2 comments

  • ck2 1 hour ago
    you should see what cosmic rays do to space telescopes

    public almost never sees what raw images look like

    RAW https://blog.galaxyzoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/spiral...

    FINAL https://blog.galaxyzoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/spiral...

    * https://blog.galaxyzoo.org/2010/04/12/how-to-handle-hubble-i...

    they also slowly destroy the sensors since they are physical particles moving at almost the speed of light

    • netsharc 37 minutes ago
      Reminds me of the radiation after Chernobyl causing flashes on the physical film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOLBEx5DBaE
    • plmpsu 6 minutes ago
      Oh wow, I thought those were stars at first.
    • r_lee 44 minutes ago
      thanks for the links, that's really interesting to look at

      do you happen to know how exactly those artifacts are cleaned up?

      • shrubble 34 minutes ago
        One way is to take a “blank” picture which will then show just the noise; then use that as a reference for what can be removed from the image.
        • rbanffy 29 minutes ago
          The blank should only show long term damage. Hits while the sensor is collecting light can be averaged out from multiple readings of the sensor.
      • lofaszvanitt 31 minutes ago
        photoshop ;D, or using multiple pictures
  • superkuh 1 hour ago
    It's well known that higher solar wind/CMEs density/speed/etc that comes with the peak of the 11 year intensity cycles scatters cosmic rays before they enter the inner heliosphere. Combine this with the 1~3 years it takes for the solar wind to travel out through the heliosphere and you get the phase difference. Really cool unintended sensor empirical data on it though.

    Don't try to correlate with the sun spots, correlate with the solar wind/cmes from the spots getting out far enough to effectively scatter the incoming cosmic rays away.

    • 3lambda 7 minutes ago
      I thought it only takes a few days for solar wind to travel from the sun to the Earth? Can you clarify?
    • terminalbraid 1 hour ago
      The paper claims directly "the rate of degradation over time remains unsatisfactorily unpredictable" but you are claiming the authors do not understand or are unaware of the point you are making?
      • superkuh 1 hour ago
        I think what I explained is known by anyone in solar physics. I cannot believe they would not have discussed it. It's absence in the paper is weird. But I think unpredictable refers more to LEO in the context of the paper where things are indeed more dynamic that just the 11 year periodicity of cosmic rays from solar activity causing scattering in the heliosphere.
      • DANmode 33 minutes ago
        Identifying a mechanism is not predicting its rate.

        There may be another variable they’re trying to pin down.