Curiosity rover confirms first drilled Mars rock sample

Feb 20, 2013 by Guy Webster & D.c. Agle
This image from NASA's Curiosity rover shows the first sample of powdered rock extracted by the rover's drill. The image was taken after the sample was transferred from the drill to the rover's scoop. In planned subsequent steps, the sample will be sieved, and portions of it delivered to the Chemistry and Mineralogy instrument and the Sample Analysis at Mars instrument. The scoop is 1.8 inches (4.5 centimeters) wide. The image was obtained by Curiosity's Mast Camera on Feb. 20, or Sol 193, Curiosity's 193rd Martian day of operations. The image has been white-balanced to show what the sample would look like if it were on Earth. A raw-color version is also available. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

(Phys.org)—NASA's Mars rover Curiosity has relayed new images that confirm it has successfully obtained the first sample ever collected from the interior of a rock on another planet. No rover has ever drilled into a rock beyond Earth and collected a sample from its interior.

Transfer of the powdered-rock sample into an open scoop was visible for the first time in images received Wednesday at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

"Seeing the powder from the drill in the scoop allows us to verify for the first time the drill collected a sample as it bore into the rock," said JPL's Scott McCloskey, drill for Curiosity. "Many of us have been working toward this day for years. Getting final confirmation of successful drilling is incredibly gratifying. For the sampling team, this is the equivalent of the landing team going crazy after the successful touchdown."

This image from the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) on NASA's Mars rover Curiosity shows details of rock texture and color in an area where the rover's Dust Removal Tool (DRT) brushed away dust that was on the rock. This rock target, "Wernecke," was brushed on the 169th Martian day, or sol, of Curiosity's mission on Mars (Jan. 26, 2013). This image was recorded on Sol 173 (Jan. 30, 2013). The image shows nine small pits created by the rover's Chemistry and Camera (ChemCam) laser during its analysis of the target, one of four potential drill targets considered. Ultimately, this site was not chosen for the rover's first drilling. The rest of the features are natural to the rock, and include fractures, white veins, gray and white nodules, pits and tiny dark grains. Remaining clumps and specks of dust can also be seen. The scale bar at lower left is 0.12 inches (3 millimeters). Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/Honeybee Robotics/LANL/CNES

The drill on Curiosity's took in the powder as it bored a 2.5-inch (6.4-centimeter) hole into a target on flat Martian bedrock on Feb. 8. The rover team plans to have Curiosity sieve the sample and deliver portions of it to inside the rover.

The scoop now holding the precious sample is part of Curiosity's Collection and Handling for In-Situ Analysis (CHIMRA) device. During the next steps of processing, the powder will be enclosed inside CHIMRA and shaken once or twice over a sieve that screens out particles larger than 0.006 inch (150 microns) across.

This image shows the location of the 150-micrometer sieve screen on NASA's Mars rover Curiosity, a device used to remove larger particles from samples before delivery to science instruments. The sieve lies within the Collection and Handling for In-situ Martian Rock Analysis (CHIMRA) structure, which is on the end of the rover's turret, or arm. This picture was taken by the rover's Mast Camera on Sol 81, the 81st Martian day of the mission (Oct. 28, 2012). The color has been white-balanced to show the scene as it would appear on Earth. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

Small portions of the sieved sample later will be delivered through inlet ports on top of the rover deck into the Chemistry and (CheMin) instrument and Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument.

In response to information gained during testing at JPL, the processing and delivery plan has been adjusted to reduce use of . The 150-micron screen in one of the two test versions of CHIMRA became partially detached after extensive use, although it remained usable. The team has added precautions for use of Curiosity's sampling system while continuing to study the cause and ramifications of the separation.

The sample comes from a fine-grained, veiny sedimentary rock called "John Klein," named in memory of a Mars Science Laboratory deputy project manager who died in 2011. The rock was selected for the first sample drilling because it may hold evidence of wet environmental conditions long ago. The rover's laboratory analysis of the powder may provide information about those conditions.

Explore further: Lockheed Martin successfully mates NOAA GOES-R satellite modules

Related Stories

Curiosity rover collects first Martian bedrock sample

Feb 09, 2013

(Phys.org)—NASA's Curiosity rover has, for the first time, used a drill carried at the end of its robotic arm to bore into a flat, veiny rock on Mars and collect a sample from its interior. This is the ...

