Simulations Show Liquid Water Could Exist on Mars / New Phoenix Lander results

[rlb2]

If these folks are wrong then you need to tell them that they are wrong not me. There going to be disappointed<br /> that they weren’t the first and should be reprimanded for plagiarizing.<br /><br /><font color="orange">FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - University of Arkansas researchers have become the first scientists to show<br /> that liquid water could exist for considerable times on the surface of Mars. <br /><br />Julie Chittenden, a graduate student with the Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Sciences, and Derek<br /> Sears, director of the Space Center and the W.M. Keck Professor of Planetary Sciences, will report their <br />findings in an upcoming issue of the Geophysical Research Letters. <br /><br /><font color="white">Jon said - <font color="orange">If you are going to talk about how our ideas of Mars have developed, you need to get the history of <br />those ideas into a correct historical sequence. <font color="white"><br /><br />If you’re going to talk about how your ideas molded the current image of Mars then you need to show me. <br />You’re taking a few words here out of context and generating ambiguities and twisting them to create a <br />conflict. I will keep on showing you images and you can keep on telling me how dumb I am and everything we <br />look at is talcum powder - that will work for me.<br /><br />I’ll start from the beginning Oppy landing site:<br /><br />1P130498953EL5M1<br /><br /></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

Sigh. Here are some tracks made by, as Jon would say, talcum powder folks. <br /><br />1P135996513EL5M1<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[bonzelite]

to address this:<br />" "Follow the water" is not about finding water, even liquid water on Mars. that would be old news. Water vapour and ice were discovered, as I recall, in the 60's, the presence of areas with high enough atmospheric pressure to allow for liquid water were known after Mariner 9 in 1971. The same mission showed that large areas had almost certainly been shaped by running water. Essentially nobody who has worked on Mars in the past 34 doubts that liquid water was once present or that it might be present at the surface today, under the right conditions."<br /><br />nope. it is about finding the water. it is about finding incontrovertable evidence of a physical pond, lake, pool, geyser, trickle, emission, spray, or body of standing or running water, either on the surface or under the surface, lasting either in brief spurts or as a reservoir. <br /><br />of course there is "evidence" of water. but that is not enough. there is water ice on mars. as you say, they've known this for decades. who cares. <br /><br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

