Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

It's hard to tell.
You could look at it both ways I guess.

Whatever it is, will be interesting none the less.
We may never really find out but hopefully our grand kids will.

Although I will add that even if it turns out to be "wet", it's a very light sense and is still relatively "dry" compared to Earth deserts...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

NASA would NOT send a craft all that way just to have the electronics zapped by static when they can so easily make the wheels - whether made of rubber or metal - discharge any potential before it has time to reach dangerous levels.

What dangerous levels? It doesn't take a lot of static electricity to get powder to cling.

You miss the point.
Why make something that is conducive to static when it doesn't have to be? especialy something as important as this. My guess is you could not get static to build up on that rover even if you tried.
Static is the most likely thing to kill the electronics, I just cannot believe they would fail to take that into account.

Personaly I feel if the engineers failed to take that into account they should not have been working on the project.

I see what you are talking about. It isn't mud. I guess it could look wet to some, but I am not one of them...I am not bashing you for your post as some are as I think you believe what you are saying. I think your post as some others have said should have Looks Wet Instead of Went Through Mud. I mean Driving your car over a damp street and driving through "Mud" are way different.

reply to post by Domo1


I knew that was you


However, I do concur

hmmm..interesting..color variations of the soil on the wheels and color variations in the tracks...it looks like something you would find in the high desert after some light precipatation and then the sun comes out..dries the top soil but when you walk on it there is light moisture just underneath the surface...seen this many times..on earth....and those pics look very similair....good eye

reply to post by VoidHawk

Why make something that is conducive to static when it doesn't have to be?

How do you do that? Triboelectric charging is hard to avoid. Move dissimilar materials across each other and you get static electricity.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

The implication should be that Mars is a bit like Earth in that the top soil drys out protecting moisture underneath.. Not that the mars rover is turning over darker soil with no explanation as to why it's darker..

It's darker because it is of a different composition and texture than that on the very top layer.

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

I must say, my respect for your thoughts oscilates (sp?) like a soundwave. One post you seem like a critical thinker, that while absolutely a skeptic: still willing to ask questions and be open to possibility. Then the next post you're no better than Jim "The Enemy of Truth" Oberg, speaking in these crazy absolutes that are no claims no better (and maybe worse), and backed up by just as much data (sometimes less) as the people saying "it's a face!!" on every other pebble.

You can't deny it "looks" wet in that picture. And if based on the ancient "dry" salt lakes here on Earth, which have absolutely no life on the surface in some cases, and have been baking in the hot sun with little to no precipitation in some hundred-thousand years, but yet just a mere inch or 2 under the surface it's "wet" with many millenia old rotten fish guts and plant matter that looks just like mud.......if based on those you are completely closed to the possibility of that being the case here.........even when NASA even says this is an ancient lake bed (they didn't say whether it's salt or not).........then I would call that proof you aren't a critical thinker and maybe have a bit of an agenda to supress even the THOUGHT of ancient civilizations outside of Earth. Though I honestly don't get why that means you need to so adamantly be against "mud" being on Mars.

When you see a picture that so obviously at least "looks" like mud or damp dirt on the rover pointed out by someone outside of NASA, why do you feel so compelled to say "NO, that's not wet, no chance, it's dry, static charge, that's the answer, end of story"? immediately when the picture suggest otherwise, instead of saying "hmmmm, that does kind of look like mud, I wonder if it is wet dirt or not"?

Speaking in the kinds of absolutes you so often do, on subjects that the human race as a whole doesn't have enough data to come to any sure conclusion on, just WREAKS of the same kind of agenda that propelled Jim "The Enemy of Truth" Oberg to get his "friend" Ken Johnston fired from NASA for DARING to go through the image archives looking for interesting things to help Richard Hoagland's research. As an American citizen Richard Hoagland has as much right as the POTUS to those images. Hell if NASA really wasn't hiding anything, they'd have a full time employee dedicated to assisting Hoagland's search on a macro-scale for life on other heavenly bodies. Why so quick to shut down the human search for answers and knowledge?

It's like NASA will only allow people to look for life on a micro scale. We can only look for carbon isotopes, methane molecules, MAYBE fossilised bacteria. Why not allow, and indeed nurture the search for ruins, large fossils, current water, not just evidence that it was there in the past? Maybe even some creepy crawlies scrurrying around there now? Forget "Deny Ignorance"....WHY DENY POSSIBILITY ?!

RICHARD C HOAGLAND FOR NASA DIRECTOR 2012 !!!!!! lol........hey, as much as I'm joking.....at least the guy would TRY. And I'd much prefer a NASA looking for things on the macro scale.

I used Twitter and contacted the rover driver and this is his reply a few minutes ago.

dcmb1409 - Dust is electrostatically charged, but I don't think soil is. I'm no scientist, but happily I know some people who are.

He gave me a contact that would help answer the question to the best of his ability. Will post when I receive his reply.

reply to post by Larry L

When you see a picture that so obviously at least "looks" like mud or damp dirt on the rover pointed out by someone outside of NASA, why do you feel so compelled to say "NO, that's not wet, no chance, it's dry, static charge, that's the answer, end of story"? immediately when the picture suggest otherwise, instead of saying "hmmmm, that does kind of look like mud, I wonder if it is wet dirt or not"?

Just because something may look wet it doesn't mean it is. Just because someone thinks a rock looks like a skull doesn't mean it is.

For the record, I actually said that electrostatic attraction is more likely than moisture. I did not say that it is not moisture.

