7 ms·

That "door handle" on Mars explained

43 points by siavosh 14y ago

zrgiu_ 14y ago
still, wouldn't it be better to confirm by either getting closer to it, or photographing it from another angle ? I know that they probably have every minute planned for Curiosity, but obviously if they saw something worth derailing for a few hours they should do it, no?
- bittermang 14y ago
  I agree. It's there to explore. Well, we found something. Explore it a little further.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
hakaaaaak 14y ago
Looks like the upper half of this: http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/images/war_worlds_pal_8_x.jpg http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/images/war_worlds_pal_8_x....
gnosis 14y ago
The analysis show several examples of eroded rocks on earth, but none of them look much like the object in question on Mars. In particular, none of the examples look metallic, nor are they nearly as thin or protruding in just one place like the object in question.
- readme 14y ago
  Actually, there is a new explanation. It was swamp gas.
ComputerGuru 14y ago
I'm a little disappointed with the quality of the explanation. It's conjecture at best, and while this is a good theory, this better not be NASA saying "we're convinced this is what it is, we're not going to look into it further; case closed." It's a good hypothesis, and now the scientific method mandates that they prove it. I realize nothing the Curiosity does is free - any decision to investigate something comes with the opportunity cost of investing something else in the same time. However, as far as I can tell from the cursory glances I've had at the Curiosity archives to date, this is certainly one of the more intriguing things it's come across till now, and it would be nice to have a look at it. Curiosity's mission is (purposely and rightfully) somewhat vague and open-ended; however the number one stated goal (IIRC) for Curiosity is geological research - one would think that this fits squarely into that category. All that aside, the photos they have published in the linked PDF (it loads super-slow, btw. Use the scribd link or the nyud cache) are less than damning proof. None of the "similar photos" they post really are that close of a match, and their conjectures about different rock types still fail to arrive at a conclusion as to what juxtaposition of different elements/minerals are we looking at in that "ventifact." Also, given that the last time Mars had the atmosphere or potentially water required for that sort of erosion to occur was likely several billion years ago, I find the odds that neither - a) this hasn't been completely weathered down nor b) this is one of many and we should have seen much more of it if it truly is just a result of normal erosion - are apparently the case to be a little hard to swallow. Then again, I could be jumping the gun. NASA hasn't actually come out and said they definitely will not be looking into this further, though their official post on the matter [0] is suspiciously devoid of any mention to the contrary. 0: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130211.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130211.html
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Um, where are you getting the "we're not going to look into it further; case closed" part? This is NASA saying "hey, here's how things like this can form, sometimes, please stop freaking out". But that's a far cry from saying that it's not still interesting or from saying that they don't plan on studying it more. The overwhelming likelihood here is that this is "just a rock". And I think it's fully justified for NASA to dump a substantial amount of water on the overheated ideas that it's some sort of alien artifact.
CoffeeDregs 14y ago
Strange. I understand the point the slides are making: over geologic time periods, the erosion of rocks is very complicated. It certainly seems possible that xenobiologists are saying "of course, the slides are spot-on"... But, as merely an MSEE/MSOtherStuff, the slides don't reduce my curiosity in the least*. My curiosity about this stuff could certainly be a personal thing/defect, so I don't want to discount the idea that winds and sand could produce the observed structure... But it certainly suggests more than a craggy geode. And here we brush the realm of Creationists: it's tempting to say that nothing but intelligent life could have produced the "door handle", but that's "irreducible complexity". The mere thought process that these two things could be linked produces two simultaneous thoughts: that's a door handle on Mars!!!!, because nothing natural could have produced it!!!; and, now I'm guilty of non-falsifiable thinking because I want it to be true.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I say laser it and see if it shoots back :-) Ok that is too silly. I'm betting its a chunk of basaltic glass.
sakopov 14y ago
That just doesn't look like a rock formation to me. And nothing shown in that article even remotely resembles this object. If i had to guess i'd say we could be looking at our own trash from failed exploration programs.
- harlanlewis 14y ago
  The USA four corners area (especially Utah) has some wonderfully alien terrain covered in formations like this. I've walked over fields of bizarre door handles, thin porches, endless wormholes, and smooth pockmarks. Imagine the signature formations of Arches National Park, but done at 1/16 scale and dotting a square acre. It's amazing what shapes are left behind when a soft, sedimentary rock surrounds and then erodes from denser igneous and metamorphic. I'm just a guy who likes to walk outside and certainly not a scientist, but this looks very much like a unique and fascinating protrusion of dense polished rock or metal. Simplest explanation and all that.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    I completely agree. Goblin Valley[1] is completely uncanny, and it is only one of many places in the area. 1. You may know it better as the place Jason Nesmith's crew went looking for a beryllium sphere before Nesmith had to fight a gorignak. http://stateparks.utah.gov/parks/goblin-valley http://stateparks.utah.gov/parks/goblin-valley
  - sakopov 14y ago
    You may be onto something. For some reason i thought it was a large formation when in reality it is only half a centimeter tall. At that size i don't see why it couldn't be some sort of weird rock formation. The two circular shapes above look interesting though. That's probably what throws many people off.
- fhars 14y ago
  Try this one, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Im_Salar_de_Uyuni.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Im_Salar_de_Uyuni.jpg
MrBra 14y ago
Wow, I thought it was a joke. Then I saw it's hosted at nasa.gov ...
droithomme 14y ago
Hm. This would have been a lot more convincing if any of the example photos were also of metallic looking things that came out and bent at a weird angle. I certainly understand and am familiar with how rocks may contain different materials that erode at different rates, often leaving protrusions. It's not clear to me what sort of material was in the rock that would erode around it to leave such a shape that was found. Perhaps on earth if you had a deposit of metal that melted in volcanic action and then filled a crack or seam in a rock which was in a later age pushed up? This does bring up another point of curiosity - with so little water on the ground, the atmosphere of Mars is likely very dry as well. Would metals oxidize as easily on Mars? Probably not. Perhaps any oxidation that did occur would be little enough to be sand blasted off from the dust storms, leaving exposed metal deposits remaining shiny.
harlanlewis 14y ago
I'm a bit surprised by the skepticism in this thread. Our own planet is home to equally bizarre formations. https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+erosion+rocks&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+erosion+rocks&tbm=i... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_processes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_processes
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  It's not skepticism as much as it is dissatisfaction at a poor explanation from NASA. Ok, it's formed by wind erosion. What is it made of? Why does it look different than anything else in the landscape? Can they show an example that actually looks like this one? And most importantly, why is this less interesting to look at than whatever they're racing off to? None of that is addressed.
- Natsu 14y ago
  See also: http://images.google.com/search?q=goblin+valley&tbm=isch http://images.google.com/search?q=goblin+valley&tbm=isch
ForFreedom 14y ago
Amazing that anything suspicious on Mars is followed by a graphic scientific explanation.
TallboyOne 14y ago
Maybe this is really stupid but why can't they just drive it closer for a better look?
marcuspovey 14y ago
Ok, so it's not some Martian's door handle (never thought it was). For me that doesn't in any way detract from the "Holy crap, I'm looking at a photo of rocks on another planet" awe of the whole situation.

