White Rocks on Mars, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 36 times

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 11:37 AM by Chamberf=6

reply to post by Phage

Great find on the pics, Phage.

I'll be anxiously waiting to see results of any analysis.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 11:38 AM by elouina

Do you know why this looks familiar? Because it is pigeon poop. So now we know what is flying around in all those videos folks keep posting.

Anyways why does this white look splattered to me? Like it was deposited by or previously a liquid? It really does look like it is not a part of the stones original composition.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 11:43 AM by 11I11

Martian graffiti

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 11:59 AM by InTheLight

One thing for sure, how these rocks were formed will be debated by scientists.

Which Mars sandstone creation theory do you choose?

1.

The NASA team that interpreted Opportunity's data says it happened like this: Acidic waters eroded volcanic rocks, and created the fine-grained sand that later became sand dunes. Shallow waters repeatedly flooded the region, eventually creating the sandstone.

Scientists Thomas McCollom and Brian Hynek challenge this interpretation. They say that a volcano exploded, and blew ash all over. The ash settled over the region, and later small amounts of sulphuric acid solution trickled over the ash to produce the sandstone.

Scientist Paul Knauth says, no, a meteor slammed in; the impact produced a surge of rock fragments, salts, sulphides, brines and ice that hugged the ground. Later, water films that worked down among the grains weathered the conglomeration and formed the sandstone. This theory accounts for the rover data without shallow seas, lakes or ground water.

The "sandstone" sediments, however, are not sand in the ordinary sense of the word, says astronomy tutor at the Royal Observatory Greenwich and trained geologist Alan Longstaff. They are primarily basalt (an igneous rock) and a goodly measure (up to 50%) of sulphates of magnesium and iron, and some iron oxides. "This is important because sand (silicon dioxide, or quartz) on Earth is the end product of water weathering of igneous rocks. Whereas, on Mars we don't know how much "or little!" water weathering occurred.

Since Curiosity is in Gale Crater, I'll go with the meteor slamming theory.

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 12:32 PM by SixX18

Originally posted by ObservingYou
What makes up the rocks? Do they have like limestone or chalky stuff up there?

That was my first thought.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 12:35 PM by Chamberf=6

Originally posted by SixX18

Originally posted by ObservingYou
What makes up the rocks? Do they have like limestone or chalky stuff up there?

That was my first thought.

That or calcium were my thoughts.

Probably way off but that was my first reaction.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 12:38 PM by SixX18

^I thought calcium after seeing some of the images. Didn't someone mention salt? Possibly the inside of these rocks contain lime, calcium, or salt, and when the rover runs over or moves them around it exposes the insides. The outer part of the rock has been undisturbed for how long, so what we see is the dirty, eroded outside of the rocks.

I believe this is one of the rocks the rover wheel ran over to expose its insides. Phage will know for sure.

Phage is the OP haha but good theory.

edit on 1/22/13 by SixX18 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 12:45 PM by Vasa Croe

I would go with calcium. I also believe there had to have been plenty of water flowing there at some point as all the large rocks are smooth and without something such as water or ice to move the rocks across a landscape they would not have such smooth edges. I guess if there was SUPER high winds they could be blown across the landscape but not likely.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 12:51 PM by impaired

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by radtech34
reply to post by Phage

Rocks are cool and all,but when compared to forests and lakes on mars,Joseph skipper has found many photos from nasas images that show what i believe also are forests and lakes,take a look.i would like to say even if this isn't what it looks like,its still a lot better than landing in that crater.
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

That website is a scam. Scientists (including geologists) are studying those features. They are, by most part, dunes, landslides, work of erosion or other geological processes.

Thank you - yes. That site is a complete joke and it offends common sense.

edit on 1/22/2013 by impaired because: Oopsie.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 01:00 PM by Onewhoknowsjesus

reply to post by Phage

on the third image i was wondering if you could some how enhance the photo's top right corner of the rock with the white side...it almost looks like a fossilized creature of some sort......?????Thank for sharing by the way!

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 01:12 PM by canucks555

here's sulfer ..looks the same?

definitely has the "soft" composition that Phages pics show..

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 01:37 PM by XLR8R

reply to post by Phage

I work with grave stone and the porosity of the rock almost makes it look like white marble maybe lime stone. If it is lime stone then this would be a significant find being that lime stone is created from skeletal fragments of marine organisms.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 01:39 PM by muzzleflash

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by Phage

I work with grave stone and the porosity of the rock almost makes it look like white marble maybe lime stone. If it is lime stone then this would be a significant find being that lime stone is created from skeletal fragments of marine organisms.

Yeah but also isn't that a reason to consider limestone unlikely?

I favor the calcium or possibly sulfur explanations.

Good topic though.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 01:41 PM by canucks555

reply to post by XLR8R

And that would make this the greatest scientific discovery of our times.
-guess we play the waiting game on this one.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 01:49 PM by XLR8R

reply to post by canucks555

I call shot gun for the expedition.

They would have to invent a whole new branch of archeology. That's pretty exciting.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 02:01 PM by eriktheawful

If it's a true color image, it looks like some sort of Calcium Carbonate to me:

Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the formula CaCO3. It is a common substance found in rocks in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, coal balls, pearls, and eggshells.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 04:28 PM by Divine Strake

I wonder, I should check to see what the temp is in that region. If the material (rock) has absorbed moisture, it could slowly secrete it as a type of frost. But, that would be WAY too easy of an explanation.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 04:33 PM by wildespace

Here are some stereo views (for cross-eyes viewing) of the "snake river" before and after the rover drove over it:

Images are from the rover's Navcams, Sols 151 and 159.

reply posted on 22-1-2013 @ 04:36 PM by kdog1982

It's starting to sound like gypsum.

YouTube Link

This graphic from NASA's Curiosity mission shows an analysis of the composition of two rocks called "Crest" and "Rapitan" in the "Yellowknife Bay" area of Mars. Curiosity's Chemistry and Camera (ChemCam) instrument zapped light-colored veins in these rocks with its laser and found that they contain sulfur and hydrogen. Scientists interpret these results to mean Crest and Rapitan's light-colored veins contain hydrated calcium sulfates. These minerals could be gypsum or bassanite. On Earth, calcium sulfates like gypsum form frequently in veins when relatively dilute fluid circulates at low to moderate temperatures. The ChemCam analysis helped Curiosity mission managers decide where to use the rover's drill for the first time.