Curiosity rover detects bright object on surface of Mars...

page: 6
83
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Interesting stuff. But my gut tells me that this is a piece of tape, tie-down, or insulation that came off the Rover. I hope I'm wrong. I would love to see a Martian insect!

But more importantly, why are we not discussing the 'macaroni' that the Rover found? I looked over ATS and couldn't find anything about the find.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I think the article is extremely interesting. And it appears that it is important to JPL as well.

"Another NASA geologist, and an old friend, chortled as he recounted the official reaction to questions the week before about the millimeter-long “curly macaroni,” which was seen in a cross section after Opportunity dug a hole into the rock. It not only had a spiral shape but appeared to be at the head of a burrow.
“This feature has the team in Pasadena squirming,” my old friend told me. “They want it to be an artifact [that is, not ‘real’].”

Could be an artifact from drilling, but I love the line "spiral shape at the head of a burrow".




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Well if that's it on the ground then this shows you the scale. I think it's clearly something that fell off the rover. It's too implausible to think it's anything else.


By what reasoning do you determine this?

There has been speculation that life once existed on Mars. Before Mars were completely void of all life forms who's to say some didn't evolve to have tough exoskeletons composed of hard minerals that don't decay like bones do on Earth? On Earth, we have fossils. There could be fossils on Mars - even many lying about in the open just like we do find on Earth.

I believe to say it's implausible this could be anything else is just silly, and not scientific.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by juzlurkin

But more importantly, why are we not discussing the 'macaroni' that the Rover found? I looked over ATS and couldn't find anything about the find.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I think the article is extremely interesting. And it appears that it is important to JPL as well.

"Another NASA geologist, and an old friend, chortled as he recounted the official reaction to questions the week before about the millimeter-long “curly macaroni,” which was seen in a cross section after Opportunity dug a hole into the rock. It not only had a spiral shape but appeared to be at the head of a burrow.
“This feature has the team in Pasadena squirming,” my old friend told me. “They want it to be an artifact [that is, not ‘real’].”

Could be an artifact from drilling, but I love the line "spiral shape at the head of a burrow".


Why aren't we discussing this? Because You didn't make the thread. If you build it - they will come. Go ahead and dig up everything you can on this and make the thread. I for one would appreciate it.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Sorry, that was my first post on ATS. I can't make a new thread.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by juzlurkin
 


A few of points:

1. That spiral-shaped object/rock was found by the rover Opportunity several years ago (2004), not this current rover.

2. I see you are new here (maybe you're an old lurker, I don't know. Welcome, either way
),...

...but FYI:
The author of that article (Jim Oberg) is an ATS member and frequent contributor to space and UFO threads. I just thought you would be interested to know that.

If you ever start a thread about that article and the spiral object/rock (although that fossil-looking object has been mentioned before in other threads in the past), don't be surprised if Mr. Oberg lends his 2 cents to your thread.



Again, welcome to ATS.

edit on 10/9/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
the rover needs a ground sonar penetrating device to see below its feet
And a size/scale reference guide with zoom data on the lens. Or just cut it on
edit on 10/9/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
..so the rover is falling apart?!? really...i would doubt that there is anything on the rover that could accidentily fall off with out the rover being in some type of accident...ha..something falling off the rover...Never A Straight Answer..

didnt Need Another Space Agency say something about the rover being in an area they thought may have had running water? does anybody know where the rover is in realation to that 'discovery'? also it is very very small...sort of a chance finding by the rover camera operators?? maybe?? or is this what they have let us see..cause they know they will run into more?

the movie 'apollo 18 ' comes to mind



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
You know? Why didnt they send this rover to the moon instead of Mars as they already have 2 of them on Mars anyway? Granted, they have nearly stopped working, but then again, how are they still working after all this time when they shouldn't be?
edit on 9-10-2012 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by clearmind
 


I think that is the answer they would like us to believe.

