White Rocks on Mars, page 5

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

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 09:01 AM by dogstar23

Originally posted by canucks555
reply to post by canucks555

One last thought before bed. As someone stated earlier, but sticks out.

In layman's terms, That sh1t is way too clean and white looking to me to be a million years old. Just sayin. yes it was hidden until Curiosity crushed it, but still..
That sh1t is way too clean and white looking to me to be a million years old

Actually, if there's no biological action on it, or moisture mixing with impurities - if it's something like calcium sulfate, then that's is color - white. It isn't going to discolor simply from time and solar radiation.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 11:24 AM by sealing

I really don't understand ,by this point, NASA
not dropping a rover in just where the ice line is at
the north pole. Yes Im aware it's carbon dioxide,but it is also water ice.
Maybe there is an area along the edges where it might be melting?
Wouldn't that be the best spot to look for current fauna? I know they are interested in
ancient possibilities,but as we know on Earth, life is abundant and hardy.

edit on 23-1-2013 by sealing because: grams

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 11:38 AM by InTheLight

Here's an interesting history of the formation of Mars, which may explain alot.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 11:40 AM by luciddream

reply to post by sealing

True... i would have wanted the rover to be dropped near the poles where there is some ice remaining... maybe they thought ice condition might be too much for the rover to handle?

freezing instruments? fogging?

It is possible for life to around there than where the rover currently at. This rover is probably equipped to study Mars different types of rocks from the crater.

Even if they found something, it could be from the meteor that fell on mars lol

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 12:19 PM by kingmonkey

Originally posted by DARREN1976

Originally posted by chrome413
According to NASA, the white stuff is likely some sort of hydrated calcium sulfate, like gypsum or bassinite. I guess that means there had to be flowing water at some point. Just more evidence of a wet past on Mars.

I think it is high time a manned mission went up to the Red Planet and took a gander at what all is up there. There is only so much robots can do. And I think technology could get us there (and If not, then at least they could hoax a Mars landing, but that is another thread).

Oh, we definaely have he technology and smarts to ge here it's just not very cost effective apparently, go figure! when it comes to expanding man's knowledge and possible survival if something disastorous happens to this planet the powers that be would rather spend money on new weapons than going to another planet to see if it's habitable or ripe for possible terraforming!

It's extremely sad to think where mankind could have been in space exploration if most western governments hadn't spent countless billions on wars and 'defence'

If we had tackled the challenges of space with the same vigor with which we go to war then man would have been on Mars long ago.

Agree that there is only so much robots can currently do but I hope Curiosity keeps on giving for years to come.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:03 PM by InTheLight

From the pic below, one can certainly understand why they selected Gale crater. I find all of this fascinating.

www.sciencedirect.com...

edit on 23-1-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:05 PM by impaired

I suppose this is relevant. Phage can set it straight if not.

I have for you 2 separate MAHLI animations (each consisting of 3 frames).

These were shot at night with the LED light being employed. Remarkable to say the least:

Farther:

Closer:

Both from Sol 165 - including this MAHLI shot (my favorite camera on the rover!) of the Martian sky at night. Please note that there is some distortion. I asked the folks who work for NASA and MSSS and they have confirmed it's the sky and that there is indeed some distortion. If *I* were to guess... I would say about... 25% distortion? That I could be wrong on. But enough of my yapping (I'm excited about all of this). Here you go:

Also - the area (shown in the above MAHLI animations), but in ultraviolet light:

Cool stuff!

I didn't see these night-shots coming!

edit on 1/23/2013 by impaired because: 2 typos. :/

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:17 PM by jaguarsky

Originally posted by Chansi3

Something else rather curious looking, in the first photo at the top left hand corner area, just below the rock base is what looks to my eyes an indentation of some sort. Looks circle like to me with a straight line down the middle. Is anyone else seeing this? Just say shadow and lighting anomaly , works for me , lol.

Good catch. Yes, there is one circle with a line but there is one above and one below that are not as well defined. Could be an artifact from the rover I suppose but I don't know from what part or function.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:35 PM by Soloprotocol

I'm surprised Nasa are using the wheels on the rover to crush rocks with......sound a tad risky to me.....
what does the rover weigh...one ton???
I know NASA does what needs to be done with whatever they have handy at the given time...but surely they could have added a rock crushing device....maybe not....using the weight of the rover is probably the best idea....I could get a job with NASA with this way of lateral thinking....

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:41 PM by impaired

reply to post by Soloprotocol

One of the wheel does indeed look a bit dented up, BUT the team says it won't be an issue (as said at UMSF.com).

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 01:47 PM by Soloprotocol

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by Soloprotocol

One of the wheel does indeed look a bit dented up, BUT the team says it won't be an issue (as said at UMSF.com).

Well If they keep it up i hope they have a spare wheel with them cause it's a helluva long wait on the RAC....

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 02:12 PM by wildespace

Originally posted by impaired
there is indeed some distortion. If *I* were to guess... I would say about... 25% distortion? That I could be wrong on. But enough of my yapping (I'm excited about all of this). Here you go:

Also - the area (shown in the above MAHLI animations), but in ultraviolet light:

I would say there is 90% distortion (if you mean the digital noise). If you switch between those two images you can see that the "stars" repeat in the UV-lit image.

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 03:04 PM by 0bserver1

Maybe Magnesium oxide? just some thoughts?

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 03:07 PM by Soloprotocol

Not saying it is, but it sure looks like wall plaster...

reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 03:17 PM by impaired

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by impaired
there is indeed some distortion. If *I* were to guess... I would say about... 25% distortion? That I could be wrong on. But enough of my yapping (I'm excited about all of this). Here you go:

Also - the area (shown in the above MAHLI animations), but in ultraviolet light:

I would say there is 90% distortion (if you mean the digital noise). If you switch between those two images you can see that the "stars" repeat in the UV-lit image.

I believe you are correct. I was trying in vain to be conservative.

But yeah, that does sound right, especially after switching back and forth... Thanks for that.

reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 01:04 AM by charlyv