[HN Gopher] NASA's Curiosity rover discovers a surprise in a Mar...
___________________________________________________________________
NASA's Curiosity rover discovers a surprise in a Martian rock
Author : Ozarkian
Score : 145 points
Date : 2024-07-19 13:47 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jpl.nasa.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jpl.nasa.gov)
| lawlessone wrote:
| between this and the iron nuggets sitting out in the open on
| Mars,..No Mans Sky is more realistic than i thought.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| This was my first thought too lol "I've mind a million of those
| yellow veins of sulfur in NMS"
| darby_nine wrote:
| I wonder if it also has negative implications for finding life
| there--one of many possible explanations is the lack of
| biological forces breaking down and heterogenizing the surface.
| ronnier wrote:
| > yellow crystals were revealed after NASA's Curiosity happened
| to drive over a rock and crack it open on May 30. Using an
| instrument on the rover's arm, scientists later determined these
| crystals are elemental sulfur -- and it's the first time this
| kind of sulfur has been found on the Red Planet
| sircastor wrote:
| We've found more stuff on Mars by driving over it than I
| would've expected.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Definitely more than just orbiting it. Even with the rovers
| having such an extended mission, it's still just a small
| fraction of the surface.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Just wait until we're stepping on it. That's when the real
| discoveries that will be recorded in the textbooks will
| begin.
| netcraft wrote:
| When we figure out how this formed, I wonder if that will have
| any impact on the feasibility of sulfur based lifeforms?
| solardev wrote:
| I wish NASA wouldn't use clickbait headlines :/ "Curiosity rover
| discovers sulfur crystals in Martian rock" would be nice.
| its_ethan wrote:
| Very, very few people are going to click on the headline you've
| suggested, and engagement with the public is pretty important
| for NASA. "Martian surprise" is something that will get people
| interested, if only to click the link to see the picture of
| sulfur crystals and then leave the page 5 seconds later. Other
| news sites will also run with that headline, spreading the
| engagement far more than just a NASA article.
|
| Getting public engagement is a part of how they defend (and
| increase) their budget, so it makes sense that they would be
| more likely to use click-baity headlines. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| solardev wrote:
| Gosh, I really hope our premier scientific entities don't
| have to rely on page visits (ignoring bounce rate) to measure
| their impact or get funding :/
| Kye wrote:
| They're a scientific organization that lives or dies on the
| whims of people who have to win elections. Outreach is
| survival, and reach is essential to that.
| krapp wrote:
| They live and die on the whims of the CIA and military
| industrial complex. They are a platform for delivering
| spy satellites that's allowed to do a bit of science as a
| treat.
|
| The public, for the most part, stopped caring about NASA
| after the US stopped going to the moon. Most of the rest
| believe NASA is hiding aliens or controlling the weather
| or some such nonsense.
| Kye wrote:
| I thought SpaceX took over that role.
| krapp wrote:
| Not entirely, I don't think.
| its_ethan wrote:
| From The Planetary Society: "None of NASA's budget is
| used for national defense or intelligence gathering
| programs; it is a civilian agency responsible for the
| peaceful exploration of space"
|
| Do you have evidence to the contrary you could share?
|
| https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/nasa-
| budget#:~:text=N....
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| GP is hyperbolic but essentially correct. Generally,
| states will move as much as science and technology
| research that is not militarily sensitive to the public
| sphere - such as NASA. This is because many scientists
| won't work for the military directly [1], but will work
| on stuff that has both military and non-military
| applications. This science is then used by the military
| for their purposes.
|
| Many people have also written quite a lot about how the
| race to the moon was primarily funded because it was a
| military domination competition. Once the USSR decisively
| lost, the US stopped doing that expensive science. A good
| overview of the geopolitics of space exploration and
| research is the book Dark Skies by Daniel Deudney [2].
|
| [1] Combination of ethical reasons and having to do
| security checks and your freedoms somewhat restricted.
|
| [2] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dark-
| skies-978019090...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Thats exactly why clickbait makes no sense. Who is it
| targeting? The lay person? They have no say in NASA's
| budget. If NASA wants funding they have to look at who
| holds the reigns in congress and give them pork. Thats
| it. That's their mechanism. When they were extremely well
| funded around apollo it was because they had pork a la
| advancing ICBM and surveillance satellite technology. Not
| because they got billy to tune in between episodes of
| will rogers.
| its_ethan wrote:
| I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that it's a reality
| NASA has to deal with. so yea... :/
| Sharlin wrote:
| I mean, number of citations is only a _slightly_ better way
| to measure impact than number of page visits.
| II2II wrote:
| They need the right type of public engagement. That
| hypothetical person who sees the picture of sulphur crystals
| then leaves 5 seconds later is unlikely to support NASA. If
| they have enough negative interactions, I would suggest that
| it would achieve the opposite.
|
| There is also a difference between a clickbait headline and a
| headline that genuinely engages someone. Something like
| "Unexpected discovery of sulphur crystals provides hints
| about Martian past" provides vastly more useful information
| and will probably be more appealing to people who have at
| least some interest in science. (Or at least rock
| collecting!)