It managed to go hundreds of millions of miles with no issues, drops hundreds of feet from the sky crane, but it moves a few hundred meters and starts falling apart...yea ok.

I dont expect NASA to tell us the truth.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by scotsdavy1
You know? Why didnt they send this rover to the moon instead of Mars as they already have 2 of them on Mars anyway? Granted, they have nearly stopped working, but then again, how are they still working after all this time when they shouldn't be?
edit on 9-10-2012 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)


The best engineering in the world coupled with luck


Curiosity is nuclear powered so they wont have the issues the other two had.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs

Originally posted by scotsdavy1
You know? Why didnt they send this rover to the moon instead of Mars as they already have 2 of them on Mars anyway? Granted, they have nearly stopped working, but then again, how are they still working after all this time when they shouldn't be?
edit on 9-10-2012 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)


The best engineering in the world coupled with luck


Curiosity is nuclear powered so they wont have the issues the other two had.



I never knew its was nuclear powered......love the pics it sends back though



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
...didnt Need Another Space Agency say something about the rover being in an area they thought may have had running water? does anybody know where the rover is in realation to that 'discovery'?


Running water in the past (perhaps a couple billion years ago), not water that is currently running....

And they were right on top of that spot a few weeks ago when it took this image showing rounded pebbles cemented in sedimentary rock -- a sign that it was formed in running water:



edit on 10/9/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: formatting



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

However, this image is not enough to make any solid conclusions in my opinion. It could be a whole range of things. A lot of natural things are reflective and shiny...


name more inorganic things that are reflective and shiny and are on Mars. If it's a dead martian roach that's a damn pretty solid conclusion right there isn't it?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

However, this image is not enough to make any solid conclusions in my opinion. It could be a whole range of things. A lot of natural things are reflective and shiny...


name more inorganic things that are reflective and shiny and are on Mars. If it's a dead martian roach that's a damn pretty solid conclusion right there isn't it?


Well, in general there could be shiny crystalline pieces of rocks. It could also be not native to Mars, and be a tiny piece of plastic or something that came from the rover.

I'm not saying it IS a crystalline piece of rock, or even necessarily a part of the rover, but you asked to "name more inorganic things that are reflective and shiny and are on Mars", so that's what I did.



edit on 10/9/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
It's obviously a bit of polystyrene packing, you know what that stuffs like, gets all over the place!



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Let us bear in mind the fact certain fish (shell and normal) and amphibians can go into a kind of Cryostasis, slowing their hearts and blood flow right down.

In fact some amphibians and I think (but can't find) one kind of small river fish can "sleep" for a hundred years or more, they have been found in sediment layers still alive.

Something to ponder.

Sorry if someone's already said it.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Yes, I clearly saw it. I was trying to say that I didn't know if somewhere they (NASA) clearly said it was either shaken out of the scoop when the shook it, or if it was there (on the ground) before the scoop even moved at all, or if they only noticed it after the scoop had made several movements or actually dug it's hole. I mentioned in my first post that the rockets from the sky crane could have blown dust and pebbles up onto the rover as I've seen debris on top of the rover in different photos. If that is the case, (if the rock came from the landing area and then was dislodged) it would be a different kind of pebble or rock than the ones in the area.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soapusmaximus
Let us bear in mind the fact certain fish (shell and normal) and amphibians can go into a kind of Cryostasis, slowing their hearts and blood flow right down.

In fact some amphibians and I think (but can't find) one kind of small river fish can "sleep" for a hundred years or more, they have been found in sediment layers still alive.

Something to ponder.

Sorry if someone's already said it.

Are you sure that's not an urban myth? Is there evidence for that. A tiny 'water bear' can basically die and revive, but can be anywhere. Maybe some smart alec at Nasa put one in curiosity, and that's what you have here, a Tardigrade in shutdown.
edit on 9-10-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


Maybe they went back because they found signs that there is something worth going back for.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Could this odd blues fuzzy smudge be a place where inside insulation or glue is left after insulation material came off?






top topics
 
83
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join