Slashdot Mirror


Conglomerate Rock From Mars: (Much) More Precious Than Gold

An anonymous reader writes It's the oldest rock on Earth--and it's from Mars. A 4.4-billion-year-old martian meteorite, found in a dozen pieces in the western Sahara, has ignited a frenzy among collectors and scientists; prices have reached $10,000 a gram, and museums and universities are vying for slivers of it. It is the only known martian meteorite made of sediment, a conglomerate of pebbles and other clumps of minerals from when the planet was warm, wet, and possibly habitable. The story of the discovery of the rock and its significance is fascinating, as well as the details presented about the economics of rare space materials. Apropos, this older story about missing moon rocks.

65 comments

  1. Up next, tulip bulbs from Mars by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think I've seen that movie before...

    1. Re:Up next, tulip bulbs from Mars by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Get the bidding high enough and I'll go fetch them so fresh rocks.

  2. Grumble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that ingrate to wear some gloves.

    1. Re:Grumble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damnit, Jay:
       

      While the scientists continue to poke and prod, Piatek totes his martian meteorites to events and institutions around the world. He is a loving but not always careful guardian. In 2013, after the Tucson, Arizona, Gem and Mineral Show—a mecca for meteorite collectors—Piatek visited the house of Robert Ward, a meteorite hunter, dealer, and collector in Prescott, Arizona. The two started drinking and playing around with Ward’s new night vision goggles. They figured that Black Beauty’s fragments, full of heat-retaining minerals, would stand out in the darkness like living things. So Piatek hid the stones outside in a freshly fallen snow. “We got done with the tequila and then remembered the Black Beauties hanging out in the snow,” Ward recalls. “It was like an Easter egg hunt,” Piatek says, chuckling. “It was crazy!”

  3. obligatory by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    So it's the Johnson & Johnson rock?

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  4. Go get more? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    The price is still far from the cost of going to Mars to dig some sedimentary rocks from a few meters deep. But it's getting closer.

    1. Re:Go get more? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do I really have to point out that a rock that left Mars 4.4 billion years ago will potentially have different things in it than a rock from today?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Go get more? by itzly · · Score: 1

      But will there be a difference in value if the modern rock is also sedimentary ?

    3. Re:Go get more? by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      If the round trip gets $100k/gram, I don't think anyone but the buyer cares if they're bringing rocks, meteorites or rubber ducks.

      Give the technology to De Beers and we'll have brides carrying pieces of mars in a year.

    4. Re:Go get more? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Mod this hummer up...

    5. Re:Go get more? by Jhon · · Score: 1

      I read the article. The rock didn't leave Mars 4.4 billion years ago.

      "It began its journey to Earth more than 5 million years ago, about the time humans and chimpanzees were splitting from a common ancestor. That is when an asteroid struck Mars, catapulting the rock into space. "

      5 million years is still a long time but is really a drop in the bucket and I doubt the rocks would have changed much.

    6. Re: Go get more? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that Mars is not tectonically active, so there might be a lot of 4.4 billion year old rocks just below the surface.

  5. Re:Niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I found you, I'd punch you.... right square in the jaw. You'd deserve it, too. Think about this as you go to sleep each night.

  6. Hmm by koan · · Score: 1

    I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Hmm by quenda · · Score: 2

      I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?

      Luckily I RTFA. Isotope ratios is the main way. e.g. deuterium in water in the rock.

    2. Re:Hmm by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      They compare the isotopic ratios in the rock with those observed by our various landers and crawlers on Mars.

    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the Solar systems creation theories isn't it pointless to assume that the isotope ratio would be unique to a given planet in said Solar system.

    4. Re:Hmm by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Well, given we know the isotope ratios for at least these two planets in the solar system, it seems we do not have to assume.

    5. Re:Hmm by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      It was inside a black wrapper with "MARS" written on it in red letters.

      The key clue here is the red of the letters, which prove the authenticity.

    6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the isotope ratios are central to a lot of the evidence surrounding solar system formation theories. There are some clear patterns and trends in the ratio of different elements based on distance from the sun, as this has to do with how volatile said elements are and how well they bind to other types of elements. This includes radioactive isotopes that decay into something with a different chemical nature, so that the resulting isotope ratios will depend on the chemistry of the different places the isotopes came from in the early solar system. For example, a volatile element might be much more absent in the inner solar system that formed at higher temperatures, yet a less volatile radioactive element might also decay into a different isotope of the volatile element, and do so after minerals have formed, leaving a different pattern not as sensitive as to the formation temperature.

