Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

Originally posted by wildespace
Who would have thought that a bit of mud or dust on the rover's wheels would create so much heat on a forum.

Just a thought: the darker dust may simply be dust from darker material. You can see lots of darker rocks lying around the land. Also, some mineral dust may look darker or lighter depending on how it's been compressed, and the angle of light.

If Curiosity was indeed driving through damp terrain, scientists would not be silent.

Well these pics as of now are still only a few days old.

And also.....would scientists have even noticed it? Looking at the pictures as a whole, it's not overly apparent that there's even a hint of moisture. The only reason I even noticed anything too out of the ordinary is because I zoom in as much as I can on my PS3's browser and go over these images section by section looking for any kind of interesting geometry......or as a said semi-jokingly in the OP: bugs. ANd I do that on every picture released every day. Does the average scientist, with maybe just a passing interest in Mars look at these pics so intently? I doubt many do outside of NASA itself.

I just think I was the first person to publicly say I noticed something. Someone earlier in the thread said they even tweeted something about this to someone in NASA actually working in the program, and they found it interesting and said they'd get back to him. That was yesterday,I'd actually like to hear a follow-up on that.

reply to post by Phage


I'm neither pro nor con on this subject as of yet. Just trying to get a good response from NASA where their beliefs lay and keep getting contradictions and different answers. Here's an observation from Cornell that mentions mud that isn't mud when the Spirit rover landed.

Cornell's 'cool camera' developer Bell in 'shock and awe' at Mars image Squyres described as "bizarre, really weird" the way in which the crater floor seems to have responded to the dragging of the rover's airbags, which deflated after the lander bounced down onto the surface after being released from its parachute. "I don't understand it," he said. Surface pebbles seem to have been squished into the soil around the lander, which appears like layers of cohesive material. "It looks like mud, but can't be mud. It looks like when it is scrunched, it folds up," said Squyres, who added, "This is something I have never seen before." source: www.news.cornell.edu...

And a picture of Curiosity's tires tracking in sand on Earth:





still waiting on a reply from an astrobiologist at NASA.

Originally posted by 90percent10less
Does anyone else notice the river in the background ?

It's not a river, it a small dune field, you can see it in the satellite photos.

To my way of thinking that is definitely wet sand. In the first photo in the 3rd tread from the top, far right there is an area of sand that appears to be both wet and thick. Can't get sand to sick without moisture, and certainly can't get it to stick and be thick without moisture.

But this bears another question. If there is moisture, why is there no vegetation?

reply to post by Benchkey


It's not sand.

Sand, as we know it here on mother earth is made up of sea shells.

i2.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

That would not be accurate because of humidity here.
One is rubber the other is metal.


I have many hours on a dozer and i can tell you that when there is a build up on the tracks moisture is involved.

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

I've been driving dozers since I was 12.

My grandfather owned 3 of them for his logging operation, from a little JD 30hp to a D-8 Cat.

I also own a Bobcat with steel tracks that fit over the rubber tires.

And I can tell you that when you drive them across dry dusty ground they get a coating of dust on them. I twisted my ankle 5 years ago getting off of the D-8 because I slipped on the dusty covered track.

You don't need water, static charge alone will coat metal with dust.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Coating? Yes, absolutely I agree. And the whole rover has "a coating" of dust on it. And when I ride my dirt bike in dunes and on the beach, it gets a dust coating on it when it's dry.....along with me.....and sometimes my teeth. But when it's dry I don't get covered in damp looking clumps....unless of course my buddy is kicking up roost in front of me and is diging down an inch or 2 under the dry stuff and kicks up some LESS dry stuff.

And in the Dunes I ride, there's heavy equipment everywhere (a company in R.I. called A.Cardi if you care to look it up). They are using backhoes, dozerz, te big huge dumps with like the 15 foot tires......the area's like a mix of dunes and quarry. ANd I agree, the steel tracks, even when dry get a coating of dust/dirt even when it's dry. But that's what it is.......a coating. Pretty even aside from rocks sticking here and there. It's not clumps and it's not damp looking.....unless it's actually damp, or went through a puddle, or something like this where moisture is in the mix.

Gasp... is that a road?

I made a post early this morning and just saw it. The quote boxes were wrong and it's too late to edit it. I fixed that, I think and wanted to make sure it was posted correctly.

