Cylindrical object caught by curiosity rover

[qxcontinuum]

It appears to be cylindrical, descending.

navcam right B is in a stationary position (observe bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99°) capturing the object descending at sol 613 06:01:33 P.M dissapearing behind horizon at sol 613 06:11:02 P.M, a total of 9 and half minutes.

source; http://curiosityrover.com/ (these are raw photos)

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451931860EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:01:33 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:48:21 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:49 UTC size:192x256 (27147 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451931977EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:03:27 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:50:18 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:47 UTC size:192x256 (27800 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451932094EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:05:20 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:52:15 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:46 UTC size:192x256 (28473 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451932211EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:07:14 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:54:12 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:44 UTC size:192x256 (29336 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451932328EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:09:08 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:56:09 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:43 UTC size:192x256 (30166 bytes)

bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451932328EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:09:08 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:56:09 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:43 UTC size:192x256 (30166 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451932445EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:11:02 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:58:06 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:41 UTC size:192x256 (31278 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

Edited May 2, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[seeder]

Larger images would be useful

[toast]

It appears to be cylindrical, descending.

Nope, the object isn`t cylindrical. It`s a dot shaped object photographed at long time exposure, resulting in a visible

track. The time in between the single pics is 1:57 (1:56 pic 1 to 2). I have added a VT clip showing an animation

of 6 of the pics in chronologic order (ok, it`s from ADGUK so pls ignore the vid description and "ET music" as well).

It can be seen that these pics do not show any interference of the object from one pic to another, in the contrary, there

is always a little dark space in the objects track. Based on the facts that the Navcams exposure times are variable from

0 to 355 seconds, the exposure times of the pics are around 1m45sec, the albedo and size of the object compared

to the backgtround and the stars in the background, I would say the pics are showing long time exposures of Phobos

or Deimos.

[qxcontinuum]

Humm , not entirely convinced. In all the photos, this object appears to have the same length which is impossible for a single dot photographed multiple times. In the same time since rover was stationary this dot moved to fast if it was a celestial body. Even more why all other celestial bodies appear normal?

[stereologist]

It's important to understand that the assumptions of shape, size, and landing cannot be substantiated by these images.

The claim of cylindrical cannot be determined from such images.

The distance to the object is unknown therefore the size cannot be determined.

Whether or not the object traveled to the Martian surface cannot be determined from these images.

The projection of the 3d world onto a 2d image also makes it impossible to determine if travel is towards or away from the observer.

Please be careful in not jumping to conclusions about what is seen in images such as these.

[stereologist]

Humm , not entirely convinced. In all the photos, this object appears to have the same length which is impossible for a single dot photographed multiple times. In the same time since rover was stationary this dot moved to fast if it was a celestial body. Even more why all other celestial bodies appear normal?

The reason an object appears to have traveled the same distance in each of the images is due to the camera. The camera took photos of the same exposure length. Your claim of impossible is obviously wrong.

Your second claim of "moved to[sic] fast" is also incorrect. The distance an orbiting body travels is dependent on the orbital distance and masses of the objects. Satellites in Earth orbit can even appear to be stationary if they are at the correct orbital distance.

The background objects appear stationary because they are not orbiting Mars. Do the stars appear this way at night when viewed from Earth?

[qxcontinuum]

Upper facts can be true if, on Mars there will be numerous orbiting bodies from which luckily one will be caught by the camera.however from what i know there's barely a few. I just did last night a small investigation and calculations of my own. Neither one of Mars natural satellites was not visible from that angle.

I am curious if it could have been one of the only few man made satellites, but the chances to be are very slim (simply because the navcam potential at far distances is null). For example on Earth I can point the best existent camera at the Sky and take as many pictures I want everyday. My chances to catch and ilustrate one of a few over 4.000 orbiting objects is almost 0. On Mars it looks like it is happening very often. I counted over a few dousins of such moving objects caught up in the landscape.

Mars Global Surveyor

Mariner 9

Mars 2

Mars 5

Phobos 2

Viking Orbiter

Edited May 2, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[Merc14]

I too am leaning towards the timed exposure of a celestial body. One thing that had me confused was if it is a timed exposure then why aren't the stars (pinpricks) smeared as well but then I noticed that those pinpricks are on the surface of Mars as well so they must be HEPs and to get that many HEPs on a single image it would have to have been a timed exposure of some minutes duration. Also, the number of pinpricks increases (compatre teh 0601 and 0611 images and teh number of HEPs) as the shoot progresses leading me to believe that these images are one long exposure stretched from 06:01 - 06:11.

Could that smear be the sun?

I am making a whole lot of assumptions here so am open to any other explanation as well. Does NASA have an explanation?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Merc14

[JesseCuster]

I'd like to see the reasoning behind the idea that what's in the photos is "cylindrical". All too often UFOs are described as "cigar shaped" "disc shaped" "spherical" etc. when there's no way to judge from the available fuzzy photos to determine the 3d shape of the object (if it's actually a long object and not just a long exposure streak of something in the sky).