It doesn't really look like mud to me but I take into consideration that it looks like mud to some. In considering what it would require for it to be mud all other evidence is somewhat lacking. In contrast, there is plenty of evidence that fine dust can cling without the presence of moisture.

strangely enough, you would almost think that the second picture in the OP is actually a study of the wheels. In it, it does have the caking associated with some dampness, and also the differences in colour in the 'wet' 'n' dry' looking part of the tread, while another section has a 'dryer' more uniform albeit the same colour. Maybe Curiosity has sprung a leak somewhere.

I think this comes down to experience and the OP hasn't ever seen this phenomenon on ATV tires in the desert. I live in the desert and this is a common phenomenon. It's not wet, it's dry and that dust tends to clink to materials either through static or compression from a hard surface to a soft one.

It looks like muddy residue to him, but not to me.

I went on a rant there.......so I forgot to state the question that was my point. Phage, if I showed you a picture of a dirt tire track on a beach a low tide......on the surface the sand looks dry, but the dirt tire track would show darker sand under the surface........you're saying that sand is darker than the sand on the surface because it's of a different composition? It makes no sense.

NASA says this is an ancient lake bed. So just like that beach.......why would the sand one inch under the surface be of a different composition than the sand on the surface? It wouldn't be. This isn't another area.......it's an inch down. Logic dictates that just like on that beach, and just like dirt all over the world, under the dry dirt on the surface, it's more damp underneath because earth is a good insulator. Because it's a far more believable explanation, and much more likely that "it's a different composition one inch down".........you have to admit that it's at least a POSSIBILITY that we are indeed seeing sub-surface moisture being unearthed by the rover's tread, just like my dirt bike kicks up damp sand on the seemingly dry beach.

I don't get it. How is this news?

Just take a look at a photo of the planet. See those huge patches of white stuff at the poles? That is called snow.




When snow melts, it turns into water. So somewhere between the white parts and the orange parts, there must be water. It is known.

reply to post by Larry L

NASA says this is an ancient lake bed. So just like that beach.......why would the sand one inch under the surface be of a different composition than the sand on the surface? It wouldn't be.

This isn't a beach. This isn't sand. It is dust. Very fine dust which is carried by the very thin Martian atmosphere. Let's put a layer of dust over that beach sand then roll over it.

BTW, I said composition and texture.

Logic dictates that just like on that beach, and just like dirt all over the world, under the dry dirt on the surface, it's more damp underneath because earth is a good insulator.

Really? Just dig down a tiny bit and you find moisture anywhere on Earth? Even the Atacama desert?
I don't think you understand how dry the atmosphere of Mars is.

reply to post by avatar01

That is called snow.

Yes. Snow composed mostly of carbon dioxide, sometimes called dry ice.

When snow melts, it turns into water.

Not if there isn't enough atmospheric pressure, it sublimates.

Originally posted by grahag
I think this comes down to experience and the OP hasn't ever seen this phenomenon on ATV tires in the desert. I live in the desert and this is a common phenomenon. It's not wet, it's dry and that dust tends to clink to materials either through static or compression from a hard surface to a soft one.

It looks like muddy residue to him, but not to me.

Actually, I am an active off-roader....dirt bike, not ATV though. And I ride mostly on dunes and beaches. When sand is caking, it's bacause it's damp. The sand on the surface is dry and sticks because of static, yes, but that dry sand "coats", it doesn't "cake". The caked stuff on you ride is from the more damp sand/dirt a couple inches under the dry stuff being kicked up by your knobbys digging into the surface. Dry sand does not cake without moisture.

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by Larry L
What do you mean?

I thought I was being very clear. I mean there's no mud while you claimed that Curiousity just went through mud.

Did you even look at the images at good quality?

Of course I did.

There is clearly what looks like mud on the treads at the top of the wheels.

It's a thin layer of packed sand/gravel/dust.
"What looks like mud [to you]" does not equal "mud".

So what in the title is giving you such fits that you think I should be banned?

The completely false claim.

If it looks like mud, what else should I have put? H2O saturated dirt particles? You tell me?

How about "I think Curiousity went through mud"?

I'm posting from a PS3 because my PC is broken, so I can't use photo-shop to post a zoomed image, so for that I apologize.

Because pixelated "mud" is better? Just like in real life...?

But what I'm talking about is pretty clear.

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

Yes, it is clear what you are talking about. And it is clear that you are wrong. And it is clear that the topic is completely false.

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

Went a little far there didn't you? My advice to the OP is to use run on sentences from here on out to avoid this sort of condescending dissection ...

Most of the people on ATS are here because they 'thought they saw something' .... Banning people who 'thought they saw something' is counterproductive to ATS's reason for being ....

Here .... Try this ...

Maybe that's mud on the wheels. Maybe not. PERFECT.

Personally, i strayed away from the wheels as my attention was drawn to the 'sand' . UNDER the rover on the first pic, and just outside the wheel on the second pic, the sand does appear to be wet.

If it's not, it's an easy mistake to make ... Unless of course that is, you're an internet expert.

Nope ...not mud dun looks like what on my tractor ...Cow Dung...that's what it is.

I think you got a point there.. ? I also think that the sky in background colors blue? but I could be mistaken ?

(So if there is dust or moisture (water droplets) in the atmosphere, the sky gets the blue color ,paler or whitish.)

reply to post by Phage


Cool Image but...



Looks like a bird, understand that this may NOT be a bird too before people start bashing me lol