In A Whole New Light

Original image - upper left horizon

Have you seen the light?

It's been making the rounds on the 'net and "awfuldumb" has not been very forthcoming with answers.  Those answers they have parted with have been disingenuous and ridiculous.  This is how they typically respond when they don't have an answer, or don't want to.  It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's a fallacious form of logic used by people who think they are superior to those asking the questions.

I really hate when these puffed-up jerks think they are smarter than all the rest of us.

So, how about some real answers.  After all, they've pulled out everything from cosmic rays to alien bonfires to avoid giving the folks who paid for the toys any real information, because they think you and I are too stupid to 1) know the difference, and 2) figure it out for ourselves, without "awfuldumb" spoon-feeding us what we are to believe.

To begin with, a bit of my credentials: I have a degree in Radio/TV/Film (before they called it mass media) and 35 years of experience as a photographer, videographer and cinematographer.  I am proficient in lens theory and have a solid working knowledge of CCD imaging sensors.  In other words, I know a little about the subject.

Next, the "light on Mars" is an imaging artifact, but not in the way they are telling us.  It is an imaging artifact caused by an actual point-source of light on the horizon overloading the sensors.  If you want the longer explanation, please stick around and I'll tell you how this is true.

First, the MastCam tool on the rover is two cameras, commonly called "left eye" and "right eye," with different focal lengths and f-stops.  The "left eye" is a 10mm lens with an f-stop of 8 (f/8).  What this means to you and me is that the lens is 10mm long from the outside edge of the glass to the focal plane where the image has the sharpest focus.  The human eye sees roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens.  A smaller number is what we call "wide angle", and a larger number is "narrow angle" or "zoom."  The "fish eye" lens, or extreme wide angle is about 8mm.  So, now we have a frame of reference.  The "left eye" is a wide angle lens, and with an f-stop of 8, that would give us a good exposure on a partly cloudy day with diffuse sunlight.

The "right eye" is a 100mm lens with f-stop of 10 (f/10).  What we know now is that the lens is 10x longer than the "left eye" and the amount of glass blocks more light, so the iris aperture (f-stop) must open more to provide the same illumination that the "left eye" does.  Therefore, the "right eye" is a zoom lens that requires more light to make an image because the amount of glass used in the lens blocks more light.

One other bit of important information is the "contrast ratio."  All imagining devices, including the human eye, have a ratio of light to dark where detail can be seen.  You can demonstrate this by walking from the bright outdoors into a darkened room.  At first, you see almost nothing, but as your eyes adjust more and more detail will emerge.  The contrast ratio is a sliding scale of light to dark in which the eye or sensor can see detail.  Below the scale is black, and above it is pure white.  At both ends, no detail can be seen in those areas.  The human eye has a ratio of between 400:1 and 10,000:1, depending on which source you check.  The commonly used value is 2,000:1, meaning that in any scene, the eye can see detail in objects that are either 2,000x brighter or darker than the average light in the scene.  Typically, if something goes off the top of the scale, we call that "glare", "flare" or "glint."  The average HD-CCD chips have a contrast ratio of 2,500:1, or roughly equal to the human eye (the old TV system was 30:1).

It's important to note that sensors designed to record visible light are not sensitive to "cosmic rays".  Those types of radiation generally cause a fogging effect in the image where focus appears to be lost.  They don't cause bright flares or glints.

The important thing to remember about contrast ratio is that it is dynamic (moving up and down depending on f-stop aperture opening).  Contrast is where we get detailed information, such as texture, depth and so on.  Finally, at the extreme ends of the ratio, we only see black or pure white with no detail.

So now we have a working idea of how cameras and sensors work and we can analyze the Mars photo - and NASA's disingenuous non-answers - intelligently.

First, they tell us that there are two photos - one from the "left eye" and one from the "right eye".  The "right eye" shows a bright spot on the horizon line, while the "left" does not, even though the images were taken either at the same time (phys.org) or a second apart (nasa.gov).  Either way, it doesn't matter.

Zoom lens (right eye) compress distance so that various distances appear to be piled on top of each other.  Since the right eye is "zoomed" in, it would make distant objects appear larger and closer than a normal or wide-angler lens.  Thus, simultaneous photos of the same scene using a wide and zoom lens would "see" different things, including point sources of light.  What is a large and bright object in the zoom image would be tiny and probably less than one pixel in the wide image.  A point-source of light in the zoom image would look large and might fall off the top of the contrast ratio, while in the wide lens, it may not even be visible, much less exceed the contrast ratio.

