Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

reply to post by StarTraveller

Doesn't look like a bird.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

First off, great eye OP. I had been marvelling over the quality and detail in the images and was just originally enjoying the pictures for just how mindblowingly awesome they were. Then your thread came along and I was intrigued

After reading the OP original post and looking at the pictures, I definitely thought they were interesting and the OP did spot something noteworthy. I then tried to look at it from a mundane explanation point of view and see if there were mechanics involved that could account for what appears to be “damp dust.”

As I kept looking though, my first thought was to look at the soil in the background and speculate on had the tire gone through a band of soil consisting of two colors and could that account for the color variations. Given the angle of the shot, the shadow of Curiosity being cast on the ground and the relative proximity of both patches of dirt on a color wheel, I didn’t feel I could either support or discount the band of different colored dirt. I then decided to focus on the “glistening area” instead.

So from what I’m gathering the area inside “box 1” (see image below) is the area of interest from the OP and the area we are focusing on. As I looked at it, my first impression was could it be a weld seam from the wheel manufacturing that is at the right angle to reflect the light more so than other spots? The wheel area inside “Box 3” clearly shows the wheel has a pretty high degree of reflectivity associated with it, however the reflective quality wasn’t quite as “bright” as the area inside “Box 1.” As I was pondering this I noticed the area inside “Box 2” and it seems right on par with the right amount of reflectivity as is being observed inside “Box 1.” Could this “glistening” area be a product of a hole in the dust pattern lining up with a particularly reflective part of a weld for the tread?

I’m not trying to discount you, OP I’m just merely offering an alternative hypothesis since really that’s all any of these theories are

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Larry L

 

NASA says this is an ancient lake bed. So just like that beach.......why would the sand one inch under the surface be of a different composition than the sand on the surface? It wouldn't be.

This isn't a beach. This isn't sand. It is dust. Very fine dust which is carried by the very thin Martian atmosphere. Let's put a layer of dust over that beach sand then roll over it.

BTW, I said composition and texture.

Logic dictates that just like on that beach, and just like dirt all over the world, under the dry dirt on the surface, it's more damp underneath because earth is a good insulator.

Really? Just dig down a tiny bit and you find moisture anywhere on Earth? Even the Atacama desert?
I don't think you understand how dry the atmosphere of Mars is.

edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phoenix, did dig up ice, and that was at landing, the ice was seen to disappear, that included the ground discolouration and then colour restoration, akin to a damp patch. Phoenix also detected water droplets. I think this is what has happened here. Also, the choice of the crater landing is an important part of Curiosity's mission, to look for water, recent or otherwise around the crater's edge. It's all very interesting.

Once again another sensationalist title for stars and flags.

Admins, please, make a blanket statement in regards to this as it's getting redundant on ATS.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Larry L

 

NASA says this is an ancient lake bed. So just like that beach.......why would the sand one inch under the surface be of a different composition than the sand on the surface? It wouldn't be.

This isn't a beach. This isn't sand. It is dust. Very fine dust which is carried by the very thin Martian atmosphere. Let's put a layer of dust over that beach sand then roll over it.

BTW, I said composition and texture.

Logic dictates that just like on that beach, and just like dirt all over the world, under the dry dirt on the surface, it's more damp underneath because earth is a good insulator.

Really? Just dig down a tiny bit and you find moisture anywhere on Earth? Even the Atacama desert?
I don't think you understand how dry the atmosphere of Mars is.

edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

NASA said it's a dry lake bed.......therefore it IS a beach....basically.....in the same way that the great salt lake is a beach. It's dirt that was for a LONG time covered and moved about by water. Unless you're saying NASA is a liar and this isn't a dry lake bed.

We KNOW it's a dry lake bed, so you have to look at it as such. You can't just dismiss that and say "oh it's just random dust and a mere inch under the surface it's a total diferent composition. That's not what happens on lake beds. Lake beds are a consistent sand from who knows how many millions of years of water turning all thos minerals into an evenly mixed sand. If you dig an inch down in a lake bed the dirt isn't different.......aside from being.......damp. If it's not damp it's consistent sand.

