Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

Larry, I'm letting you off the hook. Look like trace amounts of moisture causing dirt to cling to tracks unevenly. You ended you thread's title with a question mark...I see that a free get out of jail card for many around here...
No star but I'll give it a flag. Thanks for bringing the pix to my attention.

reply to post by Larry L

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.

No. A beach is a shoreline, not a lakebed. The two are quite different in the way they form. I wouldn't call Bonneville a beach.
Yes, the LZ is a lake bed, dry for more than a billion years.

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.

You can't say it's exactly same composition and texture as the top layer. Don't you find it interesting that Curiosity will be digging (about 2 inches) beneath the surface? Why do that if it was all the same stuff?

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).

How deep? How deep do you think those tracks are? Again, you don't understand how dry the atmosphere of Mars is.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

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 -

edit on 11-9-2012 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure what you're problem is. Yes, I say mud in the title, but did you even read the opening sentence of the post? I was clear to say I'm not talking like the rover is in a swamp bog kind of mud. I used "mud" as just a general term for damp dirt to have a nice tidy thread title.

And by the way......what is so "sensational" about moist dirt on Mars? The only sensationalism here is you making my post out to be sensational. I wasn't being sensational about it in any way. And considering how clear I feel the data is, I feel I'm pretty subdued about the whole thing.

Originally posted by Screwed
Looks like all of the usual suspects are here in force, doin' what they do best.
Damn they're quick too.

You all aren't getting paid nearly enough.

edit on 11-9-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

Out of your 2300 posts, how many of them (roughly) are pretty much the exact replica of your above post? I have seen you post pretty much the exact same thing, on numerous occasions.

reply to post by Voldemorton


Phoenix found ice and created moisture accidently on landing, it watched the ice disappear in later tests with the scoop. I imagine that Curiosity's wheels are doing much the same as the Phoenix lander pads and scoop.

reply to post by Larry L
After taking a closer look I think your right that looks like mud to me.I have enjoyed looking at the pics from Curiosity.I hope we get some more pics.

reply to post by Larry L


look at the Land Mass above the First Wheel
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

I must me going crazy in this photo forget the Mud on the Tire
look at the Dark thin Strip that look Some what like a Stream or a Crick ?
that has Been Soaken Up let alone The Banks of this long patch of Wetness you see Speckled of this Dark matter Could be Something I dont Know I haven been up in par of Curiosity and its finding if any

As Some Claim Dry River Bed Could be Question why So Dark just after a thousand by Billion of years

Is Curiosity going to go Towrds it? Check it out examine do some Test etc that would be the best place even if its a Ancinet dry river bed as Nasa said it is >?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Larry L

 

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.

No. A beach is a shoreline, not a lakebed. The two are quite different in the way they form. I wouldn't call Bonneville a beach.
Yes, the LZ is a lake bed, dry for more than a billion years.

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.

You can't say it's exactly same composition and texture as the top layer. Don't you find it interesting that Curiosity will be digging (about 2 inches) beneath the surface? Why do that if it was all the same stuff?

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).

How deep? How deep do you think those tracks are? Again, you don't understand how dry the atmosphere of Mars is.

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

EDIT- A beach is not "a shoreline", though we as people call shorelines beaches. But a beach is at it's most basic level, lakebed or seabed with no water on top of it. At high tide a section of beach is seabed, when the water receedes, that seabed is now beach. /edit

Phage.....there you go again speaking in absolutes when you have no authority to do so. No human on Earth does (at least officially). Whe have had real, hard surface data on Mars for a mere 40 to 50 years. We've only been recording our own history on this planet upon which we're stuck for a couple thousand years. How can you POSSIBLY say that any place on the surface of Mars has been dry for A BILLION YEARS !? How could you are anyone else even think they know that to be the case? It's silly......it's like a crazy conspiracy theory you've come to without any evidence of it what-so-ever.

Are you God? Do you have God as a good friend who TOLD you Mars has been dry for a billion years? How did you come up with that number? Someone at NASA said it? How the hell would that guy know? You're stating complete guesses on the part of humans as absolute fact. The reality is.........Mars could have died just a couple thousand years ago by some unknown cause......meteor strike....somehow being knocked out of it's original orbit......it's core could have stopped spinning enough to create a strong magnetic field and everything living on the surface was sterilized by cosmic radiation in the year of our Lord 213 a.d., and you wouldn't know the diference between what really happened and you just assuming it's been dead for a billion years.

You have to stop speaking in such absolutes about things not only you, but no one in the entire human race currently has any real knowledge of. Show me one single piece of evidence that proves this area of Mars (or any other for that matter) has been dry for ONE BILLION YEARS aside from the fact that it happens to be "dry" now.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by Screwed
Looks like all of the usual suspects are here in force, doin' what they do best.
Damn they're quick too.

You all aren't getting paid nearly enough.

edit on 11-9-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

Out of your 2300 posts, how many of them (roughly) are pretty much the exact replica of your above post? I have seen you post pretty much the exact same thing, on numerous occasions.

First of all, this is off topic.

But, why don't you look up all of my posts and run the numbers.
I don't have the time, nor the inclination.

Secondly,
I call it like I see it.
I LOVE sceptics.
They are very important here and have my deepest respect.
There are FAR too few of them on this site.

Most of what you'll see on the first few pages (I didn't make it past that) are not posts by sceptics at all though. They are posts by what's called "naysayers" or "terminal debunkers". I call them out and let others know what they're up to.
If you pay close attention you'll see that there are SEVERAL members here who show up in all of the same threads saying all of the same things. ALWAYS disagreeing with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING which even remotely challenges the status quoe or goes against the official government sanctioned authorized and approved version of reality.

