It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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!
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.
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).
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:
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.
Originally posted by LeLeu
Caliche, calcium deposit.