Preparatory drill test performed on Mars

Feb 07, 2013

(Phys.org)—The drill on NASA's Mars rover Curiosity used both percussion and rotation to bore about 0.8 inch (2 centimeters) into a rock on Mars and generate cuttings for evaluation in advance of the rover's ...

Rover's 'SAM' lab instrument suite tastes soil

Nov 14, 2012

(Phys.org)— A pinch of fine sand and dust became the first solid Martian sample deposited into the biggest instrument on NASA's Mars rover Curiosity: the Sample Analysis at Mars, or SAM.

Recommended for you

Winter in the southern uplands of Mars

19 hours ago

Over billions of years, the southern uplands of Mars have been pockmarked by numerous impact features, which are often so closely packed that they overlap. One such feature is Hooke crater, shown in this ...

Five facts about NASA's ISS-RapidScat

19 hours ago

NASA's ISS-RapidScat mission will observe ocean wind speed and direction over most of the globe, bringing a new eye on tropical storms, hurricanes and typhoons. Here are five fast facts about the mission.

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 20, 2013
Quit screwing around. Get back to that gearshift thing sticking out of that rock, and figure out what the heck it is.
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2013
It is a rock, harder than the surrounding rock. The surrounding rock has been eroded away, leaving the harder rock sitting on a pedestal of softer rock. That is all.

You see this sort of thing all the time, at the beach, near the river, on the prairie and in the desert, if your eyes are open to see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2013
It is a rock, harder than the surrounding rock. The surrounding rock has been eroded away, leaving the harder rock sitting on a pedestal of softer rock. That is all.

You see this sort of thing all the time, at the beach, near the river, on the prairie and in the desert, if your eyes are open to see.
Sorry I have never seen a symmetrical metal object sitting on a post at a right angle, and sticking up somewhat less than vertically from a rock. At the beach maybe - an umbrella? A shovel? In a '68 impala?

They need to go back and take more pictures and then figure out what to do next.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2013
It is a rock, harder than the surrounding rock. The surrounding rock has been eroded away, leaving the harder rock sitting on a pedestal of softer rock. That is all.

You see this sort of thing all the time, at the beach, near the river, on the prairie and in the desert, if your eyes are open to see.
Sorry I have never seen a symmetrical metal object sitting on a post at a right angle, and sticking up somewhat less than vertically from a rock. At the beach maybe - an umbrella? A shovel? In a '68 impala?

They need to go back and take more pictures and then figure out what to do next.
-TheghostisBlotto

Clearly, Blotto may be close to a nervous breakdown. In addition to Blotto's usual DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, Blotto is now imagining that he sees a gearshift sticking out of a rock on planet Mars. This is a classic case of Pareidolia. What will Blotto imagine next, 900 foot glassy-eyed martians? Take yer meds and go back to yer basket weaving, Blotto.
Sinister1811
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
They never really explained that metallic object that they found, did they? Unless I missed something, but as far as I know, nothing further was mentioned about it. The object is found in this image - top center:

http://mars.jpl.n...DXXX.jpg
Sinister1811
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2013
It is a rock, harder than the surrounding rock. The surrounding rock has been eroded away, leaving the harder rock sitting on a pedestal of softer rock. That is all.


Yes, except that it doesn't look like a rock at all. And NASA doesn't seem to have the curiosity to run any tests on the object to find out what it might be.
Trenchant
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
I hate to sound conspiracy theorist, but anything that is extraordinary may not necessarily be released to the public. I would not be surprised to learn that there are sensors that are not mentioned, or finds that could put the US at some type of perceived advantage that are not disclosed.
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
Er, the second missions are planned at the same time as the first one, there is no conspiracy here. It traveled right to that place because they knew they could aim it to within a couple of miles of the target, which was flat but near mountains. Do you think somehow they could have seen that little rock formation from orbit? Come on, the optics aboard the orbiters are not THAT good. As an example, suppose you want 1 mm resolution at 200 Km. That represents 1 part in about 1.2 BILLION. One arc second is about 1.2 parts per MILLION. Now the hubble puts out a res of about 0.05 arc second, about one part in 25 million. That is a mirror about 2 meters across. That is the best resolution we currently have in space telescopes. In order to get to the kind of resolution you need to have supported your conspiracy you would need a mirror about 50 times larger or 100 meters. NOBODY has built a 100 meter telescope yet and certainly not one in orbit around ANY planet in OUR solar system.
evropej
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
Get the tin foil hat on, the martians are coming. Where is this image anyway ( gear lol )?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2013
Get the tin foil hat on, the martians are coming. Where is this image anyway ( gear lol )?
Look at the closeup
http://www.jpl.na...acts.pdf

-It's T-shaped. It appears symmetrical and metallic. It looks unnatural. It LOOKS like the hurst shifter out of my old camaro.

