We’ve been learning a lot about Mars recently, like how it used to have “vacation-style” beaches. In a similar vein, we’re also learning that its iconic red color maybe didn’t come from the rusting of the iron in its rocks, like we previously thought.A study conducted by planetary geologist Adomas Valantinas from Brown University suggests that Mars’ redness didn’t happen after the planet lost its water. Instead, it happened while there was still water on its surface. For a long time, scientists theorized that Mars was one big rusted-out bicycle that had been left out in the rain for months. The idea behind it was that Mars once had water but then at last that water and a heavy heart oxide material formed soon thereafter.Why Exactly is Mars Red Anyway?Valantinas and his team of researchers discovered that a different type of iron oxide called ferrihydrite, that forms in watery environments, might better explain the mineral composition of Mars responsible for its redness. To test this out, the team mixed different iron oxides with bath salts to simulate Martian dust. If the argument boils down to hematite versus ferrihydrite, and which of the two was likely more prominent after testing, then ferrihydrite was the clear winner as it more closely matched the composition of Martian dust observed by spacecraft.All of this suggests that Mars wasn’t dry when it started to oxidize and began to develop its iconic redness. It was still wet and watery as oxidation was kicking in. The team only felt more confident in their theory as they analyzed data gathered by Mars rovers, along with spacecraft orbiting Mars, and after analyzing a meteorite sample from Mars. The results just kept reinforcing their theory that ferrihydrite may have possibly started turning Mars red while it still had water on it, long before the planet started to dry out. This also means that Mars started to rust way before scientists previously theorized.The post Mars Might Be Red For A Different Reason Than We Thought appeared first on VICE.