Educate Me

Archived here are older posts which are no longer relevant or were redundant.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

Post Reply
Marcus8675
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:11 am

Educate Me

Post by Marcus8675 »

Can someone educate me. If the cameras are accurate enough to reposition exactally to allow for reexamination then why didn't they take the time to prescan the panels before launch? That way, upon return you could just rescan the tiles and subtract the picture files. That way you can create a difference image. You could just look at the images that show a high level of difference instead if recruiting 10000+ volentees to manually look at the images. I am sure there is a valid reason and I just can't think of it.
StanPope
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:20 am
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Post by StanPope »

Very interesting observation!!

It sounds like a reasonable activity, although I don't know if it would be cost effective.

Some contraindicators that come to mind include:
1. accumulation of extraneous "stuff" (debris) over the months between before and after pix
2. possible gel changes resulting from launch and landing forces. Small movements look big under the microscope!
3. differences in the automatically determined "surface location" for a variety of causes, including added surface debris.

Overall, my bet is that the procedure would yield an extraordinary number of "false positives", resulting in lots (I think more than 75% of total) images for visual review. If so, they would still need lots of reviewers!
farpung
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:01 am
Location: Quebec

Post by farpung »

I imagine the surface of the aerogel was pretty flat and clean before launch, that is obviously not the case now!
Jwb52z
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:05 am

Post by Jwb52z »

Actually, farpung, on most of the movies, the only way you can know where the surface is, is by the dust and debris created when the aerogel tiles were sliced apart for use into sections.
Mighty Pete
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:47 am
Contact:

Post by Mighty Pete »

Add a new question to this thread..

The Aero Gel, How solid and free from air bubbles was this stuff before they launched it? I was under the impression that it was almost perfect. Free of defects then I look at this movie:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =4384261V1

It looks like you are looking strait threw it and the damage is on the other side. Was most of that there originally?

I'm thinking if it has air pockets right from the start I don't see much hope in finding yet more air pockets ( tracks ) in and around all of that...

There will always be arguments to eliminate possible tracks but the only sure way to confirm them is to look more carefully at the spots. The people finding said spots don't have that tool and seem to be eager to eliminate spots then send them back for a closer look.

IE:

People looking at this movie say no track..

My question is how can you say that? There is not enough information here to make the judgement. It's the wrong scale and the damage looks like it's actually on the other side of the glass..

Yes no obvious tracks but there is tracks in the glass in this movie.

So do you vote against it or vote for it so it gets sent back for a better look?
Jwb52z
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:05 am

Post by Jwb52z »

Tracks are not air bubbles.
Mighty Pete
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:47 am
Contact:

Post by Mighty Pete »

Tracks are not air bubbles.
Agreed but how is this "small track" going to look? A carrot shaped air bubble. Hopefully starting at the surface and going in deeper. Unless you look at it on the side you will not see the shape. You're only looking at the top if it hit at 90 degrees. So look at that movie, down near the bottom of the focus look on the right bottom corner. See the carrot shaped "Bubble " track or no track ? You can't tell and you actually can't even tell if it or if it's a hit striking the glass on the other side. So do you click no track or bad focus or click on that part so it goes back for a second look? I'm just asking for direction here. I clicked on it, It needs a second look. I'm just wondering how people can look at that movie and click no track in a split second without really studying it.

Now we have already been told that the impacts from ISP should hit the collector at 90 degrees

So take a look see this picture now and think of what it will look like as you look at it from impact along it's length. A bubble. Really that's what it will look like. Only it will not be a bubble it will be a carrot shaped hole. Much shorter than this one. Hopefully 100 microns in length.

Image

Looks like a bubble to me. If it's not bubble like then I guess I don't know how to describe this shape looking at it from one end like this example:.

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... s.php?tn=5
Post Reply