Originally posted by Larry L
Phage said: Mars' atmosphere is very dry

You DO keep saying that. But all the images of water clouds and water vapor fog in craters and valleys around dawn hours, in official NASA images, and NASA themselves is saying that's what it is, this is not my interpretation of the images, would suggest that perhaps your statement is still up for debate. The Jury's still out so to speak.

For there to be THAT thick of water vapor fog in the mornings, ALOT of dew is being put down for sure. Look at the third link in my post a couple before. I think the amount of dew morning fog like that would put on the ground would more than account for the amount of moisture needed to get dirt to stick to a wheel, and yes, even enough to form that little bit of ....wait for it.....mud.....on the tread of that wheel.

That seems logical to me, and is right in line with what NASA has officially shown and stated to be there.

I can't speak directly for Phage, but I do know he is intelligent and we share common knowledge.

Keep in mind that just because you see clouds doesn't mean it's "water", there are many gases and liquids that could be involved, not just pure, clean water that makes up those clouds. The atmosphere on Mars isn't like the atmosphere on Earth. Have you ever been in a chemistry class and had a lab assignment? Anytime you mix gases and liquids, you get "clouds" where the LIQUID vapor (liquid does NOT equal water, water's a liquid but not all liquids are water... I actually had a kid that couldn't quite comprehend that one) is changing state.

Moisture, as we know it on earth, is not the only possibility. There could be various explanations, some including liquids some not including any liquid at all and very few including "water", to explain what is seen in pictures. We need to take all of those explanations into consideration instead of just jumping in and saying "ohhhhh, look at the mud" when "mud" isn't likely the correct explanation at all.

The problem here lies in your insistance that it's mud when that isn't likely the case nor is it the only explanation. Other explanations have been given by several posters, yet those are ignored because people WANT to believe it's mud without any proof. Phage hasn't been telling you exactly what it is, he has been telling you that there are many possibilities and each of those must be taken into consideration, yet you insist, no, it has to be mud and it has to be sand of a particular kind and it has to be this and has to be that. No, it doesn't HAVE to be, and it probably isn't what you are claiming it to be.

Phage is open to other possibilities and wants to look at all the possibilities, you have jumped to a conclusion and insist that you are right without any proof whatsoever and he's been giving you counterexamples to debunk your inductive reasoning leading to your conclusion. It only takes one counterexample. If you want to prove something, you have to use deductive reasoning. Although the inductive approach is great for coming up with possibilities, they are still only possibilities until proven deductively. That's how things work.

At some point in time, after tests are run and possibilities are ruled out, it could possibly come down to, yes, it is mud (very unlikely), but until that point, your idea is only speculation, not absolute proof and you have to be open to other possibilities. Phage knows this and has been working from that standpoint but you aren't catching on to that and understanding what he's saying, you're just automatically arguing and trying to say he's wrong (and he isn't).

Phage is one of the people on here that I turn to for knowledgable, well thought out explanations. He thinks things through and looks at possibilities and explanations with intelligence. If you are having a "fight" with Phage, chances are, you are doing so with a closed mind because he always listens to all sides of an argument unless it's nothing but bickering.

Originally posted by Larry L
Coating? Yes, absolutely I agree. And the whole rover has "a coating" of dust on it. And when I ride my dirt bike in dunes and on the beach, it gets a dust coating on it when it's dry.....along with me.....and sometimes my teeth. But when it's dry I don't get covered in damp looking clumps....unless of course my buddy is kicking up roost in front of me and is diging down an inch or 2 under the dry stuff and kicks up some LESS dry stuff.

But there aren't any damp looking clumps on the photos, only darker patches of "soil".

That's one of the things that makes me think that this is not mud, because the way it acts doesn't look different from the way the lighter material acts, if it was damp soil and dry soil the difference should be noticeable.

reply to post by ArMaP


I think it does look different. I see dusty coated textures, I see more clumpy "stuck" texture like it just slightly damp (like from morning dew/frost), and I see a much more damp, almost mud-like texture on a particular tread. I don't feel that I'm seeing something that's not there. The cause IS up for debate, but it LOOKS like what it looks like.

Now, not in reply to you but just to continue the journey of this thread:

I find NASA's choice for the newest pics (and first since this thread's pics in question), QUITE interesting. I wish they were color, but........there are 6 all together, but the other 4 are just 2 more copies basically of these 2. They're different pics, but are the same.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Sorry guys. I'm having issues with my browser copy + pasting links. I'm not sure what the issue is.

Originally posted by Propulsion
You can obviously see the difference between the soils. One wet, and the other dry. There’s no other explanation.

