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.
Agreed, the explanation is simple speculation/conjecture.
Frankly I can't understand NASA's motivation. Just announcing that this is a very interesting anomaly and further investigation is required to identify it properly, surely plays in their favor (think, political support / funding.)
Instead, we get a weak, non-specific speculative press release, that as you say, is devoid of any mention of further study/investigation.
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.
Did you read what I said? I said "this better not be we're not going to look into it further" and I concluded with "NASA hasn't actually come out and said they definitely will not be looking into this further."
On a re-read it seems as though I did misinterpret what you said and overreacted. I'm sorry for that. However, I don't think any degree of anger at NASA is warranted here. They've put forward some explanations to help keep people from overreacting to these pictures, people should wait and give NASA enough time to study these objects more in depth to decide whether or not NASA is giving them enough scrutiny.
NASA has been unprecedentedly open and responsive with Curiosity science data, releasing it to the public with a much shorter delay than is the norm. Jumping all over NASA for being too open is precisely the wrong behavior. Be calm, be patient.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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