Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mars Rover finds biggest discovery yet, NOT the "Mars Rat"

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


That's a very astute post. I wonder if the consistency of the terrain at the landing site is a driving force. Maybe the canyon bottom is just to difficult to either land in and/or navigate with these landers. It would be unfortunate to send one of these babies to Mars only to not have it able to move.

Eventually, I hope, there will be something more akin to a drone that NASA could remotely pilot down into such places.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Nasa should stay out of craters as they have been blow out leaving nothing to find. Nasa should land in that huge canyon as water runs down hill and takes everything with it. In the depths of that canyon is where we might find life not in blown out craters.

That's why they chose Gale crater, as it looks like the mountain inside the crater was created by material accumulated by water or wind action.

And it's easier to land inside a 154k m crater than inside a 200 km wide but 7 km deep canyon.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Unless NASA has picked the absolute worst possible landing sites for its rovers, which I believe is true...the lack of even basic seashells of any kind make me think Mars never has life other than maybe microbial at best. Of all the miles the rovers have covered not one seashell of any kind has been seen.

Nasa should stay out of craters as they have been blow out leaving nothing to find. Nasa should land in that huge canyon as water runs down hill and takes everything with it. In the depths of that canyon is where we might find life not in blown out craters. How much proof of ancient life is there in that huge Arizona crater? Probably none.

As ArMap mentioned above, Gale Crater was chosen because orbital analysis of its soils indicated that Gale Crater was once very watery -- perhaps even a lake.

Mt. Sharp (now officially known as Aeolis Mons) is thought to be what's leftover from sedimentary layers laid down by water, wind, or both.

One theory is that after gale Crater formed after an impact event billions of years ago, it filled with water, creating a lake or sea. Over a long period, the water laid down sediment that filled it to the top after the water of Mars disappeared, the sediment was mostly eroded away by wind, leaving behind the original crater, with Aeolis Mons (Mt. Sharp) remaining in its center.

Gale Crater is considered a great landing site because of its watery past, and because of Mt. Sharp. The sides of Mt. Sharp and canyons at the base of it should have exposed rock strata layers that will be able to be seen by the rover. At least some of the strata layers may have been laid down as the bottom of the lake bed that perhaps once filled part of Gale Crater.

edit on 6/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnknownKnower
Mars used to be a planet that was very similar to earth. Well at least that's my opinion on the matter. So having evidence of water there is kind of expected. But proof of drinkable water once flowing on the planet is astounding nonetheless because this means a lot of skeptics might be shut up. Doubtful but maybe. lol Yay mars.


Skeptics of what? Water on mars has been a thing for more than a decade now. How much may be locked away in deep aquifers is a matter for debate, but water having been on mars is an old idea and has generally been accepted for quite some time.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jpkmets
 


Drones on mars are going to be difficult and very expensive and probably have a low lifespan. There is too much dust in the atmosphere and a lot less pressure than on earth. It's probably doable but something you'd send down from a manned exploratory ship, not something you'd send on automation like a rover.

Lighter than air craft like a small blimp would probably be better. Dust would still be a big problem while in the air though.

Who knows, maybe that will be the next thing they send, would be exciting at least to get closer to ground aerial views of the lovely Mars.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jpkmets
 


I doubt that the extremely thin atmosphere on Mars can support any kind of aircraft. The air pressure is equivalent to that of stratosphere on Earth.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by jpkmets
 


I doubt that the extremely thin atmosphere on Mars can support any kind of aircraft. The air pressure is equivalent to that of stratosphere on Earth.


There was once a NASA proposal to send a flying probe to Mars, but the proposal was not accepted. It was called the Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey (or ARES). The probe would have had a total flight time of about 70 minutes, and may have traversed about 600 km in that time (before crashing).



Sources:

ARES -- A Proposed mars Scout Mission

Here is the NASA mission concept proposal for the ARES probe (the link opens directly to a PDF file):
Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey PDF

edit on 6/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
What an amazing find , imagine we're looking at our old planet and doing what we did many, many years ago to this planet before moving to it except we're looking at it after we deserted it .... Or maybe.... ...
Still a great find



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
The so called "drinkability" of water on Mars really only has relevance to future colonization. It is irrelevant to to either current or past life on the Red Planet. On Earth, sea water is not "drinkable", but teams with life.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


you have a point there



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Magister
I just see rocks.

That's the importance of looking at rocks, the rocks are the ones "telling" us that there was drinkable water a long time ago.

In a place where there are only rocks, that's what we have to use to get all the information we can.


It was one of my attemps at a joke. You know, how people post pictures of mars and see rats? HaHa? No? Awhemmm...



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Look up Juventae Chasma at the ESA webiste for what is in my opinion evidence of life on Mars.

spaceinimages.esa.int...

spaceinimages.esa.int...

Looks like the "sulfate mountain" has been mined. Notice the trench leading out and the green surfaces in the area.

One of the most interesting ESA photos to date in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Does not matter if it had water in it. It is a crater. Say for instance that area was an ocean of sorts. An asteroid hits displaces the water obliterates all signs of life and the water returns to fill the crater. There wont be any life or evidence of past life in there.

In a canyon water would have brought stuff from everywhere water ran into it. There could even be existing water/ice in the bottom of a canyon were remaining life could exist. There would certainly be a treasure trove of stuff delivered by the running water in the bottom of large canyon.

Yes, it is easier to land in an obliterated crater but what good is finding nothing?

Take the risk....



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Xeven
Does not matter if it had water in it. It is a crater. Say for instance that area was an ocean of sorts. An asteroid hits displaces the water obliterates all signs of life and the water returns to fill the crater. There wont be any life or evidence of past life in there.

You are looking at this in the wrong order, first the crater was created, then it filled with water and materials brought by the water.

How would you get a mountain of sediment if the crater was made after?



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by jpkmets
 


I doubt that the extremely thin atmosphere on Mars can support any kind of aircraft. The air pressure is equivalent to that of stratosphere on Earth.


There was once a NASA proposal to send a flying probe to Mars, but the proposal was not accepted. It was called the Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey (or ARES). The probe would have had a total flight time of about 70 minutes, and may have traversed about 600 km in that time (before crashing).



Sources:

ARES -- A Proposed mars Scout Mission

Here is the NASA mission concept proposal for the ARES probe (the link opens directly to a PDF file):
Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey PDF

edit on 6/9/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Looks like they took a shortcut with the acronym for their probe?
Aerial Regional-Scale Environmental Survey

Ah well...



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


How do you know the crater was first? Being that Mars is a bit far from the sun if there was running water there, mars certainly went snowball like earth at times.

Stop landing in craters. Everything has been burned and melted into the rock.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Xeven
reply to post by ArMaP
 


How do you know the crater was first?

The mountain inside the crater is made of several layers, like all sedimentary deposits, which means it's not the result of the impact that created the crater.
On the crater floor there are signs of water, and there are signs of water entering the crater.
All those things point to the crater being older than the presence of water inside it, meaning that first there was a crater, then the crater was filled with water (that probably flowed across the crater, still waters would move that much sediment), the water carried enough sediments to make the mountain, then the water disappeared.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join