Furthermore, the "left" and "right" eyes may have the same contrast ratios, but the different f-stops mean that the top and bottom of the scales are different.  What may appear normal in the "left eye" would flare or glare in the "right eye" because white end of the scale is higher in the "left" than in the "right".

So, there are two primary mechanisms at work here.  Both cameras have similar resolutions (1200x1200 dpi), but they have widely varying focal lengths (10x versus 100x) and f-stops (f/8 versus f/10).  This means that the way the two imagers will have different distance compression and contrast ratios, meaning that both cameras could image the same scene at the same time and have glare in the "right eye", but not in the "left".

One last point: having spent many hours trying to figure out where glare is coming from in a frame, I know that glare has different characteristics depending on whether it is caused by reflection or a direct source.  A reflection generally causes glare (in electronic sensors) with spikes all the way around in even numbers (2, 4, 6, etc.).  Reflections also tend to have the shape of either the source or the reflecting surface, so that square sources appear square and round sources appear round.  The sun or a light source reflecting off a surface will make a star-burst pattern and will often have a shape.  A direct source will look like a blob because the sensor is picking up the full amount of light, rather than a reduced amount caused by scattering off the reflecting surface.

Now look at the photo at the beginning of the glare from Mars.  Notice that the glare appears to be a vertical rectangle with two spikes coming out from either side.  I interpret this as being a reflection off a square or rectangular surface that exceeds the contrast ratio of the sensor.  Since the lighting looks to be fairly low (not mid-day), the source must be more than 2,500 steps brighter than the ambient light in the scene - like a large spotlight or the sun on a surface.  Since the glare is geometric, the reflecting surface must be geometric and small enough so that the entire surface is reflecting light toward the camera.

Crop from original - note shape

Conclusions: the glare is from a real object and not a sensor artifact from "cosmic rays".  The glare is reflection and not a direct source.  The reflection is a couple of thousand times brighter than the general lighting in the scene in order to cause glare.  The reflecting surface is geometric and relatively small.  Finally, due to different lens focal lengths and f-stops (distance compression and contrast ratio), it is quite feasible for the glare to appear in the zoom image, but not in the wide-angle image, even if they were taken at the exact same moment.  It is also possible that the reflecting surface is so small that the distance between the lenses would be enough that one would be in the direct path of the reflected light, while the other is not, especially given the distance.

Speculation: The reflecting surface is not a natural object - it is geometric.  The light source being reflected is very bright - could be the sun (if the angle is right) or a large studio light designed to illuminate large areas (5kW or 10kW fresnel instrument).  The glare disappeared in subsequent frames because, 1) the rover or MastCam moved, 2) the source moved, 3) the source was turned off, or 4) the reflecting surface changed in some way.  Given the small size of the glare relative to the overall image size, it would not take much movement in any component to eliminate the glare.

In order to create a glare that is geometric, the surface would have to be very smooth and shiny.  A rough or uneven surface would cause too much refraction and would not create a glare in the first place, especially at the distance implied by the image.  Materials that could do this would be polished metal, glass and similar materials not found in Nature.

Therefore, either the source, the reflecting surface, or both are artificial.  Either one, some or all moved in subsequent frames to eliminate the glare (sun angle, etc.).  Finally, all of the arguments put forth by NASA and their mouthpieces so far are either deliberate obfuscation or the mark of complete incompetence (take your pick),

Hype And Hyperbole

Lunokhod

All the hype and hyperbole surrounding the Curiosity rover landing on Mars is really quite humorous.  Terms like "biggest", "best", "most ambitious", and "powerful" have been landing with thuds as resounding as the rover itself.  Frankly, it all calls for a little reality check, which we love to do around here.

First of all, Curiosity is a little over 40 years too late to claim all the big titles.  In 1970 and 1973, the Soviet Union landed two rovers, called Lunokhod 1 and 2, on the Moon.  They were about the same size and weight, and had more or less the same toys as Curiosity (including laser and radiation detector).

By the way, Lunokhod means "moon walker", so even Michael Jackson got beat on that one.