43 points by siavosh 14y ago

still, wouldn't it be better to confirm by either getting closer to it, or photographing it from another angle ? I know that they probably have every minute planned for Curiosity, but obviously if they saw something worth derailing for a few hours they should do it, no?

bittermang 14y ago
I agree. It's there to explore. Well, we found something. Explore it a little further.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

hakaaaaak 14y ago

Looks like the upper half of this: http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/images/war_worlds_pal_8_x.jpg http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/images/war_worlds_pal_8_x....

gnosis 14y ago

The analysis show several examples of eroded rocks on earth, but none of them look much like the object in question on Mars. In particular, none of the examples look metallic, nor are they nearly as thin or protruding in just one place like the object in question.

readme 14y ago
Actually, there is a new explanation. It was swamp gas.

ComputerGuru 14y ago

I'm a little disappointed with the quality of the explanation. It's conjecture at best, and while this is a good theory, this better not be NASA saying "we're convinced this is what it is, we're not going to look into it further; case closed." It's a good hypothesis, and now the scientific method mandates that they prove it. I realize nothing the Curiosity does is free - any decision to investigate something comes with the opportunity cost of investing something else in the same time. However, as far as I can tell from the cursory glances I've had at the Curiosity archives to date, this is certainly one of the more intriguing things it's come across till now, and it would be nice to have a look at it. Curiosity's mission is (purposely and rightfully) somewhat vague and open-ended; however the number one stated goal (IIRC) for Curiosity is geological research - one would think that this fits squarely into that category. All that aside, the photos they have published in the linked PDF (it loads super-slow, btw. Use the scribd link or the nyud cache) are less than damning proof. None of the "similar photos" they post really are that close of a match, and their conjectures about different rock types still fail to arrive at a conclusion as to what juxtaposition of different elements/minerals are we looking at in that "ventifact." Also, given that the last time Mars had the atmosphere or potentially water required for that sort of erosion to occur was likely several billion years ago, I find the odds that neither - a) this hasn't been completely weathered down nor b) this is one of many and we should have seen much more of it if it truly is just a result of normal erosion - are apparently the case to be a little hard to swallow. Then again, I could be jumping the gun. NASA hasn't actually come out and said they definitely will not be looking into this further, though their official post on the matter [0] is suspiciously devoid of any mention to the contrary. 0: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130211.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130211.html

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Um, where are you getting the "we're not going to look into it further; case closed" part? This is NASA saying "hey, here's how things like this can form, sometimes, please stop freaking out". But that's a far cry from saying that it's not still interesting or from saying that they don't plan on studying it more. The overwhelming likelihood here is that this is "just a rock". And I think it's fully justified for NASA to dump a substantial amount of water on the overheated ideas that it's some sort of alien artifact.