And can you dig down a couple inches even in the most dry places on Earth and alsways find moisture?.........Funny you ask......because pretty much.....yeah. There's only one or two places on earth with absolutely NO moisture, and even then some can be found if you duig deep enough (though the physical laber in these places would kill you before you got to it). Enough to actually drink and survive? No. But just watch some desert survival videos. You'd be shocked at how much moisture you can collect in a seemingly dry desert.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by cookiemonster32

 

What on earth/mars is that?

Probably the same thing that appears in exactly the same place in this image:

And this image:

And this image:

edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Valid point buddy, thanks for pointing this out

reply to post by Voldemorton


Yeah and before I een posted I though the same. Perhaps welding. I think things through. It's not like I'm a person who just constantly post martian anomolies threads. I think this is my only one in fact. Here's why I concluded it couldn't be welds or reflection from the tire itself.

1) There is no welding on the wheels. They're a cast/billet piece. You can see on the clean treads that the treads aren't welded on.

And 2) I also thought maybe it's reflection from the wheel itself. It can't be. It's clearly coated in whatever that is...whether it be caked dust or damp dirt. The wheel's not showing through in that area....it's totally caked, so the reflection isn't from the wheel itself. That reflection is being caused by whatever's caked on that spot.

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
Im confused as to why this is a huge deal?

Does the OP think there is no moisture on Mars??

If the OP is correct, then there is more widespread water on Mars than there is thought to be. This would mean a lot as far as future colonies there, or for finding life...

Generally it is accepted that there is no liquid surface water. The OPs pics suggest liquid water.

Or am I wrong about these things?

But we already know water exists on mars, in ice form.

Edit: And yea, I am well aware that you said liquid, and I said ice. but if you roll over ice enough times, it will melt eventually..

"We KNOW it's a dry lake bed, so you have to look at it as such. You can't just dismiss that and say "oh it's just random dust and a mere inch under the surface it's a total diferent composition. That's not what happens on lake beds. Lake beds are a consistent sand from who knows how many millions of years of water turning all thos minerals into an evenly mixed sand. If you dig an inch down in a lake bed the dirt isn't different.......aside from being.......damp. If it's not damp it's consistent sand."

While this is true on Earth, Mars has apparently been dry for quite a long time and there's no place on Earth's surface that has gone without rain or humidity for tens of thousands of years. So making this comparison isn't necessarily an accurate example. Also Mars is covered with quite a few craters and much like the moon, the original soil could be covered by a layer of powdery dust. If you look at the Apollo mission photos you will see the superfine dust clinging all over the astronauts boots. Does this mean they were tromping around in the mud or damp dust? No it's just a further testament to how ultrafine powdery dust can cling to surfaces.

Now if you take into consideration, tens of thousands of years of ultra arid climate, combined with the global windstorms that can sweep the planet, is it so hard to imagine that a layer of superfine powder could be lying on top of a sandy lake bed?

"And can you dig down a couple inches even in the most dry places on Earth and alsways find moisture?.........Funny you ask......because pretty much.....yeah. "

True you can find moisture in most arid deserts on the planet, but you have to take into consideration, no place on Earth has been as dry or as arid as long as the periods of time we are looking at on Mars. just my 2 cents worth on the digging into a desert and finding moisture just below the surface example that keeps getting tossed around.

Originally posted by Still Naive?
Once again another sensationalist title for stars and flags.

Admins, please, make a blanket statement in regards to this as it's getting redundant on ATS.

Many of the OP posts here are unfortunately given to sensationalism, since the requirement is to use the title originally used from a link. However, in this case there is not a link to a story from elsewhere, and you could say that the use of the word 'mud' in a general sense is not the case here, but it is a mud of sorts if there is water in the mixture. It could even be the Curiosity is the active mixer with its wheels.

looks kinda damp, and most likely it is. Unless i can go see and feel for my self i wont say 100% ether way. unlike a few posters here.

Here when bulldust compacts to bulldust cake it seems as though it is congealed together by thin layers of moister that keeps it in its cake state. Dry bulldust cake once it hits a certain angle on the tires it falls of, unless it has stuck to the surface with moister,

reply to post by Larry L


Ok perhaps "welds" wasn't the appropriate term, however the picture below, you can clearly see the treads, especially the edges tend to have a higher reflectivity. As for the coated part of the wheel, yes the wheel does have a coating of dust on it, however if you look around at other spots, there are holes in the "coating" and all it would take is a highly reflective spot to be in one of those holes and the reflectivity (flare if you will) could wash out the adjacent pixels so it's not readily apparent that there is a hole in the layer of dust at that location.