Together, these rovers lasted a bit over a year and traveled 10 miles or so.  They dug up rocks and took pictures, just like Curiosity presumably will do.  If you count the fact that various groups still bounce lasers off of these rovers to measure the precise distance to the Moon, then they've been working for well over 40 years.

Viking

So, how about most ambitious?  Well, let's start with what Curiosity can do.  It can take photos, drill rocks and sample dirt.  It's stated goal is to find the "building blocks of life."  Can we find anything more ambitious than that?

Well, let's completely forget the Apollo Moon landings, since the Curiosity media team seem to have done so.  Instead, let's limit ourselves to just robotic missions.  And if we measure ambition by the science goals, then the idea of looking for real, extant life on another world would trump rocks, I think.  So, if we measure ambition by the potential impact of the data gained, then searching for actual life, and not "building blocks" would be far more ambitious.

For pure ambition, by this measure, the award goes to the two Viking landers in 1976.  These pretty large landers had full biology labs on-board and were tasked with actually FINDING extant life.  And by all accounts, they did!  In fact, the chief investigator for one of the experiments, Gil Levin, has been fighting for 36 years to get someone...anyone...to notice the fact.

Strangely, every mission to Mars since Viking has done nothing more than take vacation snapshots and sniff rocks looking for "ingredients" and "building blocks".  Even if one argues that the Viking data were ambiguous or chemically induced, doesn't the possibility of finding extant life warrant another try?

Venera

Another example of great ambitions?  How about the Soviet Venera landers?  Again in 1970, the Soviets landed the first machine on another planet.  On top of that, they had to survive near-Earth gravity, an acid cloud layer, atmospheric pressure more than 90x Earth normal, and surface temperatures around 860F.  The first one, Venera 7, not only did all that, but sent back data for four months.

Pretty damned ambitious, given the state of the technology back then and the fact that no one else had ever landed  a craft on another planet.

So, where does that leave all the hype and hyperbole surrounding the Curiosity rover?  It's certainly not the most ambitious mission.  It doesn't address any questions that haven't already been amply investigated by multiple orbiters and landers.  It's not the first, but maybe the biggest, but only by a few kilograms.  In fact, about the only big deals with this mission are the landing itself and the HD cameras.

"the scene of the crime"

The landing was remarkable for the Rube Goldberg series of events dubbed the "Seven Minutes of Terror".  It is unique for all the crap it left lying within a half-mile radius of the rover, including two tungsten weights, a heat shield, a massive parachute attached with a lot of string to a backshell, and a rocket backpack with three long cabes that chewed up a lot of real estate during it's brief time on stage.  The landing was also notable for being pretty darned close to the ideal target.

As for the nifty HD cameras, well they're controlled by a guy named Mike Malin of Malin Space Science Systems.  This guy has well over a decade's worth of history NOT showing the full-resolution pix to the folks who paid for them.  On the few occasions he's been badgered into letting loose of a few, he's gone out of his way to screw them up and fuzz out anything of interest.  In other words, you won't catch me holding my breath waiting for the dazzlling hi-rez photos from this rover.

Where does all this leave us, once you strip away all the hype and hyperbole?

The rover management team keeps talking about looking for water.  Well, for God's sake boys, let me help you.  There are two polar caps chock full of water.  The Vikings sent back photos of snow.  There are thousands of pictures of water clouds.  The Phoenix lander dug up ice.  There are water seeps all over the place.  And if you believe your eyes, there's even great pictures of lakes and ponds.

They tell us they are searching for the "building blocks" of life.  Well, let me help you again.  The Vikings found microbes in the soil.  Some of those lakes and ponds have what look like algae that grow and die with the seasons.  There are entire forests of giant tree-like things near the south pole.  And gosh, what about all those pyramids, domes, buildings, and giant sculptures?

In the end, we are still where we were in 1976, only several billion dollars poorer.  Sure, we've got lots of pretty pictures, but we don't get the really good quality ones.  Those are for the personal collection of Mike Malin.  Sure, we've got scads of data from sniffing rocks, but that only excites the geekiest geology buffs.  Basically, what we've got is another multi-billion dollar ad campaign for rocks and vacation slide shows.

After 36 years and billions of bux, don't we deserve a little more than seven minutes of terror?

