, thus, the spacecraft electronics receives significantly more radiation...of all types. So its not quite "apples and oranges" as you so quaintly think. The reality of the spacecraft is that it can actually receive more alpha particle radiation than my PC because it is a far simpler system and doesn't contain anywhere near the number of bi-stable elements. You need to remember that the whole of the SOHO system (both space and earth assets) are nearly primitive compared to modern digital systems.

Tell me, are you an astrophotographer, have you worked with astronomical CCDs and image calibration? I'm betting no.

In addition to being an EE I'm also a software engineer, in fact I spent most of my career designing and implementing software. Some of that was working with various Universities, on some rather exotic projects...so; I don't need to be an astrophotographer, I learn what you know so that I can design the software you use.

No it is not. I calibrated against the hot pixels natively in the CCD, it is caused by cosmic rays.

Oh boy! You did read the papers I linked didn't you? At least one of them talked about the density of alpha particles reaching the surface. AND, its not enough to produce your image in anything less than a couple of years. Seriously man, you have hundreds of :strikes" there, and that array, hell your whole camera system, will only can't "see" as many "hits" as my PC, and it only "sees" about 54 "hits" per month. So, where the hell are all your "hits" coming from? Cause it sure isn't Alpha Particles (and nothing else will do that except...wait for it...NOISE)...

I already gave you that information. If you knew what you were doing you would have already realized that.

No...not the camera system...the CCD device. I don't care about the support electronics...what CCD does it use?

ETA:

Hell, he's denying it there AND in my camera, and this from a guy who didn't even know there was such a thing as an astronomical CCD camera! It's insulting to the extreme.

That is not at all what I said! I am fully aware that there are specialized systems for astronomy...I'm talking about the actual electronic components used, and the circuits they are deployed in. Something you seem to have no knowledge of at all.

The circuit for a CCD is virtually universal, and the same "basic" circuit will work for most devices available. So...what works in a Sony works in a Fugi, and a Pentax, and SOHO. The big difference between a modern digital camera and SOHO is the CCD, and a modern device is far superior. You do know how old SOHO is, right?

tanka418
AND, its not enough to produce your image in anything less than a couple of years. Seriously man, you have hundreds of :strikes" there, and that array, hell your whole camera system, will only can't "see" as many "hits" as my PC, and it only "sees" about 54 "hits" per month. So, where the hell are all your "hits" coming from?

Same place as this guy's, I guess: cosmic rays.

High energy particles will most often show up as a bright point in the image where one of these particles slammed through the structure of the CCD and deposited a large amount of charge in a pixel. Occassionally the particle will be passing through at a shallow angle to the plane of the CCD and affect a number of pixels along its path creating a bright streak. Even more rare will be events where the particle decayed in the CCD structure, when this happens the streak may stop and there will be another streak at another angle or a set of dashes where some decay product skipped away.

As an experiment I took a camera based on an E2V CCD87 back thinned CCD and took continuous 10 minute dark frames overnight. In the morning I processed these frames by subtracting a master dark frame from each. What was left in each frame was a few bright points or streaks, each representing some high energy event that had occurred during the night. There were and [sic] average of five to ten events on each frame.

That is on average one strike every 1 to 2 minutes. Clearly they are not as rare as you think.

Here is a nice decay path:



Edit: sorry about the massive blurry pic - was sent via my phone.

reply to post by Rob48

I guess these guys are confused too.
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...
qsimaging.com...
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

reply to post by tanka418

And neither is the "spacecraft". The radiation hardened electronics is typically reserved for military electronics as it was originally designed to survive a nuclear war. The spacecraft relies on shielding, that is quite a bit less effective than Earth's atmosphere, thus, the spacecraft electronics receives significantly more radiation...of all types.

I don't think so.

The LASCO and EIT experiments are both controlled by a single electronics unit, the LASCO Electronics Box (LEB). The main LEB central processing unit (CPU) is a Sandia Lab SA3000, a radiation-hardened, 32-bit processor based on the National 32C016.

Source

tanka418

ngchunter
That has nothing to do with you showing that the amount of cosmic rays received by my camera or SOHO's would cause hardware failure on the spacecraft.