You are quoting from a press story. That press story is wrong in saying these scientists are the first. It is as simple as that. Typical over-selling of a small (but valuable) advance in understanding. It happens all the time when the press gets hold of a science story. It has happened to me.<br /><br />How am I taking a few words out of context and generating ambiguities and twisting them to create a<br />conflict?<br /><br />The fact is that it has been known for years that liquid water could be stable on the surface of Mars. It is not my fault that the press gets it wrong.<br /><br />As for calling you dumb, I have never done that. I have the greatest respect for your abilities. But you should be careful of news reports.<br /><br />As to 1P130498953EL5M1 , I see wind eroded water laid sediment overlain by a veneer of aeolian material. Where is the evidence of mud.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Not talcum powder but the surface is behaving actly as you would expect a mix of mostly fine, loose particles to behave. Well preserved track imprints. Even piles of material to the sands and at the ends.<br /><br />Stiff mud would behave in a much more clumpy fashion. Fluid mud would show much more plastic behaviour. Plus you would get lumps of bit stuck to the wheels and suspension of the rover. We have not seen this. <br /><br />Plus the lack of a water signature in the miniTES.<br /><br />There has been no mud seen so far.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I paraphrased from memory the rationale of "Follow the water". The Mars rover web page (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/science/) says:<br /><br />"The rovers will offer unique contributions in pursuit of the overall Mars science strategy to "Follow the Water." Understanding the history of water on Mars is important to meeting the four science goals of NASA's long-term Mars Exploration Program:<br /><br /> * Determine whether Life ever arose on Mars<br /> * Characterize the Climate of Mars<br /> * Characterize the Geology of Mars<br /> * Prepare for Human Exploration"<br /><br />"Follow the water" is a summary of the strategy to understand the history of water on Mars which will address four main science goals. <br /><br />It is not primarily about finding present liquid water, although that would be very nice indeed, or even water vapour or ice, although they are important. A better understanding of the history of water on Mars through its traces in mineralogy, geochemistry, geomorphology, and sedimentology is quite sufficient.<br /><br /> As for who cares about water ice, lots of people do. Understanding the distribution, origin and history of that ice is very important to our understanding of the history of mars and whether or not we might find evidence of life. It is also important for those interested in the possibility of human exploration.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Not talcum powder but the surface is behaving actly as you would expect a mix of mostly fine, loose<br /> particles to behave. Well preserved track imprints. Even piles of material to the sands and at the ends. <br /><br />Stiff mud would behave in a much more clumpy fashion. Fluid mud would show much more plastic behaviour.<br /> Plus you would get lumps of bit stuck to the wheels and suspension of the rover. We have not seen this. <br /><br />Plus the lack of a water signature in the miniTES. <br /><br />There has been no mud seen so far<font color="white"><br /><br />I'll be back to tell you why those assumptions can be wrong, even the minitess may be wrong for detection of<br /> Hydrogen. Simply stated your on another planet where some of our Earthly rules no longer apply.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I'll be waiting. In the meantime...<br /><br />MiniTES does not detect hydrogen, it detects molecular water through absorbtion of IR wavelengths.<br /><br />What earthy rules did you think don't apply? The "rules" that arise from purely terrestrial combinations of conditions (like 1 G, temperatures generally /> 0 degrees, 1 atmosphere pressure, N2 and O2 rich atmosphere, abundant surface life, oceans). Quite possibly. Expecting common mud on the surface of Mars under present conditions falls into this category.<br /><br />Or are somehow the "rules" of phsyics and chemistry no longer working because we have gone to the 2nd nearest planet? As far as we can tell, physics and chemistry seem to work right out to the furtherest galaxies (and thus back billions of years in time as well). So why would they be suspended for Mars? Is this the "box" you want us to think outside of?<br /><br />Here is another question for you. If briny muds are common on Mars, especially at the landing site, they would be saturated with halides. These leave a white coating on the surface. Even minor amounts of drying brine will do this. Where are these coatings? We have seen white powders in the sub soil, probably gypsum. We have seen very light coloured rocks, probably rich in sulphate. But no white coatings on or associated with the "muddy" looking material. More evidence that it is not mud.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">MiniTES does not detect hydrogen, it detects molecular water through absorbtion of IR wavelengths.<font color="white"><br /><br />Okkkkkkkkkkkkkk I say potato you say tomalley, I can play that game. <br /><br />Have your Tess been calibrated to a sample on Mars within its environment of what you are looking for. Any<br /> calibration lab will tell you if you take an instrument out of its environment the calibration cannot be verifiable;<br /> the instrument was calibrated here on earth. I’m hoping that they did it in a controlled environment with<br /> similar atmosphere as Mars, at least then you will have a minimum confidence level in the readings you are<br /> getting and telling the world. I’m not fighting wave theory just instrument properties on another planet in<br /> a different environment, big difference. <br /><br /><font color="orange">What earthy rules did you think don't apply? The "rules" that arise from purely terrestrial <br />combinations of conditions (like 1 G, temperatures generally /> 0 degrees, 1 atmosphere pressure, N2 and<br /> O2 rich atmosphere, abundant surface life, oceans). Quite possibly. Expecting common mud on the surface<br /> of Mars under present conditions falls into this category.<font color="white"><br /><br />Then what’s the problem?<br /><br /><font color="orange">Or are somehow the "rules" of phsyics and chemistry no longer working because we have gone to<br /> the 2nd nearest planet?<font color="white"><br /><br />The rules of physics still apply but again you’re in a different environment different set of standards and<br /> Specifications that we are using to measure the rules of physics…<br /><br /><font color="orange">Is this the "box" you want us to think outside of?<font color="white"><br /><br />No it’s the box that I would eventually like to see us all crawl out of.<br /><br /><font color="orange">If briny muds are common on Mars, especially at the landing site, they would be saturated with<br /> halides. These leave a white coating on th</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Mini TES is calibrated on Mars by comparison against an internal target. There are external targets as well, but owing to technical problems they are non operational. Because mini TES is calibrated we can have high confidence that the instrument has not undergone drift in its measurements and is still reading correctly. The results can also be cross correlated , albeit at a coarse resolution, against those obtained by orbital spectrometers like THEMIS, OMEGA, and TES.<br /><br />You seem to be arguing that because Mars is different we should not expect the same rules to apply, ergo, what I think looks like dry particulate beahviour is actually that of mud. However, that argument cuts both ways. If correct, then to say that there is mud at the surface because the features look to you like mud is just as invalid as to say that the surface is dry because the features look to me like they formed dry. <br /><br />However we know that at a general level, particles on Mars behave very similarly to those on earth of similar size. We see sand dunes, wind ripples, impact craters (at all sizes), imbricate clasts, water ripples, slides, flows, bounce marks. There may be detailed differences, but generally the beahviour is close enough for us to say that dry particles and their aggregates will behave in one way, wet particles and their aggregates in another.<br /><br />So far you have not come up with any evidence to support your claim that there is mud, apart from some photos that you claim look like mud but that geoscientists and otehrs familiar with material beaviour recognise as dry powders. There is also the complete evidence of salt films, and the spectscopic signature of water in calibrated instruments.<br /><br />None of this means that there may not be other places on Mars where there is occasional liquid water. It just means we have not seen it yet. We have to go where the evidence leads, not where our fancies would like. To date there is no evidence for enough pre <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Mini TES is calibrated on Mars by comparison against an internal target. There are external targets<br /> as well, but owing to technical problems they are non operational.<font color="white"><br /><br />Was it calibrated to find water or to find brine? <br /><br />If you’re looking for water you may only have a short window to look through. As you know Mars atmosphere<br /> is very dry, dryer than anywhere on earth. Evaporation of water would be almost instantaneous from a liquid to a <br />vapor this happens at a much faster rate because of the thin atmosphere than from natural evaporation<br /> processes. <br /><br />This is the vision I see TES operating in. the rover moves over the surface and takes the first TES readings of what<br /> seems to be molecular water right after stopping. In some areas of Mars they are partially inconclusive,<br /> found molecular water, to verify the find they take several more readings, no water found. Therefore there<br /> initial reading is thrown out because it couldn’t be verified. Once disturbed molecular water would <br />vaporize instantaneously unless in sufficient quantities to precipitate into a solid and fall back to the surface. <br />What is not held to the surface by the brine concoction would immediately turn into a vapor. Now brine may<br /> hide the water molecule from TES within its molecular chain, being that TES was primarily calibrated and sent<br /> there to detect water not brine.<br /><br />There is more you said above that I would like to address later on.<br /><br /><font color="orange">Here is another question for you. If briny muds are common on Mars, especially at the landing site,<br />they would be saturated with halides. These leave a white coating on the surface. Even minor amounts of<br />drying brine will do this. Where are these coatings? <font color="white"> <br /><br />Here are a couple of images recently taken at the Spirit site of the rover tracks, on the mountain, what would<br /> you suggest the white</font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