They are only a few yards away from it. They need to turn around, take some stereo pictures of it, and show us that it is a natural formation. Or not.
evropej
2.7 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2013
Thanks for posting. Looks unusual in shape compared to surrounding formations but to me its nothing out of the ordinary. Symmetrical rocks and metals exist all over the universe, we live in one. Curiosity is good but dont jump to conclusions. If NASA truly suspects something out of the ordinary, they will withhold the information until they definitely determine the validity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2013
Looks unusual in shape compared to surrounding formations but to me its nothing out of the ordinary.
Well no of course not. These things are all over the place.
http://www.allfor...urst.jpg
Symmetrical rocks and metals exist all over the universe, we live in one.
The earth does not resemble an artifact. This does. There IS extensive wind erosion of adjacent materials. I dont see how this little knob would prevent similar erosion of the post it sitting above, which is fully exposed to the wind, unless this post was also erosion-resistant.

NASA should take a little time and show us visually how this could be possible. Or not possible. We need more pics.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2013
"http://mars.jpl.n...XXX.jpg" - Natello

That Giant invisible alien on the left looks like it just had sex with the one in the upper left corner.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
Now.. Now... Otto. If you persist, you will only hurst the ones you love.

"These things are all over the place." - Otto

Besides there are no giant, sex starved invisible gelatinous aliens in your picture, if you ignore the tiny one on the right.

Does it look horny to you?

It looks horny to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2013
Besides there are no giant, sex starved invisible gelatinous aliens in your picture, if you ignore the tiny one on the right.
"semi-transparent, not translucent. We also have independent, PROFESSIONAL verification as to the existence of the humanoids in the Mars pictures"

-is the exact reference. No, this little object is not the result of random flashings of pickled neurons.

Come on. All they have to do is hit reverse and take some stereoscopic images. And everybody will shut up then I promise.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
They never really explained that metallic object that they found, did they? Unless I missed something, but as far as I know, nothing further was mentioned about it. The object is found in this image - top center:

http://mars.jpl.n...DXXX.jpg
-Sinister

@Sinister
Look at your link and examine in which direction the Sun is shining and how the sunlight hits the rocks. IMO, the sunlight is at a certain angle in regard to perpendicularity to create the shadows that are IN FRONT of the rocks (the front of the rocks that you see). If the Sun were at a high noon angle, there would be no shadows except for deeper recessed cave-like depressions in the rocks' side. @Sinister
Look at your link and examine in which direction the Sun is shining and how the sunlight hits the rocks. IMO, the sunlight is at a certain angle in regard to perpendicularity to create shadows IN FRONT of the rocks. (contd)
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2013
(contd)
If the Sun were at "high noon" angle, there would be no shadows except for recessed cave-like depressions in the rocks' side.
In the pic, the rover is in front of the rocks (at a distance), and that is why the camera sees the shadows due to the sunlight hitting the rocks not from the foreground toward the back, but from the back toward the foreground.

What you see is a shadow caused by a raised "arch" that is part of the rock and that arch prevents the sunlight from engulfing the rock. Instead, the arch creates a shadow.
Now, as to the two metallic-like "knobs", they are also two pieces of rock that jut higher than the rock surface and thus get more sunlight, which makes both their surface appear metallic-white.
I assure you that if they were other than small rocks, Curiosity would have been sent a command to close in on them and take closeup shots. Obviously, metal was not detected.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2013
In the pic, the rover is in front of the rocks (at a distance), and that is why the camera sees the shadows due to the sunlight hitting the rocks not from the foreground toward the back, but from the back toward the foreground.
So ms NASA engr (esq, contract, affiliated), wouldnt this have something to do with time of day and direction the camera is pointed? And what does it have to do with anything really?

And just how does curiosity determine the 'front' of a rock vs the 'back' of a rock?
I assure you
-says the .25M/yr NASA engr (sort of, who is obviously worth every penny)
that if they were other than small rocks, Curiosity would have been sent a command to close in on them and take closeup shots. Obviously, metal was not detected.
-Because the tricorder was busted? Detected how pussytard?

