Did Phoenix find liquid water brines on Mars?

paulscottanderson · Feb 13, 2009

This LPSC 2009 paper is quite interesting...http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1440.pdfDid Phoenix find liquid water brines? Were the "droplets" on the lander leg actually briny droplets that were splashed upwards during the landing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------The Meridiani Journal a chronicle of planetary exploration web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

3488 · Feb 13, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This LPSC 2009 paper is quite interesting...http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1440.pdfDid Phoenix find liquid water brines? Were the "droplets" on the lander leg actually briny droplets that were splashed upwards during the landing? Posted by paulscottanderson</DIV>The salinity must surely have been phenomenal for liquid to have on Phoenix's leg in those conditions. I am still perusing the initial images but had not really looked at the droplet ones again yet.Supercooled brine would fit the bill, but at those temperatures & little atmospheric pressure, must have been on the verge of either sublimating or freezing.With the exposure of Holy Cow directly beneath Phoenix, does bolster the case of Phoenix having splashed up liberated brine from just below the dry top regolith.'Holy Cow' on Sol 142 @ 13:16 LMST. The source of the droplets on Phoenix's leg?? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/2/32b881ae-2904-42f3-a266-8401416bca6f.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

silylene old · Feb 13, 2009

By the way, the fuel of Phoenix was hydrazine (mp 1C).  Some significant amounts of uncombusted hydrazine was likely released during landing: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050831_phoenix_tech.html I know this was discussed to a small extent in the attached article, and dismissed.  But I want to examine this possibility further.Lets suppose the ice was pure, and not briney.  Why do I mention uncombusted hydrazine?  Well the freezing point of the water-rich eutectic of 27: 73 water:hydrazine is 193C, so this would be a liquid.  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/3638/1307 So if hydrazine got mixed in with the melted ice, it could form a liquid, which could be long lasting and splashed up onto the legs of Phoenix.The hydrazine:water eutectic should have been considered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

paulscottanderson · Feb 14, 2009

There is a good enhanced version of the droplets image here (click "all sizes" to get the largest versions):http://www.flickr.com/photos/hortonheardawho/3277392520The largest ones do look like liquid droplets, even if subsequently frozen in the open air. They even look reflective.Interesting hypothesis, silylene. I wonder if the paper's authors considered that? I still like the brines idea though...

Btw, Andrew, could you please modify my blog's url to:http://web.me.com/meridianijournalThe "mac" address still works, but the new url reflects the change of Apple's previous .Mac service to the new MobileMe, which I'm using for all my blogs now, and for some reason, the comments function will no longer work if you log into the old url. Thanks! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------The Meridiani Journal a chronicle of planetary exploration web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

paulscottanderson · Feb 16, 2009

<span style="font-family:verdana;white-space

re-wrap" class="Apple-style-span">Just noticed this new article this evening:<span style="font-family:verdana;white-space

re-wrap" class="Apple-style-span">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213110731.htm<span style="font-family:verdana;white-space

re-wrap" class="Apple-style-span">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213110731.htm"Using thermodynamic calculations and the temperature information gathered experimentally, Chevrier and Altheide created a map that shows where brine might be found above and below the surface on Mars. The map also shows whether or not the brine would be frozen or evaporating as a result of the temperatures. The map shows an area where the temperatures are such that the brine could, at times, be liquid and flowing.<span style="font-family:verdana;white-space

re-wrap" class="Apple-style-span">They then created a map that shows all of the places on the surface of Mars where gullies have been discovered. The vast majority of the gullies lie within the zone where the brine could be liquid. “We’re calling this the episodic liquid zone,” said Altheide. “Temperature swings in this region could cause the release of liquid in the form of brine and thus explain the formation of present-day gullies.” <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------The Meridiani Journal a chronicle of planetary exploration web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

paulscottanderson · Feb 18, 2009

There is a new article about this today in NewScientist:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16620-first-liquid-water-may-have-been-spotted-on-mars.html21 researchers including Peter Smith, the mission's lead scientist, think these were likely liquid droplets, not just frost or muddy soil as some have speculated. They then grew by attracting water vapour from the air, and two of the larger ones were seen to merge together (as was also noted in the original paper I linked to).From the article: "Why does the team think the clumps might be liquid water in the first place? The argument rests on the fact that salt is hygroscopic, meaning it attracts water. So droplets of salty fluid on Mars would tend to absorb water vapour from the atmosphere, explaining why the clumps grew over time. Indeed, at the temperatures and humidity observed at the Phoenix site, the expected growth rate of salty droplets matches the observations, the team says."Most provocatively, a series of images (pictured here) appears to show one candidate droplet growing after absorbing the liquid from its neighbour - a behaviour the team ascribes to liquid water."The droplets could have either come from an already existing thin liquid brine layer or created by the thrusters that melted a thin layer of the ice patch below the lander and the perchlorates that got mixed in could have kept them liquid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------The Meridiani Journal a chronicle of planetary exploration web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