[JesseCuster]

Humm , not entirely convinced. In all the photos, this object appears to have the same length which is impossible for a single dot photographed multiple times.

If the object was in orbit around Mars and thus had a constant orbital velocity wouldn't it cause more or less the same length streak if it was caused by a very long exposure in multiple photos? Why would it cause different length streaks if it was caused by a bright object being photographed in successive long exposure photos?

In the same time since rover was stationary this dot moved to fast if it was a celestial body. Even more why all other celestial bodies appear normal?

If it was Deimos or Phobos (I'm not saying it is) then those bodies have orbital periods of 7 hours and 30 hours and thus move across the sky much faster than the background stars and thus would cause longer streaks in long exposure photographs.

[Merc14]

If the object was in orbit around Mars and thus had a constant orbital velocity wouldn't it cause more or less the same length streak if it was caused by a very long exposure in multiple photos? Why would it cause different length streaks if it was caused by a bright object being photographed in successive long exposure photos?

If it was Deimos or Phobos (I'm not saying it is) then those bodies have orbital periods of 7 hours and 30 hours and thus move across the sky much faster than the background stars and thus would cause longer streaks in long exposure photographs.

Jesse those aren't stars in the background becasue they are as numerous on the surface of the planet as in the sky. They appear to be HEPs

[Rafterman]

At this point, can't we all just have a default setting that tells us these are all photographic anomalies unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary?

Personally I've about had enough of armchair internet warriors claiming they've found mice, squirrels, pieces of whatever, humanoids, flashing beacons, etc. etc.

FFS, we're taking pictures on MARS and beaming them back through the vacuum of space. There are going to be some anomalies.

[Emma_Acid]

Humm , not entirely convinced.

Of course you're not, and never will be until someone says "alien spaceship".

[DONTEATUS]

Of course you're not, and never will be until someone says "alien spaceship".

"Alien Spaceship"

[The Word of Thoth]

Once..... Just ONCE..... I'd like to se a crystal clear picture of a suspected UFO.

Fuzzy, dark, blurry, out of focus pics/clips are doin my swede in.

[Sweetpumper]

"Alien Spaceship"

LOL.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Sweetpumper

[Pericynthion]

It appears to be cylindrical, descending.

navcam right B is in a stationary position (observe bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99°) capturing the object descending at sol 613 06:01:33 P.M dissapearing behind horizon at sol 613 06:11:02 P.M, a total of 9 and half minutes.

source; http://curiosityrover.com/ (these are raw photos)

NAVCAM RIGHT B NRB_451931860EDR_S0311330NCAM00554M_ sol 613 06:01:33 P.M. LMST taken: 2014 APR 28 04:48:21 UTC released: 2014 APR 28 15:07:49 UTC size:192x256 (27147 bytes) bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

bearing 86.66° (E), elevation 4.99° map it

As others have already suggested, those navcam shots are long exposures of Phobos setting. Here's a shot of the same scene from the left Mastcam (click image for full size):

Left Mastcam Sol 613 (2014-04-28 04:46:47 UTC)

Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa...8E01_DXXX&s=613

[Sweetpumper]

Once..... Just ONCE..... I'd like to se a crystal clear picture of a suspected UFO.

Fuzzy, dark, blurry, out of focus pics/clips are doin my swede in.

I know it's not the same as a genuine photo, for what that's worth on the internet, but I could post a pic of exactly what the one I saw looked like, if you want.

[The Word of Thoth]

I know it's not the same as a genuine photo, for what that's worth on the internet, but I could post a pic of exactly what the one I saw looked like, if you want.

i'll take it.....

[qxcontinuum]

At this point, can't we all just have a default setting that tells us these are all photographic anomalies unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary?

Personally I've about had enough of armchair internet warriors claiming they've found mice, squirrels, pieces of whatever, humanoids, flashing beacons, etc. etc.

FFS, we're taking pictures on MARS and beaming them back through the vacuum of space. There are going to be some anomalies.

Are you at least aware that many solid scientific space discoveries have been made by amateurs mastering poor instruments or using existent data base and information gathered by professionals? It is not the money or schooling whom is contributing to space conquest but the passion!

[JesseCuster]

Jesse those aren't stars in the background becasue they are as numerous on the surface of the planet as in the sky. They appear to be HEPs

Right you are. I didn't look at the pics too much. Dead pixels or HEPs or some sort of glitch and not stars.

Very low resolution pics too, I'm gonna see if I can find the originals if they exist online.

[Sweetpumper]

i'll take it.....

Just picture it the size of a mini-van.

[stereologist]

Of course you're not, and never will be until someone says "alien spaceship".

I am not going to make, or accept, ludicrous and unknowable statements such as "descending" or "cylindrical" which are impossible to determine from the images provided. If you don't understand the issue then you might consider learning about projection and the loss of information.

Edited May 2, 2014 by stereologist

[The Word of Thoth]

Just picture it the size of a mini-van.

hahaha I asked for that lol

[Sweetpumper]

I wish it was funny.