2P182113764EL5M1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

2P182115266EL5M1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[bonzelite]

jon, i said "who cares" because interested parties, enthusiasts, scientists, are hankering for liquid water on mars ---somewhere ---somehow. that is why the water vapor, frost, is boring. that does not make headlines or move anybody like liquid water would. scientifically, yes, past lakes or oceans are already suspected and "interesting," but boring today. <br /><br />-mars is dry and dead today, but had liquid long ago = boring<br />-mars is dry and dead today, but had an alien civilzation, at least diatoms or something organic with a metabolism = holy cow<br />-mars runs water NOW, has microbes NOW = wow factor, awesome, let's sell real estate there

 

[JonClarke]

Brine is just a term used to describe water that is very salty, conventionally more than sea water (3.5% TDS). Irrespective of composition, free water has essentially the same huge absorption peak in the thermal IR between about 5.5 and 7.5 microns (mini-TES collects data between 5 and 29 microns). Water is a very strong absorber of IR, so even small amounts really, really stand out. That is why you usually dry soil or mineral samples before doing spectroscopy on them. <br /><br />So you don't have to calibrate for brine, you calibrate against a standard so that you know that the peak at (for example 7 microns really is at 7 microns, or, if the instrument has drifted, that the peak showing at 7.8 is really the 7 micron peak.<br /><br />Traces of ephemeral moisture in the surface soil is quite likely, and may be difficult to detect for the reason you suggest. But such traces of water, even a few percent, won’t produce a mud.<br /><br />To me the white spots are a layer of white material in the very shallow sub surface, my guess is sulphate. In conversation with Steve Squyres earlier this year he confirmed this, although I don't think the results are published yet. he horizon is buried by one or two layers of wind blown material, either dark and then light, or just light. To me the whole surface looks dry and unconsolidated. The white material, although buried, seems to mantle topography, rather than be correlated with bedrock lithology.<br /><br />There are a whole range of possibilities for the origin of this sulphate layer. The ones I can think of are: a bedrock horizon, a weathering horizon in the soil, a surface mantling deposit, a evaporation of surface brine or efflorescence of salts in regolith moisture.<br /><br />1) There seems be be quote a lot of sulphate in the bed rock of the Columbia Hills, according to report. The problem is this white material seems to be unconsolidated, surface mantling and does not correlate with any bedrock unit.<br /><br />2) Soluble <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

What's exciting is find out what is actually there. truth is always much more interesting than ignorance or imagination.<br /><br />Speaking as someone who definitely falls under the title of an "interested party" a Mars scientist and enthusiast and lobbyist.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

