Look at what two years on Mars has done to the Curiosity Rover (comparison images)

Cool photos !

That should buff right out! Don't you think? Nothing a decent Detailer couldn't remedy!

originally posted by: smurfy

You could say very light winds at high speed on very light dust, kind of horses for courses. Same for weathering on the rocks, the rocks themselves are so dry and brittle on the surface they succumb to the weathering and erode in much the same manner as on Earth, it's just the forces are vastly different.
I would guess that a lot of the rock on the surface is as brittle as a cuttlefish bone, one good reason for all the weird shapes.

and so if this is true, where is the evidence in the rover images? rocks bombarded by radiation and hot/cold etc crumble to dust and there are no images of dusty piles of rock crumbs at the base of any of these rocks. There are still nice sharp edges where the wind hits the rocks and blows around them.

I dont want to take this off topic, but I have yet to see any evidence for wind enough to weather, or to effect a 'cleaning event'. Then there is the mysterious dust devils videos which dont play true in the rover images of rocks on the ground near the rovers.

I know Oppo is still going, thats why I asked about decent current images of Spirit.

There are threads with photos of tracks looking like the wind has blown rocks along. From what some people say, that can hardly be the wind doing that, can it?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Am I the only one that went... WHY... a 1909 penny...

well... maybe I am weird...

but yes, the comparison is neat, that's a well made little guy.

That was one of the first things I thought while looking at those pictures.

Imagine how much radiation it's taken.

originally posted by: qmantoo


As far as I can see, and my conclusion to all that has been said about the wind is that NASA and some on here who parrot them, want it both ways. They want the wind to blow forcefully when it suits them and when others point out there is no evidence for forceful winds (other than the 'dust devil video footage') theses same people argue for weak winds.

Go figure, 'cos I haven't.

I suspect there are some extra filters applied to some of these images to make them look redder or blue-er.

Bold above looks like you want it both ways as well!

In images of ground disturbed by the tracks of rovers, the bedrock is not reddish. What accounts for all the red dust?

here's a bit of info. the responses seem to overlook in explaining the sand movement by the Martian winds...

www.universetoday.com/14859/gravity-on-mars Cached
Jun 05, 2008 · The gravity on Mars is much lower than it is here on Earth, 62% lower to be more precise.
That means that Martian gravity is 38% of Earth’s...

therefore more sand mass can be more easily transported by less than Earthlike winds of a thin atmosphere

originally posted by: St Udio
here's a bit of info. the responses seem to overlook in explaining the sand movement by the Martian winds...

www.universetoday.com/14859/gravity-on-mars Cached
Jun 05, 2008 · The gravity on Mars is much lower than it is here on Earth, 62% lower to be more precise.
That means that Martian gravity is 38% of Earth’s...

therefore more sand mass can be more easily transported by less than Earthlike winds of a thin atmosphere

The point is some sand is moved and some is not. Obviously the wind does not blow everywhere and some areas get less than others. For example the lee areas behind rocks would get less and the windward side would get more, yet there is only some evidence of this and given that we are talking millions of years, there are not many buried rocks.

Some of the points above have been argued by those who believe the data and opinions given by NASA, and from them there are 'official' opinions both ways. On one hand the wind is strong enough to blow sand into sandstorms and block out the light and to have dust devils whizzing about at up to 70kph. On the other hand, the wind is so weak that it barely lift the normal earth-sized sand grains because they are too heavy.

It seems that the Martian wind-blown sand dunes are composed of very find dust and the pattern of them would suggest that the shape has been built up over a long time rather like the shifting sands in our deserts. If these are wind-blown sand dunes, this indicates to me that there IS dust being carried by the winds so why do we not see extensive evidence in all other places which have been photographed by the rovers.

However, water also produces sand-dune-like shapes on the landscape, particularly when the water is shallow and has been evaporated leaving the same marks behind. OK, this is a stretch of the imagination, but it might explain why there are 'dunes' in some areas and not so much evidence in others.

We have seen ripple-like effects in the sand at the bottom of craters, well over millions of years since the water has left, isn't it likely that the wind would have blown small particles of sand to fill these up and make the landscape smooth?