Subscription Center
August 27, 2012 | 51
Like an adventurer of old, NASA's Curiosity rover is using its spyglass to scope out some as-yet unexplored environs.
The image above comes from Curiosity's 100-millimeter telephoto camera, which, according to NASA, has about three times the resolving power of any previous landscape camera deployed on the Red Planet.
The literally otherworldly landscape has been colorized both for visual appeal and to highlight geologic differences in the soil types. "It's probably a little bit more pastel and pinker than it would be to your eye," geologist Mike Malin said during an August 27 press briefing. His company, Malin Space Science Systems, built four of the cameras for the rover mission, including the Mars Descent Imager that documented Curiosity's landing in high-res color.
For scale, Malin noted that the black dot in the center of the white square (blown up in detail, below right) is a boulder with roughly the same dimensions of the car-size Curiosity itself. The boulder is about 10 kilometers away at the base of Mount Sharp, the eventual destination for the rover and the planned focus of its exploration.
See what we're tweeting about
gmusser N.J. is the 7th best state for cyclists. Which gives you a sense of how awful most of the country must be. http://t.co/dbWAAi7atN
gstix1 Tech Giant Sees a Competitive Advantage in Hiring Autistic Workers: http://t.co/fwWMzxRpMy gmusser "Some curves are so convoluted they wriggle free of the one-dimensional world and fill up space." Awesome math story. http://t.co/1HymznWXG1
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
51 Comments
Add CommentJohn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post made me so furious I had to finally register for SA so I could post. Your post is rather political in nature for a scientific blog. If you want to argue about government spending I highly suggest you look up the cost of the war in the Middle East.
NASA creates a wealth of achievements and technology for the average American. They inspire and allow children to dream. When I was a kid I one day dreamed of going to space or wanted to be a astronaut just as any other child would with their imagination. I wanted to be a scientist due to this agency that "wastes money". I never did become the scientist I wanted to be but at least for a while as a child I had a dream.
Budget crusades such as this is hurting our national pride and our ability to take care of each other. We need more revenue streams not budget cuts, to create a nation that dreams. I strongly believe that our nation should increase NASA's budget by tenfold because someday I hope my children will be inspired by the pictures sent of Saturn's rings or of the crew of our first man-made mission to Mars.
As far as the article goes. I couldn't be more excited to see a high-resolution image and could only wish that I could see what the camera sees. Congratulations on the milestone NASA! Can't wait to see more pictures in the coming months!
Joshua B Findlay, Oh
$2.5 billion is about $8.10 per person in the United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd so these crazy arguments go on. Let's look at first things first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's preserve the earth before we try to rescue the Martian desert. That is project enough - maybe too much for us, so we can fantasize about Mars and living on other worlds - like children.
Disney is our level, and we shall die from it..
where, exactly, do you think those billions went? Hint... it's all people's wages, for their jobs, so they can pay their taxes and feed their families. Get it? Just a great big circle... all the way to the moon, and Mars, and Saturn, and points beyond. Sure, fire all those money-grubbing, money-wasting, scientists and engineers... the money they each waste could surly pay for at least 4 more people on welfare, which there would be if they didn't have work. Of course, the people on welfare are not going to prove that life could start on another planet and thus shut up all the "God did it" and "the Earth is Rare" people. People on welfare aren't going to design a new rocket motor to blast even larger payloads into space... which might prove useful at some point, your lack of imagination not withstanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, let's get all the university educated PHD-accredited, NASA geeks out there driving trucks to make roads. Better yet, give them a shovel... yeah... that will pay back their student loans. Oh, you want a nation full of blue-collar workers, makin' stuff and all. Roads that connect nowhere to nothin' important. Sorry, people don't want those jobs... no shortage of those jobs at all, at least not for those willing to move.
Sure... give money to the poor, so they can buy cheap junk made in China and increase your trade deficit. At least the NASA scientists are paying for stuff that's made in your country, even if it's ridiculously over-priced because, well, the guy making it won't work for $2 per hour.