silylene · Feb 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a new article about this today in NewScientist:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16620-first-liquid-water-may-have-been-spotted-on-mars.html21 researchers including Peter Smith, the mission's lead scientist, think these were likely liquid droplets, not just frost or muddy soil as some have speculated. They then grew by attracting water vapour from the air, and two of the larger ones were seen to merge together (as was also noted in the original paper I linked to).From the article: "Why does the team think the clumps might be liquid water in the first place? The argument rests on the fact that salt is hygroscopic, meaning it attracts water. So droplets of salty fluid on Mars would tend to absorb water vapour from the atmosphere, explaining why the clumps grew over time. Indeed, at the temperatures and humidity observed at the Phoenix site, the expected growth rate of salty droplets matches the observations, the team says."Most provocatively, a series of images (pictured here) appears to show one candidate droplet growing after absorbing the liquid from its neighbour - a behaviour the team ascribes to liquid water."The droplets could have either come from an already existing thin liquid brine layer or created by the thrusters that melted a thin layer of the ice patch below the lander and the perchlorates that got mixed in could have kept them liquid. Posted by paulscottanderson</DIV>The lack of chemists with broad backgrounds who happen to work in space sciences is always disturbing.  As I said, they did not even consider that the freezing point of the water-rich eutectic of 27: 73 water:hydrazine is 193C, so this would be a liquid.  The engines spew out a lot of uncombusted hydrazine.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> petet = silylenePlease, please give me my handle back ! </div>

paulscottanderson · Feb 19, 2009

With 21 involved scientists, I'd be surprised if none of them considered or discussed the possibility, but you never know. The best thing would be to ask them directly. As I see it there are three possibilities at this point:- pre-existing brines- droplets created by thrusters heating ice with perchlorates mixed in- droplets created by thrusters heating ice with hydrazine mixed in  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------The Meridiani Journal a chronicle of planetary exploration web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

paulscottanderson · Mar 29, 2009

There is another new update on The Planetary Society Blog, including comments on why the Phoenix team et al, think the droplets were salty water brines and not just ice or frost and unlikely to be the result of hydrazine, etc. from the engine thrusters mixing in with melted ice:

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001890

Excerpt:

"The first question that comes to mind is "Why don't they think the spheroids are made of ice, not liquid water?" They argue that ice particles wouldn't have formed in spheroids, they would have formed a thin, uniform layer, much like the frost coating seen later in the mission. For the spheroids to be ice at the observed weather conditions, the humidity would have to be higher than 100%. Also, toward the end of the mission, when frost was abundant at the landing site, ice spheroids should have grown in volume rather than shrinking. Ice couldn't form on the lander leg unless the leg was colder than the ice, but engineering data returned from the lander shows warmer temperatures.

The next question that's most often asked is "Couldn't the thrusters' composition have contaminated the landing site?" The answer is that Phoenix definitely disturbed her landing site; however, there is no evidence Phoenix chemically altered the site. If any ice was melted by the thrusters, it would have quickly turned into a vapor and not have turned into a liquid. After landing, several containers were vented, and all were on the opposite side from the spacecraft from where the robotic arm's workspace, and thus also the leg that showed these spheroids. The engineering data doesn't show that there was any hydrazine left to vent, and had there been, it would have been a solid at Phoenix's site due to the low temperature. Any byproduct of the hydrazine would not have caused the spheroids either."

silylene · Mar 30, 2009

paulscottanderson":1w8vofzm said:
There is another new update on The Planetary Society Blog, including comments on why the Phoenix team et al, think the droplets were salty water brines and not just ice or frost and unlikely to be the result of hydrazine, etc. from the engine thrusters mixing in with melted ice:

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001890

Excerpt:

"The first question that comes to mind is "Why don't they think the spheroids are made of ice, not liquid water?" They argue that ice particles wouldn't have formed in spheroids, they would have formed a thin, uniform layer, much like the frost coating seen later in the mission. For the spheroids to be ice at the observed weather conditions, the humidity would have to be higher than 100%. Also, toward the end of the mission, when frost was abundant at the landing site, ice spheroids should have grown in volume rather than shrinking. Ice couldn't form on the lander leg unless the leg was colder than the ice, but engineering data returned from the lander shows warmer temperatures.

The next question that's most often asked is "Couldn't the thrusters' composition have contaminated the landing site?" The answer is that Phoenix definitely disturbed her landing site; however, there is no evidence Phoenix chemically altered the site. If any ice was melted by the thrusters, it would have quickly turned into a vapor and not have turned into a liquid. After landing, several containers were vented, and all were on the opposite side from the spacecraft from where the robotic arm's workspace, and thus also the leg that showed these spheroids. The engineering data doesn't show that there was any hydrazine left to vent, and had there been, it would have been a solid at Phoenix's site due to the low temperature. Any byproduct of the hydrazine would not have caused the spheroids either."