Seriously?!!?? I give you two articles about the effects of alpha particle interaction with modern digital electronics; and you tell me its irrelevant? What universe do you live in?

Because guess what, SOHO has to deal with far more alpha particles and other forms of radiation than your home computer's ram, and it still works. That's what it was designed to do. Apples and oranges.

And neither is the "spacecraft". The radiation hardened electronics is typically reserved for military electronics as it was originally designed to survive a nuclear war.

Wrong.

"Space is not always a very kind environment. When designing a space satellite, one must always take into account the radiation environment that it will encounter in space. For this reason, electronics intended for space applications must always be made of special "rad-hardened" components. Regular "off-the-shelf" computer chips, for example, will not work very well in space -- unless they are heavily shielded, of course. Shielding is massive, however, and launch costs are expensive."

sohoftp.nascom.nasa.gov...
You really have no clue what you're talking about. This is VERY basic stuff.

In addition to being an EE I'm also a software engineer, in fact I spent most of my career designing and implementing software. Some of that was working with various Universities, on some rather exotic projects...so; I don't need to be an astrophotographer, I learn what you know so that I can design the software you use.

Ok, so you're not an astrophotographer, you don't understand astronomical image calibration, you don't understand cosmic ray hits, you have no relevant experience whatsoever.

Oh boy! You did read the papers I linked didn't you? At least one of them talked about the density of alpha particles reaching the surface. AND, its not enough to produce your image in anything less than a couple of years.

Your understanding of the issue is laughably simplistic...
www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk...
You really don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing unusual about the number of cosmic ray hits considering the 5 hour period. Your PC is not nearly as sensitive to cosmic rays as my CCD. Yes, that is what they are.
journals.cambridge.org...
In 90 hours using a smaller CCD with slightly fewer pixels than mine, he detected about 2273 hits. That means that I should have detected at least 126 hits, and realistically more given a larger collecting area.

No...not the camera system...the CCD device. I don't care about the support electronics...what CCD does it use?

It says. You really can't read or understand a simple specifications page, apparently.

That is not at all what I said! I am fully aware that there are specialized systems for astronomy...

I'm fully aware of what you said, you denied the existence of astronomical CCDs to start. Backpeddle all you want.

reply to post by tanka418


If you don't want to take our word for it, why not do the maths yourself? It's a simple sum, and you only need two numbers, both of which can easily be found with a quick Google search.

What's the typical muon flux at the Earth's surface?

What's the area of a typical CCD (for example the E2V CCD87 in the experiment I linked)?


Therefore how often would you expect to see a strike on the CCD in an ideal world?

Is that within "back of the envelope" range of what we actually observe?

reply to post by ngchunter

Your understanding of the issue is laughably simplistic...

Your understanding of the technology seems non existent. Do you understand the relationship of the technology used in the CCD to the technology used in the other electronics?

Yes, I'm fully aware of the nature of the components used in spacecraft...you however are not fully aware of the serious nature of an actual particle density like that. You are accepting an image that has been seriously processed as something "real" when it is not. In short some of what is being called "cosmic ray" quite simply are not...some don't exist at all and are processing artifacts. Take a look at the original (raw) data sometime.

Rob48
What's the area of a typical CCD (for example the E2V CCD87 in the experiment I linked)?

Nice part. Have you seen all the noise sources? What were the conditions and settings of your experiment, again?

Therefore how often would you expect to see a strike on the CCD in an ideal world?

Is that within "back of the envelope" range of what we actually observe?

I think you misidentify some of what you observe.

reply to post by tanka418


I'm amazed you found that, seeing as you kept asking ngchunter for the model number of his CCD when it is listed no fewer than nine times on the camera spec sheet he gave you!

You will have noticed, of course, on the experiment I linked to, that other sources of noise are addressed in other sections, under the heading "CCD Problems" at the right. Cosmic ray strikes are not the same as random noise.

Anyway, if you have found the spec sheet, you are halfway there.

Plug in the missing number, do the maths, and tell me that 1 strike every 1-2 minutes is abnormal.