Pure scientific research, like a power-projecting military, amounts to high-end welfare. Yeah, it's wasteful, but so is welfare. At least at the high end, there's a chance of payback. Don't you think people have thought about this? Don't you see the dead-end where your policy ideas would lead?
johngeorge, did you try doing the math required to justify your post? The $10 billion you come up with could provide $32 worth of food to each of the 311 million+ Americans ONE TIME. It is hardly anywhere near enough to provide free food, healthcare, and everything else you listed off in your rant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese amazing photos show our technology is clearly to be admired; advanced, fantastic even. Their high resolution photos reveal layer-upon-layer of water-laid sediments... almost a "Grand Canyon" like layer-cake geology. The problem is that, unlike the GC, these sediments are ALL billions of years old. There is abundant evidence of life in Earth's GC rocks, except at the very bottom. But, this is where the two part ways. Curiosity will start.. at the bottom... in the oldest of billion-year old rocks. We can look forward to some interesting geology and geochemistry, but don't hold your breath about evidence of life, past or present. The Gale Crater rocks are way too old!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, if you landed something in Death Valley USA, or any of a number of other places on this planet, John, you might assume there is no life here either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut take a look at the website below with images from the prior Mars orbiter (with links to the ACTUAL NASA library images). Website is "Mars Anomaly Research".
Best image is (for me): http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2001/019/colossal-trees.htm
from Mars south pole.
Or apparent lakes of water: http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/221/real-mars.htm
The guy does a decent job of verifying his information and showing where NASA tried to "hide" what was there.
Yeah, I know, conspiracy theory written all over it. But just because you are paranoid doesn't mean everyone ISN'T out to get you.
exactly- if we could explore the planets rather than fight on Earth what a future we could look forward to!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjoshua, what about our ozone layer? every rocket, from every country is burning our ozone layer to pieces. huge holes every time one goes up.why do you think we have ice caps melting? why the terrible weather? no rain? who started all this? why do you think nasa quit sending up rockets and hired it out? our ozone is just about shot. can't you tell that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou realize that weapons of war are powered by rockets, and diesel engines. I'm not saying that the carbon foot print of the solid state rockets are small, but 1000 upon 1000 of vehicles run the military. Most are needed to protect the average solider everyday which is well spent but the amount of fuel and therefor carbon foot print needed to move our armed forces to a conflict zone is by far superior.
The terrible weather, if you read most of SA is attributed to a multitude of things including possible carbon foot prints, this is also refereed to as global weirding. There is certainly no single source for whatever it is that is happening out there. Either way those are all good questions that you should be asking a scientist you trust, I'm not an expert and don't pretend to be.
In the end NASA has not individually created Ozone issues, and if anything it has helped us address them through the reconnaissance missions they've launched. Accomplished with the space program they helped pioneer. Technology such as GPS wouldn't be possible without NASA. Yes, the military designed it to help themselves, but NASA's ingenuity put it there.
-Josh
People, Johngeorge is what is known as a troll. Trolls will write inane, idiotic, and juvenile diatribes with the intent of irritating people. Trolls, with an IQ a few points above a rock and no facts to base their lunacy get satisfaction merely from an angry response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree Josh we need to shut down all this silly science that accomplishes nothing. Of course I bet you have a smart phone, a big screen TV, a computer and all the other luxuries of the modern world but don't associate them with science. Many of these if not directly were indirectly from the science of NASA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile we're at it let's stop STEM in schools, if we're not going to have science jobs why teach our children science at all? We can all move to service type jobs, waiting on people,flipping burgers, personal trainers, palm readers and etc.. Of course the catch is you'll have to move to India or China to work, because that's where all the good jobs will be and people who can afford to pay for services.
I don't know what you do for a living Josh but I bet with a little research you can trace it back to science.
John,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRightly do us all a favor and shut it. You think the government and its agencies are what wrong with America and the world, when in stark reality, its people like yourself. Trolls are always wrong.
geo, here is a nice article about the image processing in the mastcam: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2012/08241439-mastcam-bayer.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf explorers never travelled to the "new" world, we'd still be bound by the social, political, economic and religious constraints of all that is Europe. If we do not find out how to explore (and ultimately consume) the resources that are in space, we will over-explore and ultimately consume all that is Earth and only kill ourselves off. Quite literally, deep space is the only human pathway to survival. We have sufficiently shown that we are unable to control our exploitative nature. Expensive? What price survival of the species?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to all here who continue to point out that all the money spent on salaries related to Space exploration is one incredible jobs program, made in the USA. The hardware AND software that NASA develops continues to move us forward into the future. No need to get upset with trolls and or ignorance, their posts only provide everyone else an opportunity to set the record straight. As far as our rights to freedom of expression and with all due respect to our veterans of wars since Vietnam, THOSE trillions of dollars could have and should have been better spent. Meanwhile, I get to enjoy these latest developments in Space exploration. How far we have come since my watching men land on the moon, fuzzy pictures of the planets, and total lack of evidence of exoplanets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn I appreciate your passion and desire for change. But you sound like you're repeating numbers and ideas you heard from somebody else. A source I'm sure you trust. But do yourself a favor and work out the details of things. As many have already pointed out the error in the math for free food forever... I wish it was that simple otherwise I WOULD crusade for it. To compare NASA to the money spent on say, the recent bank bail out watch Dr DeGrasse-Tyson's video "rant."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPMl4JwJvMs
Even though I'm a former Marine I haven't agreed with any conflict overseas since WWII. Anyway I don't want to argue ideological policy I just want to hopefully encourage you to do some research and REALLY educate yourself about the things you care so deeply about.