==================
Several readers have asked for links to further information on some of the claims in this article.  Silly me, I thought everyone knew about this stuff, but apparently not...

Clark’s trees - http://www.marsruins.com/clarkesbanyantrees/clarkesbanyantrees.htm

Gil Levin - http://gillevin.com/mars.htm

Keith Laney - http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45keith_laney/index.html

Charles Schults - http://www.shultslaboratories.com/SL2D001.htm

Lakes and ponds - http://www.hangthebankers.com/proof-of-life-on-mars-with-rivers-lakes-waterfalls-and-forests/

Mars pyramids - http://mars-news.de/mr9/4205-78.html

Note: Special thanks to lewrockwell.com for cross-posting this article!  I've received a lot of very positive responses.

A Study In Red

Despite all the hoop-lah and back-slapping surrounding the Curiosity rover, I am once again disappointed.  The cause of my disappointment is the first color photo returned from the rover.  NASA has proved yet again that, despite billions of dollars in technology and amazing landing sequences, they can't take a simple, natural color photo.

NASA seems hell-bent on giving us ruddy colored photos that look as if two of the three-color channels are not functioning.

After all, if you take NASA's blood-red photos into PhotoShop and do a simple auto-correction on the color, you end up with brilliant blue-gray skies and ocre colored landscapes that look as if they could be vacation shots of Arizona or Utah.

Not that they don't tease once in a while.  After the previous two rovers landed, NASA held a press conference showing a natural color photo in the background.  Less than 24 hours later, all the photos had returned to the ruddy red rubbish that we are constantly fed.

Are they worried that we will mistake the photos for some earthly vista?  Or are they trying to make Mars look so inhospitable as to discourage human exploration?

Curiosity has 17 cameras, including two HD cams with different focal lengths mounted on the mast.  It has eight filters on a wheel to allow photos in different wavelengths that reveal different aspects of the geology.  Once of the filters is clear and is supposed to take photos the mimic what the human eye would see from the height of a human's head.  What's the bet that even those photos will be horribly red-shifted.

The photo of the heat shield falling away as the rover was entering Mars' atmosphere appears to show fairly normal colors, judging by the colors or the heat shield, which don't show everything ruddy red.  The MRO photo of the rover and parachute also show fairly normal colors, judging by Earth-side photos of the parachute.  In fact, most photos from Mars appear fairly normal EXCEPT when the sky is visible.

Every time the sky enters the frame, suddenly the colors go to hell and everything becomes the ubiquitous ruddy red.

I'm finding it very difficult to get excited when I know I'm being fed a load of crap using my tax money to do it.  I have been a gung-ho fan of space exploration since I was old enough to know what I was seeing.  There are a lot of other folks who are, as well.  Furthermore, these projects are supposed to be motivators to draw fresh young minds into the business of exploration.

Why would they want to joint a program that so blatantly lies and obfuscates truths as simple as a cheap color photo that most cell phones to run laps around?

I am reserving my enthusiasm for this latest mission until I see evidence that NASA will start giving us even something as simple as a good color photo.  If they continue this ruddy red ruse, then I will continue to believe that they are deliberately hiding much bigger things.

If they can fly this package across 350 million miles, slam it into an alien atmosphere, sail it to within a couple of hundred meters of the target, then why can't they deliver a decent color photo?  The only possible answer is a deliberate effort to hide any and all real information from the very people who pay for it.

In the meantime, I will be sitting on my hands.  I was duly awed by the success of the landing, but that is only one small step in a mission scheduled to last two years, and capable of going over 100 years.  A child born today could conceivably have this machine functioning until the day the same child dies at 80 years old.

Let's hope that in all that time, NASA will finally have enough respect for the people who pay for their toys to offer us a little real information.  And let's start with a damn decent color photo or two.

======================

UPDATE: Because of our chiding (probably not, but we'll take credit), NASA has suddenly - and for the first time in 40 years - decided to start releasing natural color photos of Mars.  They're saying the photos have been artificially colored through a process called "white balancing".

Well, duh, boys.  Every video camera ever invented since the dawn of the color era must be white balanced. It's a standard process that has been a consistent function of video camera use for 45 years.  After all this time, NASA has just discovered it, only they are saying that it is an artificial color process.

Ya know, for a bunch of PhDs with some supposed mental fire-power, these guys are freakin' idiots.