If that's the case, then explain why they are caked in exactly the same way... just because they differ in coloration or darkness doesn't mean one is wet and one is dry. If there was moisture involved, they wouldn't look exactly the same other than color.

Well, according to the logic displayed here on this thread...

The words I have typed out are dry and the background I typed them on is wet since it's darker than the words

reply to post by TC Mike


hmm you heard of the Belching of Methane on Mars right ?

Methane one Key Ingrediants that a Life Form called bacteria Produces well thats if there is any bacteria
or Anchient bacteria or Life form that became part of the Slime Sludge called Organic matter known as OIL

tho there is a Ocean Full of Methane on Saturan's Moon ( Titan )

posssible Liquid Methane / sand dirt Could be Clumping on the Tires ,?

Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet
www.nasa.gov...

any liquid water on the surface quickly boils away while the sun's ultraviolet radiation scorches the ground.

But there is evidence of a warmer and wetter past -- features resembling dry riverbeds and minerals that form in the presence of water indicate water once flowed through Martian sands. Since liquid water is required for all known forms of life, scientists wonder if life could have risen on Mars, and if it did, what became of it as the Martian climate changed.

New research reveals there is hope for Mars yet. The first definitive detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars indicates the planet is still alive, in either a biologic or geologic sense, according to a team of NASA and university scientists.

If microscopic Martian life is producing the methane, it likely resides far below the surface, where it's still warm enough for liquid water to exist. Liquid water, as well as energy sources and a supply of carbon, are necessary for all known forms of life.

According to the team, the plumes were seen over areas that show evidence of ancient ground ice or flowing water. For example, plumes appeared over northern hemisphere regions such as east of Arabia Terra, the Nili Fossae region, and the south-east quadrant of Syrtis Major, an ancient volcano 1,200 kilometers (about 745 miles) across.

Methane on Mars may be result of electrification of dust-devils
September 11, 2012 by Nancy Atkinson, Universe Today
phys.org...
Methane on Mars has long perplexed scientists; the short-lived gas has been measured in surprising quantities in Mars' atmosphere over several seasons, sometimes in fairly large plumes. Scientists have taken this to be evidence of Mars being an 'active' planet, either geologically or biologically. But a group of researchers from Mexico have come up with a different – and rather unexpected – source of methane: dust storms and dust devils.

Methane has been observed in Mars' atmosphere since 1999, but in 2009, scientists studying the atmosphere of Mars over several Martian years with telescopes here on Earth announced they had found three regions of active release of methane over areas that had evidence of ancient ground ice or flowing water.

Mars Methane Mystery: What's Making the Gas?
Methane in Mars' atmosphere lasts less than a year meaning something -- either geologic or biological -- keeps belching it out.
news.discovery.com...

THE GIST
The first planet-wide studies of methane on Mars shows gas concentrations peak in autumn and plummet in winter.
The methane could be produced by geologic or biological activity.
The rapid removal of the chemical from the atmosphere is as much a mystery as what's producing it.

Life on Mars? Here are five reasons scientists think it's possible.
Methane on Mars Found... But Life? Not So Fast
Mars to NASA: Forget Water, Follow the Methane

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by impaired

 

Thanks for the kind words toward me, and I agree that there are alot of people on here that are cendescending and belittleing like you say. And Some are just flat out trolls. But I don't think Phage has been any of these things. At least not in this thread.........though I'm also not bringing up something that's really too hard to believe for someone decently informed. I'm just bringing up what looks to be all together a half a teaspoon of moisture, I'm not talking about artificial structures or robot heads here.

Listen, as much as you NEED people like questioning things so we can expand our knowledge and wisdom, so if we notice something interesting we bring it up like I'm doing here, or even on a bigger scale like Richard Hoagland (my hero) has spent his life trying to do.........you also need other people questioning YOUR thought processes, holding your feet to the fire to see if what you're saying makes any sense. You need other knowledgable people on the subject like Phage tearing apart your theories. If they're solid, they'll hold up. I think my particular theory here has held up.

It's called peer review. It's a flawed process because all people have their own beliefs and agendas....even scientist who would have you believe they don't. But it's the process we use.

You're right.....Phage is always trying to bebunk things. He's not always right, and there are some people that just hold his word as the final word on these subjects. But he is knowledgable on these subjects (as far as I can tell), so he's a good critic. ANd I think in this thread, I debated him, didn't take his word as law, and even showed that his thoughts on the atmosphere of Mars, regardless of where they're from, aren't exactly right, or are at least questionable.