Best Regards,
Jim
Please come back here once it is found that a large asteroid is aimed at the Earth. Thinking only of Earth in isolation is not a good idea, because that's not the real situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven obsessing only about the human species is unacceptably short-sighted, as our current environmental predicament shows.
Broaden your horizons, you'll be safer.
This single photo is an amazing revelation in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisitself, not only in its high resolution, but it
clearly shows new kinds of landforms not seen by
any land rovers, but only from orbit. And now
we'll begin to see this wonderful planet's ongoing
life of formation, its architectonics, utterly
independent of everything of the geological life
of our Earth, up close and personal.. How did
these strata form? When? Can they possibly retain
remnants of early Martian experiments in life?
What else can we find and what, as yet, unsuspected
mysteries will tap at Curiosity's sensors eventually?
The occasional snarling about money wasted and better
spent on other things is the thoughtless and sometimes
sinister result of the defunding of genuinely needful
and healthy human endeavors such as teaching, public
education, science, arts, public health and many more.
This artificially competitive shell game inevitably breaks out like a ravaging fever when the real monies
and wealth of the country becomes more densely packed
in the purses of a more naked oligarchy and its beltway
minions, which truly have no serious interest in the
higher welfare of the several hundred millions in the
communities across this increasingly divided-against-
itself land. Science, NASA, education, health, retire-
ment, infrastructure, arts, music, ie: different
walks and pursuits in life simply do not have one
another as enemies, as competitors. There IS enough
wealth for all of these things. We have just been
hoodwinked into thinking it's all about scarcity.
So we fight and fret and point fingers and completely
miss who has been calling the tune. The great
generation of the 1930s and 1940s, who valiantly
took up arms against fascism, and who had developed
a particularly tough, skeptical view of the rich
and the super-rich and powerful, because they had
to suffer the great depression... they could tell
us who is calling the tune, almost invisibly from
on high.
depression
With "Free Speech" comes nincompoops, just like this johngeorge .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, he might just be the Director of Publicity at NASA trying to generate some extra buzz by saying outlandishly stupid things on this forum!! That makes more sense.
You are right comrade. Camrades Statlin, Castro, and Marx agrees with you. The government should be taking care of you and running your life and not wasting money on things like this that create highly technical jobs and produces a myriad of offshoot marketable products and increases the knowledge of our little corner of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to believe that the chlorofluorocarbons and other refrigerants we used for decades without knowing the devastation we were wreaking on our ozone layer destroyed a lot more of the precious O3 than the rockets we have launched.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another note.... Why are we wasting time and resources transmitting a speech to Curiosity so we can listen to it here on Earth? And they are planning to transmit a song next? I think we need science done with Curiosity, not trivialities....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, don't respond to the trolls.... They all turn to stone if caught outside at sunrise. Light reveals who and what they are.
Johngeorge writes: "...our ozone is just about shot. can't you tell that?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo evidence for that John! Pure nonsense for Earth. But on Mars there isn't any ozone so if life is or was there it would have had to evolve, survive and live in the soil or under a rock to avoid the full impact of solar UV. Pretty tough on photosynthesis (trees?), which needs visible light.
NASA money is one of the best spent money in the USA and is useful to all mankind. Only USA and China have interest in a real space programs the russians anymore just money, but maybe from them you can see how to do all this and win money
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Stargene
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article attaches the image of Mars surface, presumably within Gale crater, taken from 100 mm telephoto camera. It describes some details of the cameras which took this image and Mars descent Imager which took the images of descent of rover over Mars surface. Other than this, article does not mention any thing about scientific or geological inferences which can be drawn from the image.
Most of the comments are speaking of economic and political implications of undertaking such costly projects rather than scientific aspects. I am based in India, as such, unaware of economic and political implications of costly projects for American society. My interest is more in scientific and universal aspects of such projects which in due course shall benefit whole humankind on this planet.
