So NASA says THIS is a "1 millimeter dirt" in the lens of SOHO spacecraft, BUT...

Originally posted by calnorak
Considering NASA really stands for Never A Straight Answer, I bet you can guess what I am leaning towards.

is that what NASA stands for? We were always told it stands for Need Another Seven Astronauts. Ah well, we learn something new everyday!!

reply to post by Lithops
I wasn't referring to the distance your talking about. That distance is not that large most likely a few meters depending on the size of SOHO. I was referring to the distance of alleged object in space as opposed to the dust particle inside the SOHO sensor.

Not what ever you said. Yes indeed that is not much of a distance which is why that's not what I was talking about.

reply to post by Mandrakerealmz

And why should there be this delay?

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

Originally posted by calnorak
Considering NASA really stands for Never A Straight Answer, I bet you can guess what I am leaning towards.

Totally agreed, but I would like to see the explanations of ATSers.

The explanation is that you never like to let previous responses or facts get in the way of you producing yet another thread to voice your opinion with no actual facts behind it whatsoever. What do you expect?

reply to post by Char-Lee


I picture you typing that out whilst staring longingly at an autographed framed picture of the cast of Stargate SG-1, as a cat purrs on your lap and another sits atop your monitor.

Am I close?

reply to post by Mandrakerealmz

I was referring to the distance of alleged object in space as opposed to the dust particle inside the SOHO sensor.

What "alleged object in space" are you referring to? I was under the impression that everyone was discussing the "1 millimeter dirt" mentioned in the title of this thread.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

Obviously a still frame is not enough for making an analysis of the picture, so I downloaded a pack of images between today and March 16, for observing what happens with this anomaly during the whole motion. I noticed the anomalous object was lightened up by the CMEs, as if it was a solid object external to the spacecraft. It could be just a visual trick, but then the anomaly seems to be engulfed by stronger CMEs, covered by the plasma ejecta and later reappears.

I made some animated GIFs of the moments I'm referring to. I hope it's visible enough.







Like I said before, I had this impression that this anomaly reflects sunlight as a physical object, though I'm not sure whether this is just a visual trick or not.

So, is that only a "1mm dirt" told by NASA, or actually something else???

that looks EXACTLY like the little wire in the lightbulb when you turn it on, it gets all bright and hot looking.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Wilful ignorance and flag whoring?

Looky at all the stars you and Phage got for debunking it yet again....

you guys could have just said "Already discussed at Linky here"

Just saying



Now then where did this fiber come from? The SOHO spacecraft is way out there about a million miles in space. Did one of the secret astronaut crew leave some lint when cleaning the system?

Curious that... would love to know where this fiber came from

reply to post by zorgon

you guys could have just said "Already discussed at Linky here"

Since the OP did that it would have been overly redundant.

Now then where did this fiber come from?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now you can rant about how lame NASA is but that too has already been done.

reply to post by zorgon

Had you read through this thread, instead of counting Phage's and Chadwickus' stars, you would have known where the fiber came from.

See ya,
Milt

Now the secrets of the universe has been revealed! Fiber!

Originally posted by Phage
Since it is a fiber on the sensor it will be illuminated by the same light which strikes the sensor.

then it should be a shadow shouldn't it? unless that is caused by some sort of scattering of the light. why can't we build better satellites? a fiber? really? what's with all the dust suits and clean rooms anyway?

ps ok ok simmer down just read all the stuff about fibers. I hate these SOHO videos

reply to post by rabzdguy

the proof to String Theory

I don't see why it can't be a speck of dust. But One millimeter seems to be a bit big for that kind of image. Plus, NASA constructs its satellites in sterile environments to prevent dust getting inside the electronics and other parts.

I'm no expert on the matter, so I really can't say what it is.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


looks like dirt. I get the same affect when some water gets on my eye

reply to post by Mandrakerealmz


The distance makes no difference. If the CME were illuminating a hidden object, it would still take the light a few (about 8) minutes to reach STEREO and the sensor. STEREO would see it a 8 minutes after it actually happened, just like everything else that happens on the Sun.

On the other hand, if it's a fiber on the sensor, the light again takes 8 minutes to reach the sensor and illuminate the fiber.

The same delay is present in both cases.

Although, the fiber case is, of course, the true one, because it is, after all, a fiber on the sensor. And, as Phage has explained, it's not really the fiber being illuminated, it's actually the rendering of the captured "image" which artificially creates the appearance of illumination. It's really just more of a shadow all the time.

Originally posted by emberscott

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by emberscott

 

You're right. It's shameful. Someone should be fired. I hope they were.
Or, there is an object which tracks the movement of the satellite and has been for years.

And now to say, as you posted, that nasa is using handi-wipes to clean the satellite sensors. I will say again, as I posted previously, I find lacking adequate explanation.

They need to be cleaned with something don't they? What would you suggest? (It doesn't sound exactly like handi-wipes).

edit on 3/24/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Oh I dunno, maybe we should find out through nasa.

A multi-use technology, which for years has shielded space missions from devastating effects that the tiniest particles can make, produces scratch- and lint-free results in CleenEzy™'s lens wipes. A tiny speck of dust could trigger a malfunction in a sensitive spacecraft system, so NASA developed contamination control technology in the 1960s to prevent particle contamination during production and assembly of flight equipment in hospital-like "clean rooms." This technology has produced several offshoots, such as a line of contamination control garments used by hospitals, pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers, aerospace and electronic plants, and other industrial facilities where extreme cleanliness is vital.

Uh oh! Contradiction from nasa. Still lacking adequate explanation.

Wait... in use by nasa since the 1960s? Scratch- and lint-free? So nasa uses lint-free wipes and that 1mm fiber came from one of those acclaimed lint-free wipes?

You didn't read the that link I posted about cleanliness of soho did you?

THANK YOU!!!! I was very unconvinced that NASA would have allowed such a fiber to remain... do they not test the lenses before sending them out? Maybe not I don't know.... but I just did not believe they would have allowed this to occur and compromise the mission.... That takes up a nice piece of space in the picture.... big mess up on their part if it is a fiber..... but I am sure it is not.

The idea that there have been 9 pages to discuss what is -obviously- a lens abnormality (dirt, a scratch, whatever) is troubling, but also very telling.

Originally posted by Mayflower1987
I was very unconvinced that NASA would have allowed such a fiber to remain... do they not test the lenses before sending them out? Maybe not I don't know.... but I just did not believe they would have allowed this to occur and compromise the mission.... That takes up a nice piece of space in the picture.... big mess up on their part if it is a fiber..... but I am sure it is not.

edit on 25-3-2012 by Mayflower1987 because: posted in center of quotation rather than the end.

Do you just not remember Hubble??

Bout all I want to say is........... what you see on SOHO is the real deal.......... don't fall for NASA nonsense.