Well, I bring up the question because the hydrazine/water eutectic is a liquid (193C) at the temps experienced in this region. And also, the compbustion in the rocket nozzles was quite incomplete, and significant amounts of the hydrazine was unreacted and simply flung straight downward into the melting ices from the exhaust (see the quotation below from 2007, before it landed). I was thinking that the hydrazine mixed with liquid water, directly below the craft and splached onto the leg.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050831_phoenix_tech.html
In the descent to Mars, however, Phoenix thrusters will gulp and heave out hydrazine.

The engine effluents striking the landing spot in which Phoenix will conduct science "is a matter of some concern to those members of the science team," Smith explained. While the most ultra-pure hydrazine is to be used, some un-combusted fuel will reach the surface.

"So we are very much worried about this issue," Smith said. "We are trying to find ways that we can work with the soil and try to avoid the contamination from the hydrazine and the exhaust gases."

gunsandrockets · Mar 30, 2009

I was very excited when I first heard about this phenomenon last month during a presentation by a member of the Mars Society. The way it was described to me was that salty debris clinging to the legs of the MPL attracted condensate water from the Martian air. I was shocked that even a brine could remain liquid at such low temperatures. Fantastic news

voyagerwsh · Mar 31, 2009

Perchlorate salts can be in liquid form above between -68 to -76 C, temperature at the Phoenix site was at -21 to -96 C, with a median temperature around -60 C. Also surface temperature of the site should be higher than that in first months of landing*. So techincally liquid perclorate can exit at that site.

*http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/The_Salty_Tears_Of_Phoenix_Show_Liquid_Water_On_Mars_999.html

JonClarke · Mar 31, 2009

petet":qq2habve said:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050831_phoenix_tech.html
In the descent to Mars, however, Phoenix thrusters will gulp and heave out hydrazine.

The engine effluents striking the landing spot in which Phoenix will conduct science "is a matter of some concern to those members of the science team," Smith explained. While the most ultra-pure hydrazine is to be used, some un-combusted fuel will reach the surface.

"So we are very much worried about this issue," Smith said. "We are trying to find ways that we can work with the soil and try to avoid the contamination from the hydrazine and the exhaust gases."

I was at these sessions at the LPSC and the possibility of hydrazine contamination seems to have been dismissed. Anaalysis of combustion products of test engines indicarte that there is very little residual hydrazine. Any present would disperse rather than condense and, if it did condense, would first freeze and then sublime.

JonClarke · Mar 31, 2009

I must say that although I was very sceptical, after the LPSC I confess it does seem very likely that liquid water was present at the Phoenix site during the mission, as films several 100 to several thousand molecules thick. Hence the commeents that this is the most habitable site seen so far on Mars.

Loraela · Apr 1, 2009

yes but not. Do you know why?

It's just a guess not yet a single journey proved. We have to save money and time not for a next mission, for next invention. The main instrument we need is knowledge and machines but not a mission. We need more technology. We need advanced technology to reach far beyond a universe. Such as ufo,for,More... etc. an only thing we need is a technology that can take us, wherever we want to travel in light speed.

Simple answer is water exists on mars. However, no more water on mars in future.

MeteorWayne · Apr 1, 2009

Re: yes but not. Do you know why?

Loraela":1dq5f431 said:
It's just a guess not yet a single journey proved. We have to save money and time not for a next mission, for next invention. The main instrument we need is knowledge and machines but not a mission. We need more technology. We need advanced technology to reach far beyond a universe. Such as ufo,for,More... etc. an only thing we need is a technology that can take us, wherever we want to travel in light speed.

Simple answer is water exists on mars. However, no more water on mars in future.

Welcome to Space.com.

Your post is unrelated to the subject of this thread.
Your link seems like SPAM.

I'd recommend that most readers do not click on it until it is checked out.

Mee_n_Mac · Apr 1, 2009

I believe it is SPAM. It's certainly waaaay OT.

nimbus · Apr 3, 2009

Looks like a bot-generated reply.

paulscottanderson · Apr 8, 2009

JonClarke":17gvsi2l said:
I was at these sessions at the LPSC and the possibility of hydrazine contamination seems to have been dismissed. Anaalysis of combustion products of test engines indicarte that there is very little residual hydrazine. Any present would disperse rather than condense and, if it did condense, would first freeze and then sublime.

Silylene et al,

The same as what I noted back in my post on March 29. Even if the previous estimates from 2007 showed a possibility of significant hydrazine contamination, the actual landing data reportedly showed very little if any, as you noted Jon, as well as any venting being on the opposite side of the lander from the droplets. How then would this be an easy explanation?

Did Phoenix find liquid water brines on Mars?

paulscottanderson

Guest

3488

Guest

silylene old

Guest

paulscottanderson

Guest

paulscottanderson

Guest

paulscottanderson

Guest

silylene

Guest

paulscottanderson

Guest

paulscottanderson

Guest

silylene

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

voyagerwsh

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Loraela

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

nimbus

Guest

paulscottanderson

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page