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