And I wasn't accusing you of posting wild anomaly photos or anything...I was just trying to have a conversation on the topic. I think people's nerves run a little close to the surface around sometimes and everyone is always on red alert....part of the reason I rarely post and simply just read

Another possibility, is that its very fine powder, 3 microns or so, that has some static charge to it, so its clinging to the wheels. It does look similar to what you might expect if the wheel went through mud, but the atmospheric pressure is so low that water cannot exist as a liquid. Unless of course the water has some weird chemistry like supersaturation with salts, that allows it to be liquid at such low pressures. There are quite a few pictures that the Mars exploration rovers took that appear to show wet surface, but I have a feeling that NASA will not speculate without hard data to back it up.

reply to post by Larry L


How is it not mud if it's sticking to the TIRES ! ?

Please explain how dry dirt is sticking to it. If Dry dirt sticks, then why isn't the whole tire covered ?

Exactly you can't explain that. Almost none of you can.

Originally posted by smurfy

Many of the OP posts here are unfortunately given to sensationalism, since the requirement is to use the title originally used from a link. However, in this case there is not a link to a story from elsewhere, and you could say that the use of the word 'mud' in a general sense is not the case here, but it is a mud of sorts if there is water in the mixture.

Place a ? at the end of sensational claim - hey presto ! ....... " I`m just asking a question "

______

In fairness to the O.P it wasn`t the worst example that I have seen on ATS - Those photos are spellbinding - just blows my mind -

Looks like very powdery dust to me.

If it was mud there would be chunks.

No chunks.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by smurfy

Phoenix, did dig up ice, and that was at landing, the ice was seen to disappear, that included the ground discolouration and then colour restoration, akin to a damp patch.

Yes, Phoenix exposed water ice. I don't recall anything about changes in soil color though, I'm pretty sure it sublimated away once exposed....yes.
www.nasa.gov...

Phoenix landed near the north pole. A region which becomes covered by the ice cap in the northern winter. A very different environment than Gale crater, near the equator.

Also, the choice of the crater landing is an important part of Curiosity's mission, to look for water, recent or otherwise around the crater's edge.

Curiosity isn't really looking for water and it won't be approaching the edge of Gale crater, in fact it's going in the other direction.

reply to post by Voldemorton


I know you weren't accusing me of posting anomonlies all the time. I just said it to make the point, I wasn't being defensive. Though another reason I said it was because another poster accused me of just making up some anomoly that's not really there trying to get stars and hits or whatever. I don't care about such things.

I posted this because it really looks like heavy moisture to me, and I was looking for public opinion on whether they see the same thing or not. A peer review if you will. And to me the peer review is pretty positive. Most people seem to agree it at least looks like moisture. And the majority of the critics seem to just be trolls with no real thoughts, and the good critics with actual thinking ability at least agree that it looks like moisture of some kind but have to come with at least some alternative theories like caked dust. The thinkers seem to at least think it's interesting.

Originally posted by openminded2011
...that water cannot exist as a liquid. Unless of course the water has some weird chemistry that allows it to be liquid at such low pressures. I have a feeling that NASA will not speculate without hard data to back it up.

Depends on the amount of other chemicals the water molecules might be attached to (salts for instance). If there are lots of salts present in this particular area, there is a fairly good chance that any moisture in the atmosphere could have been absorbed by the salts, and contained there in.


Interestingly, the tracks Curiosity has been leaving are different in many places, as it goes about it's travels. This suggests that the composition of the underlying materials that make up this particular area are quite diverse, which is a very good thing (for science).


Anyway, the presence of any underlying moisture deposits will soon be answered, as Curiosity isn't too far from the dark patches of terrain (at the the base of mount Sharp), that many have speculated on to be clays. If there is indeed some kind of heavily briny compound (consisting of some amount of water), we'll know about it soon enough, once Curiosity tests the soil in those areas. It has to cross them to get to the strata of Mount Sharp.