Any thread or member which in anyway brings serious attention and discussion to ideas,opinions,beliefs, or new evidence
ALWAYS gets mocked,ridiculed,made fun of, put down,sidetracked,and/or derailed by the SAME people EVERYTIME on the FIRST page EVERYTIME.

Pat attention to the patterns.
You'll see.
........or..........maybe you won't.

Looking at pic number two, it dose look like there is a little dampness to some of the dirt on the tracks.

The different shades of color do look as if some of the dirt has dried out, while some of the darker dirt is still in the process of drying out.

Possibly a trick of the light or even moisture coming from the rover its self and making the dirt moist on the wheels.

Originally posted by StarTraveller
reply to post by Phage

 

Cool Image but...

Looks like a bird, understand that this may NOT be a bird too before people start bashing me lol

Well i think phage was right on this one it's the same in different pics so it's stationary on the lens.
As to the build up if you notice that the sand is forming in the middle of the track in this pic.
That would be most likely the contact points of the rim or whatever it's called making contact with the track causing static build up.
The pics in the op are different to me though.

That is the first time i have ever agreed with phage and just for the record i am writing this message to you from nibru.

reply to post by Larry L


In looking at the photos, its my guesstimation that the tires have gone through a slightly damp area. The only way to really prove it has gone through such an area would be to go through it again, but this time park the vehicle after the two different contrasts of material are located. Then if the darker material lightens up on the tire, then it definitely went through moisture; because evaporation would have lightened up the darker material.

If what we see in the photos was due to electrostatic cling, then I would not think that the electrostatic cling would be so thick; it would be very fine in texture and be WISPY thin and evenly located across the surfaces.

For those of you who still think it's mud, I have an experiment you can try at home.

Get some baby powder and sprinkle it on a hard floor, then drive a RC car through the dust.


You'll notice that it sticks to the tires even though there is no moisture present,


Same thing is going on here.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Now THAT is an interesting point!
I am glad you brought it up.
Makes so much sense when you think of it like that.

Thanks for the thought.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


That would not be accurate because of humidity here.
One is rubber the other is metal.


I have many hours on a dozer and i can tell you that when there is a build up on the tracks moisture is involved.

I'd say it's a bit muddy too. The spot they picked to land is below "martian sea level" which means that there's just enough pressure there for water to exist in the liquid state. But conditions would put water at or very near its triple point. Little nudges in pressure or temperature can cause a phase change. Meaning that if Mars weather changes it can freeze, evaporate, or become a liquid pretty quickly.

It's not just the wheel being wet with mud either (darker dirt where it sticks regardless of being in shadow or not), but I'd also say some atmospheric water (haze in distance), and what looks pretty much like a rivulet in the distant background of the second image linked on the first post.

This location seems to have enough going on in the pictures, that I'd say Mars has some form of active water cycle. Nowhere on the scale of that on Earth (compared to Earth, Mars is still very dry - obviously no large standing bodies of liquid water), but possibly one none the less. The NASA guys picked an interesting spot in that regard.

I think we'll have to wait for the rover to do some digging before we get an official say on just how wet that landing spot is. But the photos seem to say a lot on their own.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
For those of you who still think it's mud, I have an experiment you can try at home.

Get some baby powder and sprinkle it on a hard floor, then drive a RC car through the dust.


You'll notice that it sticks to the tires even though there is no moisture present,


Same thing is going on here.

1) How is there no moisture in your house?

2) There is moisture in your house and throughout the entirety of Earth's atmosphere. And baby powder absorbs moisture. So no matter what baby powder or any similar material like corn starch on earth has some moisture in it.

3) RC cars have rubber/soft plastic tires. Try your own experiment with a steel ball-bearing, that would be a more analogous test. And make sure that ball bearing has absolutely no moisture on it, which means you can't touch it with bear fingers.

I suspect even with the present moisture in the baby powder or corn starch, you wouldn't get "caking" that would stick beyond a single revolution.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Larry L

 

Well Im looking at the images on my Atari and its pretty obvious there is no mud.

What kind of Atari do you have? I didn't know they had computers these days.. I had a 400 an 800 and a 1600XL back in the day.

Sorry for the off topic post but I could not resist the question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The tires do look like the have caked on dirt to me. Only the presence of moisture can make a caking effect.

reply to post by Larry L

You're stating complete guesses on the part of humans as absolute fact.

No. I'm stating the highly educated opinions of people who have been studying the geology of Mars. I've read what they have to say and why they say it. Have you?

Mars could have died just a couple thousand years ago by some unknown cause......meteor strike....somehow being knocked out of it's original orbit

Really? Sort of like a billiard ball? And the planet would have been left intact after a collision like that?

it's core could have stopped spinning enough to create a strong magnetic field and everything living on the surface was sterilized by cosmic radiation in the year of our Lord 213 a.d.

Why would losing its magnetic field cause every living thing to be sterilized by cosmic radiation? Where did all the water go? The water which made the seas that once existed?

You have to stop speaking in such absolutes about things not only you, but no one in the entire human race currently has any real knowledge of. Show me one single piece of evidence that proves this area of Mars (or any other for that matter) has been dry for ONE BILLION YEARS aside from the fact that it happens to be "dry" now.

Have you bothered to look? Or would you rather just rely on your personal speculations?


Speaking of speaking in absolutes...

Here's a link to the two images where it's CLEARLY wet.

And then there is this (clearly not true):

Mind you, it's moving in this series of images.

untill something comes along and and points to other possible scenarios and then those that have been studying the same thing for many years and thinking their finding are factual will ague black and blue everyone is wrong and they are right.


I can not imagine someone that has spent their entire working life dedicated to researching something to find that 1 picture can turn there entire life work on its head.