Do you REALLY think you can disguise this unique thought processing behind (in back of that is, or underneath I suppose) yet one more sickpuppet?
Trenchant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2013
Otto, you nearly lost all credibility, but I looked it up. It is a word.

http://www.urband...ussytard
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
Otto, you nearly lost all credibility, but I looked it up. It is a word.

http://www.urband...ussytard
Why I did not know this. I wonder if pussycat_eyes/obamasocks knew this when she picked the name-
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2013
Otto, you nearly lost all credibility, but I looked it up. It is a word.

http://www.urband...ussytard
Why I did not know this. I wonder if pussycat_eyes/obamasocks knew this when she picked the name-
-Blotto

Picked what name? Theghostofotto1923/FrankHerbert aka Blotto is the one who started calling me ' pussytard ' due to its delusional claim that I had something to do with Pussycat_Eyes, other than having been in the same thread as her, at one time. The name pussytard was obviously added by Blotto/FrankHerbert/FrankHerbert2 in response to VendicarD's calling me ' Sox ', which is an acceptable name, although VD and I disagree politically.

obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2013
(contd)
Obviously, Theghostofotto1923/FrankHerbert et al, has completely lost ALL credibility with all or most commentators due to its lying about myself and others, slander and inability to get along with other commentators while pretending to have knowledge of everything, no matter what topic it concerns.

Blotto seeks info from Google Search, mainly Wikipedia and YouTube and cannot stand it when anyone in a thread chooses to ASK others for information re the topic. Blotto then pretends that it is Blotto who has been asked for that information, then goes into a tirade about why the questioner did not bother to look up the information himself and that Blotto has to do it for them. This makes Blotto feel very important and necessary...which is obviously part of its self-delusions of grandeur.

There is a correlation between Blotto's delusions and its obvious Pareidolia re its insistence that the object on Mars is a gearshift. As I have explained the object, it chooses to reject that.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2013
(contd)
"So ms NASA engr (esq, contract, affiliated), wouldnt this have something to do with time of day and direction the camera is pointed? And what does it have to do with anything really? And just how does curiosity determine the 'front' of a rock vs the 'back' of a rock?" -Theghostofotto1923 et al

This amuses me. I have already stated many times that I DO NOT "work" for NASA, it is apparent that Blotto's "forgetfulness", which is another symptom of its DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, among other disorders, causes Blotto to be unable to recall that which Blotto chooses to ignore due to its mental illnesses.

I have already stated that the Sun's angle, or perpendicularity (relative to the rock surface) causes the shadows in the FRONT of the rocks which the camera records b/c the rover IS IN FRONT of the rocks.

I have also explained it in PLAIN ENGLISH that even a fifth grader can understand. So then Blotto wants to know the time of day and the direction the camera is pointed.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2013
(contd)
Theghostofotto1923/FrankHerbert et al has been stalking me in most of the threads in which I have commented. I have already stated that Obama_socks is my only other name besides my Primary user name, but Blotto insists that I must have multiple sock puppets, which I do not.

But recently, it has been suggested by other commentators in PM that Blotto's mental illnesses and delusions appear to be getting worse. Even in this Mars thread I am being stalked and accused of submitting inane comments and of being other personalities with whom Blotto has tried the same things in the past.

I have been commenting and reading articles on this Physorg for the past 8 years on my Primary name, and I and many others are witness to the deterioration of this science website due to Theghostofotto1923 and its many sock puppets (see my Profile for names) and the fact that Blotto will not allow others to enjoy discussing the topics without Blotto going off topic on hatred of religion and others.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
In the pic, the rover is in front of the rocks (at a distance), and that is why the camera sees the shadows due to the sunlight hitting the rocks not from the foreground toward the back, but from the back toward the foreground.
So ms NASA engr (esq, contract, affiliated), wouldnt this have something to do with time of day and direction the camera is pointed? And what does it have to do with anything really? And just how does curiosity determine the 'front' of a rock vs the 'back' of a rock?
I assure you
-says the .25M/yr NASA engr (sort of, who is obviously worth every penny)
that if they were other than small rocks, Curiosity would have been sent a command to close in on them and take closeup shots. Obviously, metal was not detected.
-Because the tricorder was busted? Detected how pussytard?
-Theghostofotto1923

Detected this way, Blotto. Try to follow the concepts despite your defective mental conditions, aye? (contd)

obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
Now, as to the two metallic-like "knobs", they are also two pieces of rock that jut higher than the rock surface and thus get more sunlight, which makes both their surface appear metallic-white.
I assure you that if they were other than small rocks, Curiosity would have been sent a command to close in on them and take closeup shots. Obviously, metal was not detected.
-Obama_socks

(contd)
@Theghostofotto1923 aka Blotto et al. This is the procedure for detection. Next time, do a little research.