    7. Re:Hmm by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?"

      When they turned it over, there was a little sticker that said "Made on Mars".

    8. Re:Hmm by tbq · · Score: 1

      It would seem that given the estimate that it was in space for over 5 million years that it could be equally plausible that it came from another planet outside of our own solar system. Given the escape velocity needed for a rock to leave a planet's gravitational pull, an object traveling near that speed could travel quite a few light-years in 5 million years.

  7. Martian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have never understood why they can be convinced that a random rock they find in the desert is actually from Mars. Sure, you can tell if something is a meteorite and you might be able to posit trajectories,but it's not like Marvin the Martian stood next to the rock to vouch for its authenticity.

    Yes, there's a non-zero probability of the asteroid-hits-Mars-and-ejectum-lands-on-Earth scenario, and the rocks may have properties consistent with conditions measured by the Viking lander, but it is magical thinking to hold that such a rock definitely came from Mars.

    As expensive as Black Beauty has become, it is still a bargain compared with proposals for a robotic Mars sample return mission.

    Well, if you want to get a rock you know came from Mars, you'll have to send that probe.

    1. Re:Martian? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have never understood why they can be convinced that a random rock they find in the desert is actually from Mars.

      So, do some readingon the topic, and then you will understand. In the meantime, your lack of understanding doesn't change the fact that they can do this.

      but it is magical thinking to hold that such a rock definitely came from Mars.

      No, it's magical thinking to assume that science must be wrong because you know less than science does.

      Given the science used, it would probably require magical thinking to hold that such a rock did not come from Mars.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  8. Re:Niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should probably kill yourself. We don't need any more racists pieces of crap in America, we're already up to our asses in you morons. He'd be right to punch you for being a wingnut scumbag.

  9. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And of course, the Russians didn't expose the hoax because they were in on it: Sputnik was just as fake as the so-called "satellites" of today.

  10. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all an Atheist conspiracy to break God's firmament and send the stars crashing down on Earth.

  11. Re:Niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would white folk do that?

    You obviously haven't seen the end of any college football playoff.

  12. Waiting for the market to tank by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    I'll just wait for the Mars Sample Return Project to saturate the market, thereby lowering the price.

  13. Conglomerate rock by snarfies · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, you mean like Nickelback?

    1. Re:Conglomerate rock by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      No; you can actually find people who admit to being into Mars rocks.

  14. Re:Niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, you never saw the Stanley Cup riots in Montreal, or the student protests, or the cops on strike...

  15. Re:Moon landing evidence? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    It's time to come clean.
    We were all in on it except for MagickalMyst.
    Should we send one of the Rosswell IFO's to pick him up and take him to emperor Elvis for briefing?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  16. Re:Moon landing evidence? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    Indeed.

    Whilst the upper echelons of society compete with each other, they co-operate when it comes to herding the masses.

    They are the dark magicians who rule the world by deceit and trickery - and have for aeons.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  17. Something Doesn't Make Sense by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but something doesn't make sense. The rock is 4.4 billion years old, but is the oldest rock on earth? The rocks it impacted must thus have been older than that, or else it would have just been absorbed into the molten ball that was the earth. Also the article says it began its journey 5 billion years ago - so before it existed?

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    1. Re:Something Doesn't Make Sense by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but something doesn't make sense. The rock is 4.4 billion years old, but is the oldest rock on earth? The rocks it impacted must thus have been older than that, or else it would have just been absorbed into the molten ball that was the earth. Also the article says it began its journey 5 billion years ago - so before it existed?

      Never mind - I'm dumb. It only hit the earth ~1000 yrs ago. Still doesn't explain the 5 by vs 4.4 by difference.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    2. Re:Something Doesn't Make Sense by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The article says it left Mars 5 million years ago, which I think clears up both of your confusions.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Something Doesn't Make Sense by mnooning · · Score: 1

      Good critical thinking. Yes, indeed, you are right. Reminds me that NASA touted a Mars rock a number of years ago, and even suspected it had the remains of life on it. It turned out that it was not that old, but there were remains of life, early earth microbes.