Mr stargene. you mentioned that image shows the landforms probably taken from orbit
"but it clearly shows new kinds of landforms not seen by
any land rovers, but only from orbit."
It appears to me also that wide landscape as indicated in the image probably might have been taken from some camera located at some height above Gale crater either from some orbiter or some other rover of NASA/ESA. . But the article mentions that image has been captured by Curiosity's camera. Why an article in a reputed magazine like SA will hide facts? As such, we should take the quote in the article as factually correct that image has been taken from a camera attached to Curiosity rover.
But what we can we infer from the image in scientific or geological terms?
NASA is ruining the ozone? What a dolt... you do know that the majority of what you see trailing behind a rocket is steam, right? And that the Atlas V uses only a little more than 600K pounds, combined, of liquid oxygen and RP-1? There is less RP-1 in a rocket than fuel in a semi tanker running down the highway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVino... "But what we can we infer from the image in scientific or geological terms?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can infer that there are many Earth-like flat-lying layers of water-laid sediments that are billions of years old.
johngeorge,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is Scientific American, not Paranoid Delusion American. When you make up nonsense like, "every rocket, from every country is burning our ozone layer to pieces," it serves only as entertainment to anyone who knows this statement is totally untrue (and physically impossible). What's next: You're afraid the sky is falling because those rockets keep poking holes in it?
"We can infer that there are many Earth-like flat-lying layers of water-laid sediments that are billions of years old. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPossibly. More likely aeolian.
Re costs. I think this is a good use of NASA dollars but this does't mean that most NASA budgets have been well spent. hundreds of millions for an unmanned rover is a plus...hundreds of billions to put boots on Mars is a waste of research dollars.
truittjs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize if you thought that I was implying that science should be shut down. I strongly believe all science research should be funded well beyond the current levels. I am an engineering technician since you asked. I deal with all things science.
Perhaps you meant John and not Josh, but I thought it best to respond anyhow.
-Josh
johngeorge is a logical result of those who have bought into the wispy, biased, science propaganda of climate "science" where decreasing technology is hailed as progress. We are reaping the attitudes which they have sown. The only proper niche for Man is huddling and shivering in some cave. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, if we removed the tax exempt status for religions, we could do all of those things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd send a rover to Mars every three weeks or so.
Johngeorge: NASA's rockets don't harm the ozone layer, and, contrary to your information, the ozone layer has been slowly rebuilding ever since hydroflurocarbons were largely discontinued and controlled. Many people see the huge clouds of vapor surrounding rocket launches and automatically assume that they are polluting our atmosphere. They don't. They burn hydrogen and oxygen, forming water vapor--not pollution. The burning doesn't use oxygen from the atmosphere, it uses the oxygen that is carried up in the rocket itself. Your concern it understandable, but mistaken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe this is kind of a dumb question (I hope not), but why do we have to colorize the pictures? Why not just equip the Curiosity with cameras that can take color photographs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisG. Karst, that was a rather thinly veiled attempt to discredit climate science, which has nothing to do with Johngeorge's total failure. No climate scientists will tell you to not to use technology. What they would like you to do is use cleaner technology for power generation so we don't pollute as much while we use our modern technology. Do we have to burn gasoline for fuel to power our modern technology? No. However, we still need further research to make alternative energy as cheap as fossil fuel and nuclear fission, which the technophobic an myopic politicians criticize as waste of money in researching failures. There is a Chinese saying, "Failure is the mother of success." If you are too afraid to fail, you will never try, and you will never one day succeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for Johngeorge's problem, he is just another example of the USA being ranked in the bottom half in math and sciences. Religious extremists are waging a war on science in this country and impeding our own progress, which doesn't really help an already bad situation, that other countries are overtaking us. We are losing our place as #1 country in the world and getting further and further away from the top spot because of short-sighted policies these "technophobes" are advocating, even though almost every one of them (unless they happen to be Amish) are enjoying the fruits of decades of technological advancement.
@johngeorge - Your ignorance and simple mindedness both infuriate and annoy me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaunching rockets do not destroy the ozone layer, nor are holes in the ozone layer responsible for the melting polar ice caps. The major constituent responsible for what you are referring to is the chlorine. Which is produced by the solid rocket booster in the upper atmosphere which subsequently attacks ozone, but please, pay attention to this next part. At the highest rate of space shuttle launches (circa 1985) the release of chlorine was about 725,000 kg. annually, that may sound like a lot but consider this. Industrial emissions release 300,000,000 kg of chlorine into the atmosphere, that is over 400 times more than the space shuttle AND NASA did not continue to launch rockets/shuttles at that pace.