"Curiosity's rock-zapping laser can hit a rock or soil target up to 23 feet (7 meters away) with enough energy to pulverize a pinhead spot on the rock. It then studies gas released to see what types of atoms are in the vapor. The advantage of this tool is that Curiosity can find out if a rock is interesting enough to study before it drives all of the way over to examine it."

Now take yer meds and go back to yer knitting or basket weaving, Blotto. (snicker)

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
"Curiosity's rock-zapping laser can hit a rock or soil target up to 23 feet (7 meters away) with enough energy to pulverize a pinhead spot on the rock. It then studies gas released to see what types of atoms are in the vapor. The advantage of this tool is that Curiosity can find out if a rock is interesting enough to study before it drives all of the way over to examine it."
And so... was there any indication that they zapped it with their laser? You declare that they did. Where did you get this info pussytard? I don't see it on the website.

And as any NASA Eng'r and parking attendant would know, NASA describes relative location of things like faces, using compass points. Because they actually mean something.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2013
"Curiosity's rock-zapping laser can hit a rock or soil target up to 23 feet (7 meters away) with enough energy to pulverize a pinhead spot on the rock. It then studies gas released to see what types of atoms are in the vapor. The advantage of this tool is that Curiosity can find out if a rock is interesting enough to study before it drives all of the way over to examine it."


And so... was there any indication that they zapped it with their laser? You declare that they did.


Nope...I did not say that they zapped it; I said that is the procedure for detection.

Where did you get this info pussytard? I don't see it on the website.


Do a Google search and learn something.

And as any NASA Eng'r and parking attendant would know, NASA describes relative location of things like faces, using compass points. Because they actually mean something.
-Blotto the delusional

WHAT relative location of "faces". Now you're saying that NASA sees faces on Mars? YerNuts
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2013
Nope...I did not say that they zapped it; I said that is the procedure for detection.
So you said metal was not detected pussytard. How did they ascertain this if they did not use the laser that you said they used?
Detected this way
-is what you said. You're willing to lie about what you said in the very same thread. Assuming that people are as dumb as you is not a very good strategy in arguing you know.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2013
LOL...somehow I KNEW that Blotto would come back to this thread to reinforce its stupid mental asshole status...where even VendicarE made the unusual decision to make fun of Thegoatsofotto1923 on page one.

Nope...again, I did NOT say that they zapped the rock (your gearshift from your Camaro). You asked how did NASA do it. I then gave you the procedure that they use.

Obviously, they did not think that your gearshift on Mars was metal, otherwise they would have used the procedure to determine its composition while the rover was at the right distance, AND the results would have been explained in the Curiosity website.

As I did not say whether or not the rock was zapped with the laser, but only explained sunlight and shadows, anyone can read my posts over again that will confirm my assertions, it should be obvious to everyone that Blotto cannot let go of the fact that I was right and Blotto was wrong...and that Blotto is suffering from Paradeidolia, among other mental problems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2013
Detected how pussytard?
-I said. You said:
Detected this way
So what was it NASA detected with their lasers then? Are you drunk again pussytard?
anyone can read my posts over again that will confirm my assertions, it should be obvious to everyone
-that you dont know for instance that rocks have 'faces' or that scientists dont use the terms 'front' or 'back' when trying to describe the orientation of those faces.

Any engineer could appreciate this pussytard. You are no engineer and not a very skilled liar either. Why do you think you could get away with this bullshit? Why? Just how screwed up ARE you?
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2013


And you said "Detected HOW?" So I gave you the HOW, which you appear to reject. Obviously, you did not stipulate a "rock face".

This is what you said:
And as any NASA Eng'r and parking attendant would know, NASA describes relative location of things like faces, using compass points. Because they actually mean something.


You said, "FACES", not rock face. Liar. Go take yer meds. You can't even remember what you said.