|
| At least in my case, I decided to read the comments here
| before even considering a look at the article. Not only did
| the idea of a "surprise" leave me thoroughly disinterested,
| but I have been bitten by NASA's hyperbole often enough to be
| hesitant about pursuing a clickbait link. Which is sad,
| because planetary science is interesting and the article
| itself wasn't that bad for something directed towards a
| general audience.
| eszed wrote:
| _Do_ most people consider click-bait headlines to be a
| negative interaction? Arguably they should, but I don 't
| think it's the case.
| II2II wrote:
| I don't know about most people, but the number of news
| sources that use information rich headlines suggest that
| there is a significant number of people who react
| negatively to clickbait headlines. And I suspect that
| many of these news sources float clickbait headlines from
| time to time to test the response of their audience.
| (Such headlines certainly pop up periodically on most
| news sources. It is the motive that I am uncertain of.)
|
| Personally, I find clickbait titles lends an air of
| tabloidness to a publication. I wouldn't be surprised if
| that is a common feeling. I will also actively avoid,
| clickbait titles _even from trusted sources_ , simply
| because it would be detrimental in the long term.
| Granted, I suspect the active avoidance part is an
| unusual behaviour.
| jkestner wrote:
| I just visited the Johnson Space Center, and boy, was there a
| lot of PR for SLS and Mars on exhibit. I shouldn't have felt
| weird about it given the artists' depictions of planetary
| probes and spacecraft concepts I grew up with, but I've read
| too much about the reality of the program to get into a Mars
| expedition in a decade.
|
| Meanwhile the miracle that was the asteroid hunter probe got
| an easily-overlooked station with an actual sample it brought
| back from Bennu in an inadequate magnifying display case.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Even more likely, the user won't click to the article.
|
| But two days later she'll mention to either me or another
| space nut like me "Hey, what was that surprise that NASA
| found on Mars?". And the conversation that sparks will be
| engaging and interesting for her.
| conception wrote:
| Hate the game not the player.
| batch12 wrote:
| It's only a game if people play. Disliking both works fine.
| kelipso wrote:
| Lol okay but if you don't play the game, you lose.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| You dont have to win every game. I'm fine not winning a
| Darwin award.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| NASA is almost constantly struggling for budget, they
| need every eyeball they can get
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Shallow clickbait makes _me_ less inclined to support the
| institution, not more.
|
| At a minimum, there are tradeoffs involved.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Right and they need to get the general public interested
| in this stuff, not nerds on the nerdsite
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think clickbait gets clicks, but doesn't build
| favorable sentiment or interest. I think this is true for
| the general public as well.
|
| To this end it might make sense for a company/website
| paid based on click through engagement, but you will
| notice that most of those institutions are generally
| despised by the public.
|
| I don't think being annoyed by clickbait is unique to
| nerds or such a sophisticated concept that the General
| Public can't comprehend it.
|
| It's not like when NASA comes up for Budget approval
| being known as the agency that creates shitty clickbait
| articles will help them. In fact, I think it is exactly
| the kind of brand that they wouldn't want to build
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| They don't get budget by clickbait. How do I even as a
| registered voter have anything to do with NASA at all? I
| don't vote on their budget. I've never been offered to
| vote on a funding package for them. I chose from maybe
| two candidates as my representative on various levels of
| government, and am beholden to whatever platform they
| come up with.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Believe it or not politicians come up with their
| platforms largely based on the interests and desires of
| their constituents.
|
| If NASA gets more people reading and learning about
| space, maybe more people will think it's a priority. It's
| not exactly rocket science.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Maybe it will get more people thinking space is just
| about garbage clickbait, and a waste of time and money.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| if clickbait didn't work, they wouldn't keep using it
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| How exactly do you think they model and validate the
| relationship between clickbait and budget allocation or
| public sentiment.
| amelius wrote:
| The law allows people to be total jerks. Should we now hate
| the law instead of those people?
| superb_dev wrote:
| Well the law shouldn't be responsible for stopping someone
| from being a "total jerk", but yes you should be upset at
| the law for not meeting your expectations
| dpc050505 wrote:
| The law everywhere does prohibit a LOT of jerk behaviours
| and a lot of jurisdictions have jurisprudence (I live in a
| common law country where jurisprudence is enormous) that
| amount to ''don't be a jerk''.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| when the majority of the population in America suffers from
| brain rot, it behooves Nasa to engage the public with
| clickbait. it's not like Nasa gets the best funding in the
| world from our government compared to military and all our
| other genocidal ventures.
| layer8 wrote:
| The prevalence of clickbait contributes to the brain rot.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| They don't get their funding from writing articles. They get
| it by marrying scientific goals with defense goals.
| harry_ord wrote:
| I was hoping for japanium.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| That doesn't sound unique or interesting. Sulfur? So what. Not
| clicking.