See? Peer review. Flawed, but it works.

Ahh, I do see what you mean. Thanks.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Methane has a boiling point of -161 C at 1 Earth atmosphere (or 1013 millibars).

Mars get's cold, but it's coldest averages around -143 C, and of course it's atmosphere pressure averages around 6 millibars, so methane on Mars would boil into a gas at an even lower temp than -161 C.

Liquid methane on Mars naturally can not happen. Not cold enough and not enough pressure.

Titan's surface temp is around -179 C and it's atmospheric pressure is at 1467 millibars, so it gets cold enough and has more than enough atmospheric pressure for it to remain in a liquid state on it's surface.

reply to post by Larry L

Even IF Mars' atmosphere is as thin as you say, and I don't believe it is based on the clouds and ground level fog, and most of the condensation evaporates before it could turn to liquid.....based on the fact that low level fog forms, SOME of that condensation has to turn or stay liquid on the ground until actual sun heat evaporates it.

No. The ice crystals sublimate. They do not melt.

I think Mar's atmosphere is quite a bit more dense than you're making out. If you're saying 1%, I would be saying more like 15-even20% of Earth's. I just can't picture heavy clouds forming under any circumstances in 1% of Earth's atmosphere.

Maybe if you learned a little about atmospheric science you would be able to picture it. Or better yet, understand it.

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Coating? Yes, absolutely I agree. And the whole rover has "a coating" of dust on it. And when I ride my dirt bike in dunes and on the beach, it gets a dust coating on it when it's dry.....along with me.....and sometimes my teeth. But when it's dry I don't get covered in damp looking clumps....unless of course my buddy is kicking up roost in front of me and is diging down an inch or 2 under the dry stuff and kicks up some LESS dry stuff.

And in the Dunes I ride, there's heavy equipment everywhere (a company in R.I. called A.Cardi if you care to look it up). They are using backhoes, dozerz, te big huge dumps with like the 15 foot tires......the area's like a mix of dunes and quarry. ANd I agree, the steel tracks, even when dry get a coating of dust/dirt even when it's dry. But that's what it is.......a coating. Pretty even aside from rocks sticking here and there. It's not clumps and it's not damp looking.....unless it's actually damp, or went through a puddle, or something like this where moisture is in the mix.

edit on 12-9-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)

Look at the pictures, it's a thin coating.

It's not clumpy, it's very little material.

Aside from all the environmental reason there is no liquid water on the surface of Mars, and there are many, if it had driven through mud we would know it. NASA would be the first to announce news like that, it's one of the main reasons for the mission.

reply to post by Phage


So........You're not willing to concede to, or at least entertain the thought that: the numbers you and other people are quoting pertaining to Mars' atmosphere, don't quite JIVE with the ground and orbit level visual evidence, which are both ironically from the same source?

Now as I said before, you can't always judge by just what you see, but this is also based on the numbers. And those numbers don't work with the amount of vapor clouds shown in the images. Based on the numbers you quoted, the closest thing to clouds we'd see anywhere on the planet outside of the poles should just be dust storms that appear like clouds.

It's like those numbers are based on what scientists said Mars PROBABLY was back in the 50's and 60's, and even though that just can't be the case, based on modern evidence, scientists just seem to REFUSE to revise the numbers.

You can't see this?

And to drive the point home, I would once again like to post the link to the images of Noctis Labrynthis, taken by the Viking orbiter. This image and the one below it, taken on different orbits, which means at different times, which means this happens all the time here, shows a canyon system over a mile deep, miles wide and stretches just in one direction over 1200 miles along Mars' equator is filled with what NASA calls "water vapor fog".

www.thelivingmoon.com...

I thought I should post this picture to get some more sense of the scene, It is pretty obvious that the ground tracking which shows the 'shiny bits' belongs to the middle wheel, the one in question here. The shadows on the wheels indicate the sun as pretty much overhead with a bias from the left, enough perhaps to know that the 'shiny bits' is not sunlight through the rear wheel bevels, although it could be from openings in the body of the rover higher up, something to think about, the sun would just follow the contours of the ground, although the 'shiny bits' do not seem to be as bright as the other sunlight parts and more like reflected light, or light scatter, also something to think about, I'm out on that one. One other thing and I've seen it in other pictures, is the one ton rover compacting the tiny rocks, or simply flattening them into the dust, to me the former, rather than the latter, seems to be more logical, since the whole profiles of the wheels are visible, and that the dust has no depth at all.