CoffeeDregs 14y ago

Strange. I understand the point the slides are making: over geologic time periods, the erosion of rocks is very complicated. It certainly seems possible that xenobiologists are saying "of course, the slides are spot-on"... But, as merely an MSEE/MSOtherStuff, the slides don't reduce my curiosity in the least*. My curiosity about this stuff could certainly be a personal thing/defect, so I don't want to discount the idea that winds and sand could produce the observed structure... But it certainly suggests more than a craggy geode. And here we brush the realm of Creationists: it's tempting to say that nothing but intelligent life could have produced the "door handle", but that's "irreducible complexity". The mere thought process that these two things could be linked produces two simultaneous thoughts: that's a door handle on Mars!!!!, because nothing natural could have produced it!!!; and, now I'm guilty of non-falsifiable thinking because I want it to be true.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I say laser it and see if it shoots back :-) Ok that is too silly. I'm betting its a chunk of basaltic glass.

sakopov 14y ago

That just doesn't look like a rock formation to me. And nothing shown in that article even remotely resembles this object. If i had to guess i'd say we could be looking at our own trash from failed exploration programs.

harlanlewis 14y ago
The USA four corners area (especially Utah) has some wonderfully alien terrain covered in formations like this. I've walked over fields of bizarre door handles, thin porches, endless wormholes, and smooth pockmarks. Imagine the signature formations of Arches National Park, but done at 1/16 scale and dotting a square acre. It's amazing what shapes are left behind when a soft, sedimentary rock surrounds and then erodes from denser igneous and metamorphic. I'm just a guy who likes to walk outside and certainly not a scientist, but this looks very much like a unique and fascinating protrusion of dense polished rock or metal. Simplest explanation and all that.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I completely agree. Goblin Valley[1] is completely uncanny, and it is only one of many places in the area. 1. You may know it better as the place Jason Nesmith's crew went looking for a beryllium sphere before Nesmith had to fight a gorignak. http://stateparks.utah.gov/parks/goblin-valley http://stateparks.utah.gov/parks/goblin-valley
- sakopov 14y ago
  You may be onto something. For some reason i thought it was a large formation when in reality it is only half a centimeter tall. At that size i don't see why it couldn't be some sort of weird rock formation. The two circular shapes above look interesting though. That's probably what throws many people off.
fhars 14y ago
Try this one, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Im_Salar_de_Uyuni.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Im_Salar_de_Uyuni.jpg

MrBra 14y ago

Wow, I thought it was a joke. Then I saw it's hosted at nasa.gov ...

droithomme 14y ago

Hm. This would have been a lot more convincing if any of the example photos were also of metallic looking things that came out and bent at a weird angle. I certainly understand and am familiar with how rocks may contain different materials that erode at different rates, often leaving protrusions. It's not clear to me what sort of material was in the rock that would erode around it to leave such a shape that was found. Perhaps on earth if you had a deposit of metal that melted in volcanic action and then filled a crack or seam in a rock which was in a later age pushed up? This does bring up another point of curiosity - with so little water on the ground, the atmosphere of Mars is likely very dry as well. Would metals oxidize as easily on Mars? Probably not. Perhaps any oxidation that did occur would be little enough to be sand blasted off from the dust storms, leaving exposed metal deposits remaining shiny.

harlanlewis 14y ago

I'm a bit surprised by the skepticism in this thread. Our own planet is home to equally bizarre formations. https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+erosion+rocks&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+erosion+rocks&tbm=i... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_processes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_processes

waterlesscloud 14y ago
It's not skepticism as much as it is dissatisfaction at a poor explanation from NASA. Ok, it's formed by wind erosion. What is it made of? Why does it look different than anything else in the landscape? Can they show an example that actually looks like this one? And most importantly, why is this less interesting to look at than whatever they're racing off to? None of that is addressed.
Natsu 14y ago
See also: http://images.google.com/search?q=goblin+valley&tbm=isch http://images.google.com/search?q=goblin+valley&tbm=isch

ForFreedom 14y ago

Amazing that anything suspicious on Mars is followed by a graphic scientific explanation.

TallboyOne 14y ago

Maybe this is really stupid but why can't they just drive it closer for a better look?

marcuspovey 14y ago

Ok, so it's not some Martian's door handle (never thought it was). For me that doesn't in any way detract from the "Holy crap, I'm looking at a photo of rocks on another planet" awe of the whole situation.