|
| Surprise? Well, I was already pretty sure if it was water or
| life they'd have said so, but now I'm intrigued. I clicked and
| now I know why the find is actually pretty interesting after
| all.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Or even more boring to prevent people from clicking "There are
| sulfur crystals on Mars"
| vitaut wrote:
| I couldn't believe what happened next.
| bamboozled wrote:
| ...after using "this one weird trick"
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| That's why I have a chrome extension which sends hyperlinks for
| certain sites through a local llama3 instance, fetching the
| content of the link, asking if the link text is clickbait based
| on the content, and for an alternate objective headline, which
| the chrome extension then replaced the link text with.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| But it is breaking news. The rover drove over a rock and
| cracked it. Using the drill would have been boring.
| Zondartul wrote:
| It's cool how some minerals are just lying out in the open on
| Mars. On Earth this would have been washed away or buried under
| the soil.
| timmg wrote:
| As I was reading the article just now it made me wonder: does
| Mars have a really diverse landscape -- that just happens to be
| all covered in layers of red dust?
|
| I have no idea. But I'd always thought it looked so homogeneous
| from the photos. But maybe it's just that the dust covers
| everything?
| jjk166 wrote:
| It's worth considering that most of the diversity of
| environments on earth are really diversity of ecosystems.
| Strip away the trees and the grass and the topsoil and then
| Earth would look like a desert wasteland pretty much
| everywhere.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Also, water! The different colors of dirt (containing
| copper, iron etc) near here are all exposed by water
| erosion.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Also, some of the geology is due to biology, especially
| with respect to erosion. (And oxygen level, I guess.)
|
| Without plants, mountains and valleys etc. would be shaped
| a little differently, as opposed to "exactly the same but
| without green on top."
| Tao3300 wrote:
| I'm wondering what that channel would have looked like when
| there was water flowing in it.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I have a hunch this valley is hiding many more geological
| secrets. If you look at the map, Curiosity is finally arriving at
| the more interesting bits of Mt. Sharp.
|
| https://science.nasa.gov/mission/msl-curiosity/location-map/
| ravjo wrote:
| I'll be interested to hear more about this.
| fusslo wrote:
| so cool. First time I've seen that map
|
| It struck me that I have no idea how curiosity is instructed to
| move
|
| I suspect someone can't be sitting in front of a computer with
| a joystick, moving a foot, waiting for curiosity to move a
| foot, then move another foot...
|
| My next thought is nasa creates a route based on the map and
| then provides route data to curiosity. But there's no GPS
| (again, I assume). So is it all dead-reckoning? NASA somehow
| calculates 'move 100 ft forward, turn left 80 degrees, move 10
| ft forward", etc?
|
| (I am also assuming NASA uses metric)
|
| OR does curiosity make its own decisions somehow?
|
| I gotta go google some stuff now
| coryfklein wrote:
| So, what did you find?
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| It's both - mixture of exact commands + dead reckoning, and
| some semi-autonomous navigation (go to this rock).
|
| https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/video/mars-in-a-minute-
| ho...
| mcswell wrote:
| That would be a long time between joystick commands, seeing
| as Mars varies from four to twenty four minutes away at the
| speed of light. Double that for round-trip (video to Earth,
| command to Mars).
| floxy wrote:
| That's a pretty cool map. Someone should do a "street-view"
| version.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Had it already been 12 years?
|
| The last time that I looked at a map of Curiosity's location it
| was somewhere around Darwin and I suppose Cooperstown hadn't
| been named yet. And the map was certainly not interactive.
| morning-coffee wrote:
| They could've gotten more mileage out of a headline like "Was an
| alien crystalline life form just discovered, or...!?"
| Symmetry wrote:
| Chemosynthesis often does produce pure sulfur as a byproduct
| but so do volcanoes. _a priori_ I 'd put the most likely
| scenario for Mars at chemosynthetic life with photosynthesis
| never evolving, but this press release doesn't really move the
| dial on that with the information so far.
| jonhohle wrote:
| > "It shouldn't be there."
|
| What hubris. "We didn't expect it to be there," or similar would
| be more appropriate. I really would like to see more uncertainty
| and humility from scientists that base their work on theory.
| dzonga wrote:
| I would rather know why water on mars evaporated and if there was
| life on mars when there was water on mars
| layer8 wrote:
| For the first question, see https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience
| /comments/uyaogu/comment/....
| layer8 wrote:
| Found the Martian hellmouth. ;)
| vinnie-io wrote:
| what's that perfect white circle in the bottom left
| mcswell wrote:
| Must have come from Io. Lots of sulfur volcanos there.
| delsarto wrote:
| Check out Mars Guy
| https://youtube.com/@marsguy?si=AFAci3mConZv1L5- Dr. Steve Ruff.
| Excellent videos from an expert, but one terrific thing is the
| use of common objects (like mars guy cutout) that gives you some
| better perspective on the images.
| aatd86 wrote:
| So martians are into rock n roll huh? :o)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-19 23:08 UTC)