Radiation damage to Hubble has been 4.3 years out of phase with the Solar cycle
(arxiv.org)
you should see what cosmic rays do to space telescopes
replypublic 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
Reminds me of the radiation after Chernobyl causing flashes on the physical film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOLBEx5DBaE
replyOh wow, I thought those were stars at first.
replythanks for the links, that's really interesting to look at
replydo you happen to know how exactly those artifacts are cleaned up?
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.
replyThe blank should only show long term damage. Hits while the sensor is collecting light can be averaged out from multiple readings of the sensor.
replyphotoshop ;D, or using multiple pictures
replydeleted
replyIt'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.
replyDon'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.
I thought it only takes a few days for solar wind to travel from the sun to the Earth? Can you clarify?
replyThe 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?
replyI 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.
replyIdentifying a mechanism is not predicting its rate.
replyThere may be another variable they’re trying to pin down.