Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

reply to post by Larry L


Your not crazy, if that is really Mars, it's a livable planet even before people began to say it wasn't.

But if it is on Earth, then whoever comes across this "probe" then they must either keep it or destroy it.

Well this is the first time I've registered at ATS, long time reader though.

as soon as I looked at these pictures I immediately realized that these are 3D renderings of whatever there trying to replicate, very good renderings but there fake.
Maybe its just me but I've been doing 3D graphic design for some time now. and this is the first time ive seen these pictures but i'm almost 100% correct these pictures are renderings.

(I'm talking about the rover itself) the ground and rocks look pretty legit, though that could be somewhere in the valley of Arizona.. who knows.

reply to post by pauljs75


Here's that "rivulet" from a bit higher of a vantage point.

For sure the op is right. That shiz is damp - but....... Man the pics do look like renders also.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by smurfy

Many of the OP posts here are unfortunately given to sensationalism, since the requirement is to use the title originally used from a link. However, in this case there is not a link to a story from elsewhere, and you could say that the use of the word 'mud' in a general sense is not the case here, but it is a mud of sorts if there is water in the mixture.

Place a ? at the end of sensational claim - hey presto ! ....... " I`m just asking a question "

______

In fairness to the O.P it wasn`t the worst example that I have seen on ATS - Those photos are spellbinding - just blows my mind -

edit on 11-9-2012 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)

It is not at all a worse example, it shows observance in the best form in fact, and in the absence of any other real explanation, is most likely the best observation and easily includes agglomeration. Curiosity is there most likely primarily because of the Phoenix lander and orbiting satellites findings, including water ice snow in northern Mars.

Originally posted by Dustytoad

dry sand stays the same color when you step in it... Think of the physics of it. There is nothing to change the color.

I grew up around farms. When you "churn" the dirt it does look darker. Why is this? It's because the sun can't bake away the water so much under the surface. There is a LOT of moisture on earth. Turn over some dry dune sand in a pile and get someone else to see If they can find it... I have gone to the beach every summer of my life and I know that dry dirt does not change color...

Phages point that there could be different color dust makes more sense except for the distribution, which looks more like a wet spot to me.. Or maybe a more clay like soil, which would still mean wet..

edit on 9/11/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

Growing up around farms can give you some good experience at things outdoors but I've spent over 25 years in search and rescue tracking and studying animal tracks. There could be different color dust but looking at the tread marks there is a definite change in speed and direction. Acceleration will alter the substrate by breaking up dirt behind the wheel. Both dirt and sand will usually change color if downward pressure is applied to it, even hardpan soils will appear different due to scuffing action.
There may be water on Mars but I don't believe these tracks to be any kind of clear evidence for it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Larry L

 

You're stating complete guesses on the part of humans as absolute fact.

No. I'm stating the highly educated opinions of people who have been studying the geology of Mars. I've read what they have to say and why they say it. Have you?

Mars could have died just a couple thousand years ago by some unknown cause......meteor strike....somehow being knocked out of it's original orbit

Really?

it's core could have stopped spinning enough to create a strong magnetic field and everything living on the surface was sterilized by cosmic radiation in the year of our Lord 213 a.d.

Why would losing its magnetic field cause every living thing to be sterilized by cosmic radiation? Where did all the water go? The water which made the seas that once existed?

You have to stop speaking in such absolutes about things not only you, but no one in the entire human race currently has any real knowledge of. Show me one single piece of evidence that proves this area of Mars (or any other for that matter) has been dry for ONE BILLION YEARS aside from the fact that it happens to be "dry" now.

Have you bothered to look? Or would you rather just rely on your personal speculations?

 

Speaking of speaking in absolutes...

Here's a link to the two images where it's CLEARLY wet.

And then there is this (clearly not true):

Mind you, it's moving in this series of images.

edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes I do read what these so called experts have to say. The only studies that can be done of the geology of Mars, since we officially have no feet on the ground, are done by studying the same exact NASA/JPL images availible to everyone else. Is there some independent Mars exploration being done by geologists outside of NASA that only you know about? They are just making guesses based on next to no evidence aside from what's in the available data. Even carbon dating on this planet has been proven to be completely unreliable. So if you're choosing to just believe this random arbitrary number of ONE BILLION YEARS, I'd say that shows quite a lack of critical thinking on your part. Do you also just assume God exists because "the church" says so?

So are you suggesting that things could live on the surface of a planet with no magnetic field protecting them from cosmic radiation, gamma rays and the various other deadly things floating about in the ether of space that our magnetic field is holding back? You seem to hold so much regard for what "the experts" say, yet you're saying they're all wrong when they say without our magnetic field the surface of the earth would be totally roasted? Me personally I put much more stock in what scientists say about Earth (since they're actually here to study it themselves), than in what they say about Mars. It seems to be the opposite with you, eh?

