

That "door handle" on Mars explained - siavosh
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/msl/20130211/ventifacts.pdf

======
ComputerGuru
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>

~~~
InclinedPlane
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.

~~~
ComputerGuru
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."

~~~
InclinedPlane
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.

------
droithomme
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.

------
gnosis
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
Actually, there is a new explanation. It was swamp gas.

------
harlanlewis
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=i...](https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+erosion+rocks&tbm=isch)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_processes>

~~~
waterlesscloud
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.

------
sakopov
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
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
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>

------
zrgiu_
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
I agree. It's there to explore. Well, we found something. Explore it a little
further.

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

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

------
marcuspovey
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.

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

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

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