    4. Re:Something Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not right. His entire post depends on him confusing the age of something with its arrival date, and misreading 5,000,000 for 5,000,000,000.

    5. Re: Something Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the units are M, you are using B. Now it makes more sense.

  18. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is zero chance the landings were faked. Heck, the landing sites and rover tracks have been photographed from moon orbit, but this is just part of the mountain of evidence that the moon landings were real.

    I wish that Buzz Armstrong would punch out all the British loonies that are pushing the moon hoax baloney

  19. Re:Moon landing evidence? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    No need. Elvis is in the building.

    Hey, where did my jelly beans go?

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  20. Re:Moon landing evidence? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 0

    I don't know whether the Apollo moon landings were faked or not; I wasn't around in 1969. However, I never used to question it.

    But after people started questioning it and bringing up some very interesting points, I do question it too. Believing something simply because the masses believe it is not proof. It is foolishness.

    However, if your belief is that the Apollo moon landings were legitimate, then please explain to me how the astronauts got through the Van Allen belt? And why are there so many doctored pictures of the moon landings?

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  21. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    Revelation 6:13
    And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

    Meh, doesn't seem too problematic.

    Unless you know of any figs that weight 10^30kg and burn at 50K, that is.

  22. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Khyber · · Score: 2

    "However, if your belief is that the Apollo moon landings were legitimate, then please explain to me how the astronauts got through the Van Allen belt?"

    Uh, really simple. It's just an electro-magnetic field that has protons and electrons. We go through stronger magnetic fields getting an MRI done.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  23. I'll sell you this rock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll sell you this rock. Its a magic rock. only $50 its bargain

  24. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your first point is pure speculation.

    Your second point is answered plainly on wikipedia:

    "The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[28] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[29] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin."

    source

    But you aren't interested in evidence or truth, but rather you are interested in keeping your silly little conspiracy theory alive. It must make you feel important or something.

    Grow up, dude.

  25. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lying bitch. Stop spreading disinformation.
    It's well documented that he likes Reese's Pieces.

  26. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50K? Where do you spend your winters? I'm not aware of any place on earth going below 200...

  27. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    It's either really fricking cold figs, or Slashdot erasing the [degrees] symbol.

  28. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are there so many doctored pictures of the moon landings?

    Because they had ultra-shitty camera equipment to work with and people wanted pictures of men on the moon. It was either "Here's 30 pictures of astronauts' feet and 20 pictures of grey rock!" or "Here's a picture of 2 astronauts hopping over a hill in a rover!"

  29. $10000/gram is about... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    - 2.5 times more expensive that weapon grade plutonium
    - twice cheaper than Soliris (medical drug)
    - 3 times cheaper than tritium

    LSD and diamonds can also be in this price range but this is a bit more complicated to estimate.

    1. Re:$10000/gram is about... by naich · · Score: 1

      and about 5 times cheaper than printer ink.

  30. Waiting for the real owner to step forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this will get the Martians to come out of hiding and establish trade relations with us.

    Or maybe they'll just declare war on is if we don't give it back immediately.

  31. Re: Niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you be sleeping on top of your daughter, sister, mom or grandma? Or is it a group thing in your shack?

  32. Re:Moon landing evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There can be no hesitation about what the choice would have been if the astronauts had had access to modern camera phones.

  33. facts vs presuppositions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "meteorite, found in a dozen pieces in the western Sahara ... made of sediment, a conglomerate of pebbles and other clumps of minerals"

    These sound like things we can prove, or at least substantially support, with science. On the other hand, the following sound like presuppositions.

    "... oldest rock on Earth ... from Mars ... 4.4-billion-year-old martian ... from when the planet was warm, wet, and possibly habitable..."

  34. I'm sold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had me at warm and wet.

  35. Re:Niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good argument. Very cogent.

    So, white people shouldn't be allowed to live among their own kind. Can you tell us why?

    Are you claiming that white people make BETTER neighbourhoods and countries, and thus to deprive non-whites of the ability to live in them, would be making their lives worse?

    LOL. You brainwashed idiot. Or you're a third worlder.