Also, as for the water, it seems logical to me that if without a magnetic field a planets surface would be roasted, the water would evaporate due to the heat, and not only the direct heat, but also the radiation particles would be heating up the water on a molecular level. And based on the magnetic field degredation theory, I would think quite alot of that evaporated water would actually just be leached off into space, whatever didn't freeze up near the poles.

Of course it's personal speculation. And I go out of my way to say it's personal speculation and theory. But at least it's my personal speculation. You on the other hand are just repeating the personal speculation of others, and you're presenting those speculations as fact.

And I notice you quote the one example where I didn't say "looks" wet. And yes.....it does CLEARLY look wet.....or damp rather.

And yes.....in the Sol34 series of images (which is in debate here) the rover has moved in between the still images (which are often a minute or more apart), I come to this conclusion by the fact that the wheels are turned in one pic and not in another. Suggesting that it IS doing some navigating in the series, even if it was just turning to head in another direction. The wheels are rotatiing between images at the very least. I have no way of saying how far or what direction it moved, but it is moving.

reply to post by Larry L

Even carbon dating on this planet has been proven to be completely unreliable.

According to who?

So are you suggesting that things could live on the surface of a planet with no magnetic field protecting them from cosmic radiation, gamma rays and the various other deadly things floating about in the ether of space that our magnetic field is holding back?

A magnetic field offers no protection from gamma rays and minimal protection from cosmic rays. What is "the ether of space"? What other deadly things?

You seem to hold so much regard for what "the experts" say, yet you're saying they're all wrong when they say without our magnetic field the surface of the earth would be totally roasted?

Really? Which experts say that?

Also, as for the water, it seems logical to me that if without a magnetic field a planets surface would be roasted, the water would evaporate due to the heat, and not only the direct heat, but also the radiation particles would be heating up the water on a molecular level.

Mars is a cold place. Not hot.

I come to this conclusion by the fact that the wheels are turned in one pic and not in another. Suggesting that it IS doing some navigating in the series, even if it was just turning to head in another direction. The wheels are rotatiing between images at the very least. I have no way of saying how far or what direction it moved, but it is moving.

No. Here is a composite of the images you posted. Please look again closely at the rocks directly under and in front of the middle wheel in the original images. The rover was not "navigating" or moving.

reply to post by Larry L
Yep! I see moisture in the second image. No Question about it. The naysayers don't have a clue what they're talking about. You can clearly see the dust on the wheels has been darkened with moisture.

Nice catch OP!

It appears to me no different than the dirt that sticks to a kids Tonka truck when they are playing in the dirt.

It is most likely extremely fine grained particulate that is sticking electrostatic-ally or from surface tension to the softer rubber tires. I just do not see any "wet" look here.

Yep those tires look like the box of my gravel truck all after hauling earth or clay compacted and smudged ... hauling dry sand does not create compaction and smudging ..... just using my experience from what I can relate to in the real world... very good find op

reply to post by Phage


Here's the link explaining to you how the Earth's magnetic field protects us from deadly solar radiation and chaged particles. This is just a basic illustration and simple summary. More info is available if you care to research it further. But the fact is, aren't you supposed to be informed about such space subjects? I thought I read you even have some ties to NASA. Why would you need me to link you to an explanation of how our magnetic field protects us from deadly radiations and particles?

www.windows2universe.org...


And this link explaining the unreliability of carbon dating, I can't seem to copy and post, so Ill just post the info on the page. The source is ArcheologyExpert.com

[source: Archaeology Expert].
Radiocarbon dating, while helpful in determining age, isn't entirely reliable. For example, it can be hard to get good estimates if artifacts are too small, or very young or very old. Objects older than about 50,000 years usually can't be tested accurately, because the carbon-14 levels have decayed beyond recognition. Radiocarbon dating, which can only be used on organic remains, is also sometimes inaccurate because of fluctuations in the balance between atmospheric carbon-14 and carbon-12 over the millennia.

If carbon dating isn't reliable beyond a mere 50,000 years, how can you expect me to take seriously your, or any scientists theory that Mars has be dry for A BILLION YEARS. I'm not even saying that's impossible. But what I'm saying is that there is no basis fo you or anyone else to try and pass that complete guess of a number off as fact.

I think this might be some interesting reading too... Part 3 has the details...
mars.spherix.com...

And then these data graphs from instruments on the Curiosity Rover should be relevant...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I don't think Mars gets precipitation falling directly from the atmosphere like Earth (if it does it's very rare), but rather it seems like condensation would form on various land features, and if conditions are right it just puddles up and flows downhill. (Just like if you park outside, if it gets below the dewpoint, your car windows will be dripping wet with water or frosted when you get up to go to work in the early morning.) Over time this would still be enough to cause active erosion. That's pretty much the Mars water cycle.

Also those aerial photos of the "rivulet" seem to show a hillside with erosion features and water pooling at the bottom. I'd say the darkest features are going to be the most wet. Maybe even some actual standing water. I'd even suspect that those erosion features and where water may be pooling would be somewhat correlated to how light and shadow goes across the terrain over the period of a day given the nature of possible water activity on Mars. The areas in shadow longest would be where water could easily build up and still cause active erosion.