As far as the polar ice caps melting, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducted a study in 2008 and found that the ice caps at the south pole (where the ozone hole is) are colder and more resistant to melting than the north pole (where the ozone hole is not). They stated in their conclusion that a thinner layer of ozone contributes to more/better wind patterns and thus keeps the more colder air circulating, thus minimizing melting.
The 'terrible weather' and 'no rain' observations you make are dully noted, and that being said I don't believe any of us are qualified to make or even have a chance at making an educated guess as to what the root cause is. I recommend you leave this issue alone or come back to the table with more than a poorly constructed argument.
NASA stopped sending rockets up not due to the effect on the ozone but due to the indiscriminate budget cuts. I applaud NASA for accepting their profession's fate by looking through a utilitarian-stained glass window, and not their hate-filled, ignorance-fueled, demoralizing stained-glass window. Furthermore, I think one point you make negates the other. If NASA has an "endless supply of money" (which is why they can build these expensive rockets), then why shutdown the space shuttle program. Does that make much sense?
My fellow autodidacts have crushed, with sufficient force, your abysmal attempt at, shall we call it, "persuasive mathematics". Grab a calculator, the most recent budgetary figures and please try again.
I'll reiterate what Joshua B said before, please take your political discourse away from this hitherto untarnished scientific realm. I wish you the best on these posts and in life. Please let us relish in the wonder of human discovery in peace.
I don't normally enter into these threads. But johngeorge's comments are just too outrageous to ignore. I am constantly amazed by Americans. So much ignorance in a country typified by innovation and invention. This growing divergence baseed upon political parties. One side based on rationalism and the other on superstition and dogma. I digress. If the likes of John were in power, we would still think the world is flat. (maybe he does?) North America would still be waiting to be discovered by the Europeans and the sun would be revolving around the Earth. He rants of the cost of the Nasa programs. Disregarding the difficult to quantify benefits of scientific innovation trickling down, the costs are insignificant to the billions wasted by the US military every year. I do not need to itemize these ridiculous sums, they are well known. I can't but note one though. $8.2 billion for a nuclear submarine. Can there be any greater waste of resouces. (see: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-25/nuclear-submarine-may-cost-1-billion-more-than-navy-s-estimate-cbo-says.html) But many Americans seem to think that their societal, pathological, paranoia demands this. I am sure John has no problem spending these sums for weapons! Without nations such as America willing to spend funds on basic research and exploration, humanity would be mired in eternal navel-gazing. History will remember America for its' exploration into space, not how many nukes it had stockplied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't fool me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this ranting is but a smokescreen to cover the fact that the gizmo up there was zapping stones with its laser. Just shooting along, left and right.
Fine. Just remember when the tripods come to retaliate and all heck breaks lose, WE FIRED THE FIRST SHOT.
Do I have to raise the JK sign here? J.K.
Lighten up, people =)
C'mon folks, John is a message board archetype, bordering on cliche. Just because he puts that stinking bait out there doesn't mean you HAVE to take it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm with you, Joshua B. - out of the caves and into the stars!! Sign me up! (And we'll just leave johngeorge alone to squat under his rock for as long as he likes...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNah...why not send him to Mars in one of the future rocket launches? Nothing convinces a person more than a real life experience of the sort he rails about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe the good side of Mars exploration is that we can send all the people there who want a monoculture of humans and their support systems, and leave at lest some of Earth Global Park to nature, including the few nature-respecting people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is a made made mission to Mars. Could someone else besides man do it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishere you go:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://costofwar.com/
now the majority of the *private contractors* involved were friends of the bush administration.
http://www.alternet.org/story/41083/the_10_most_brazen_war_profiteers?page=0%2C0
Oh stop all ya'lls arguing, the Earth is going to end on December 21st of this year anyway, So just have fun and enjoy what's left of life:)======;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this""
we could send the entire bush administration to mars and solve a lot of problems!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah, yeah, I know there is a new administration, but we are still suffering the fallout from bush and they are profiting from the wars to this day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
Or over the life of the project since inception and conclusion about the price of one fattening useless coke per year. Well worth it, isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the sediment layers are from water, perhaps there were some forms of life in it once. But how do you dig for fossils on another planet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarth may be like Mars in a billion years.
Strata a result of volcanism and landforms a result of wind erosion? Really strong winds - notice dominate slope angles - as in ventifacts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisParticle size and content would help. Where are the dunes (if any)? If particle size is small the dynamics of wind erosion will require study to help understand what we are seeing.
Thank you NASA.