Asked about the instruments he works with on the Curiosity rover, the planetary scientist explains why identifying minerals tells you something different from only measuring which chemical elements are present.
evidence of past water, more specific. Evidence of
past water. And right, which may not just be water itself, but the evidence of chemical reactions that occurred in the water, right? That have long since been fossilized or probably not the right word, but captured in the materials. That's actually one of the main instruments.
…the mineralogy that you're seeing in the landscape. Mineralogy is different from elemental chemistry. Most instrumentation either is spectroscopy that can get some of the mineralogy based off of what's susceptible in the wavelengths you're looking at, or deals with elemental chemistry. That's things like APXS, the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer. Those pull out what elements are present, and the difference between mineralogy and elements is context. Elements are kind of like looking at a food product and knowing whether or not it contains gluten, versus the mineralogy gives you the context of was it a pizza or is it a cake?
I like that. And speaking of food, Kemin is the system with the oven, right? That heats things up to
sample analysis on Mars.
Okay, right. So what's the distinction