Now if only curiosity could take night photos with some form of lighting, we might even have chance to see frost formation. Plenty cold enough, it should happen fast once it kicks in. That would be neat to see.

As far as something on Earth to compare it to... Sand isn't quite it. Obviously Mars has more of a clay soil. If you have a baseball or softball field nearby. Walk to it at about the crack of dawn when there's plenty of dew on the ground. That red clay on the infield will absorb the moisture. May not seem that wet, even if not quite damp enough to be clumpy. However if you were to drive something heavy enough over it to compress the soil, say an ATV or lawn tractor - it's not exactly dry either. I think that would be the best analogue from my layman's perspective of what is going on with the rover wheels and tracks being left behind.

fine powder?? I don`t know what pictures y`all are looking at but in the pictures the OP posted the ground is clearly not powdery or dusty. The ground in those pictures is rocky and course gravely,sandy soil.You can see the sandy nature of that soil with the naked eye, zooming in only confirms that there is nothing powdery about that soil.
static and powdery soil clearly does not apply to these pictures.

reply to post by Dustytoad


The Mythbusters moon landing episode, specifically the 2nd portion, the beginning covers wet vs. dry sand, and indeed, the wet sand holds a more detailed print. At 12 seconds in, we can see the difference between wet and dry earth sand.

BUT: at 2:33 of the 3rd one, they get into how sharp particles do not need water, and even demonstrate it. 4:15 is when they actually did the test. It holds it's shape.

Which is what I said was a possibility.

Since Mars has no atmosphere and has a slightly different chemical composition than Earth, I'd wager a "dark spot" in dirt is no real indicator of "dampness," at least not in the sense we're hoping for.

ETA: Scratch that!

Current conditions on the planet surface do not support the long-term existence of liquid water. The average atmospheric pressure and temperature are far too low, leading to immediate freezing and resulting sublimation. Despite this, research suggests that in the past there was liquid water flowing on the surface,[2][3] creating large areas similar to Earth's oceans.[4][5][6][7] There are a number[8] of direct and indirect proofs of water's presence either on or under the surface, e.g. stream beds,[9][10][11] polar caps, spectroscopic measurement,[12] eroded craters or minerals directly connected to the existence of liquid water (such as goethite), grey, crystalline hematite, phyllosilicates, opal,[13] and sulfate.[14][15] With the improved cameras on advanced Mars orbiters such as Viking, Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Express, and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter pictures of ancient lakes,[16][17][18][19][20][20][21][22] ancient river valleys,[9][23] and widespread glaciation[24][25][26][27][28] have accumulated. Besides the visual confirmation of water from a huge collection of images, an orbiting Gamma Ray Spectrometer found ice just under the surface of much of the planet.[29][30][31] Also, radar studies discovered pure ice in formations that were thought to be glaciers.[32][33][34][35][36][37] The Phoenix lander exposed ice as it landed, watched chunks of ice disappear,[38][39][40] detected snow falling,[41] and even saw drops of liquid water.[42][43][44]

I guess water was already found on Mars, even in liquid form to a small degree. Nice find, OP.

Originally posted by HairlessApe
Since Mars has no atmosphere and has a slightly different chemical composition than Earth, I'd wager a "dark spot" in dirt is no real indicator of "dampness," at least not in the sense we're hoping for.

No offense to you, but since you just said "Mars has no atmosphere", you have no clue what you're talking about on this particular subject. Mars does have an atmosphere, in fact a fairly substatial one. It's just not as heavy/dense as Earth's.

here is a photo of a track hoe note the smudging and compaction over wet ground




now here is a skid steer that have been going over dry surface dirt note no smudging and compaction over the treads only dry dust

edit: hope this helps a little bit

reply to post by Larry L

Here's the link explaining to you how the Earth's magnetic field protects us from deadly solar radiation and chaged particles.

Yes. The magnetosphere deflects charged particles but it has no effect on other types of radiation (like gamma). Even if we had no magnetosphere, our atmosphere would protect us from solar particles. Where are those experts saying that the surface would be roasted?

If carbon dating isn't reliable beyond a mere 50,000 years, how can you expect me to take seriously your, or any scientists theory that Mars has be dry for A BILLION YEARS. I'm not even saying that's impossible.

Carbon dating wasn't used, obviously. Why even bring it up? There is other evidence which, if you had bothered to look, you would have known. By the way, I didn't say Mars has been "dry" for a billion years. I said that Gale crater has been. There is evidence for transient liquid water on the surface in other areas more recently.

reply to post by Phage


Off topic, I know... But I'd also like to add the fact that carbon dating actually becomes more reliable the older the object in question is because the rate at which isotopes decay only varies so much.

Also, the thermosphere and exosphere absorb gamma rays.