Thank you for that well thought out explanation:<br /><br />I must not have being paying attention to all the new published papers because of trying to keep up with all the incoming raw images from JPL, I have been relying on news reports. That being said it may be a good thing. A new perspective may help add a new incite that wasn't there before in the debate.<br /><br />I fully understand that fine grain material can make tracks similar to the rovers just like the first human foot impressions on the moon but so can powder snow. I see in a lot of the MER images, alluvial type flow, what appears to the eye as flat standing liquids, what looks like some mud-like impressions, and some wet looking and shinny terrain. That may be explained by other processes but something still aint right here, I'm sure a lot of people share that opinion.<br /><br />It seems to all go back to the MiniTES as determining as what we are seeing is dry or wet plus as you alluded to the different types of soil material. If I remember right hydrogen (most likely from permafrost) was detected at both landing sites not to far below the surface from one of the Martian orbiting satellites which makes this conflict a little from what MiniTESS is reading. <br /><br />If I am going to change anyone’s mind here other than finding visual evidence of a small pond of brine on the surface then I need to find out how reliable MinTES is for detecting molecular water, I have an ace in the hole. My brother in law who has his PHD at Princeton in chemistry owes me. He owns a small company that uses similar instruments like MiniTES that tells his industrial clients what the composition of sample materials are. He does some work for the local government analyzing crime-scene evidence.<br /><br />My question to him will be:<br /><br />Can an instrument tell you most all of the composition of certain elements and not show a signature of known material in the tested sample such as water.<br /><br />How does the environment play a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[silylene old]

Jon, nice summary.<br /><br />Wouldn't #3 (surface mantling deposits) best explain the observations of a bright layer sometimes seen in the tracks in the Gusev hills? Possibly the salts dust layer originated from what was a fresh crater, which uncovered a white salt layer and scattered the pulverized white debris into the atmosphere. I assume the crater was a long time ago, and is now no longer fresh and partially buried. (No, I don't have a candidate crater) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[rlb2]

False color image - close-up of the above image from Oppy sol 647<br /><br />1P185530853EL5M1.7 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[bonzelite]

imagination is more valuable than knowledge. the truths that we're talking about are based on assumptions. creative thought is the underpinning of all science. without that, in my opinon, science is dead. even if some ideas are outlandish, they may hold a seed of truth or genius: the big bang, for example, is such a creative and imaginative idea that is outlandish and is accepted as fact today by all of cosmology. <br /><br />we don't know if there is salt water or not on mars. we don't know for certain if there is liquid water there right now, eroding the surface. there are newly formed gullies in sand dunes that are NEW. and they appear to be created by liquid, as they have telltale fluidlike runoff patterns. the runoff stains on some rocks were more than likely created by some type of flow, as in rust stains in a sink or toilet bowl. and these marks on the surface appear new. not fossilized (despite the chance that looks are deceiving, and all erosion on mars that we see today could have happed six million years ago ---i really doubt it). the fact that there was recently (1999) a cyclone in the northern lowlands on mars is evidence that there is potential for dynamic erosion, even if the high winds are gentle breezes in the thin air. <br /><br />your post is very informative and is good. and i've learned a lot from it. whether it applies to mars or not has yet to be determined. you raise great points about salt deposits, ie, how the existence of such things would raise compellng evidence for outflow from the subsurface. and how, as of yet, such evidence is lacking.

 

[JonClarke]

Trying to keep up is a nightmare task. Just yesterday I discovered a new electronic journal about Mars has been launched. Registered at once, of course <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />As I recall the equitorial regions of water do not contain much hydrogen, although Meridiani has slightly more than Gusev. This is consistent with all the hydrated minerals that have been found on the ground. The caveat is that this only applies to the top metre or so, which is the general depth limitation of the epithermal and high energy neutron detecors on MO<br /><br />A spectrometer can detect unknowns, it produces a plot the different absorptions in the range detected. These are matched against libraries of known substances. This a peak does not match up then you have an unknwon and you have to expand your reference library. It is quite complex to deconvolute the peaks, because you get overlapping peaks and interference, changes in composition can also show subtle shifts in position or slope in the curve, for example the difference bin iron content of a carbonate, or degree of crystallinity in a clay.<br /><br />The issue of instrument drift or variability is why there are standards, miniTES was supposed to have two, both internal and external, however at the moment only the internal is operation. There are other ways of going it, one spectrometer I have a reasonable amount of experience with is PIMA, this not only has an internal (gold) standard but also a calibrated lIR source, rather than relying on ambient radiation.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

That is certianly a way to do it. If you found a candidate crater it would improve the likelihood of the explanation.<br /><br />testing the bedrock seepage explanation could be done by looking for salt effloresences on exposed surfaces. if there is seepage you should see think, curly and whiskery salt crystals on it in the MI. A few cases have been seen at Gusev, so it may be a process, however moisture from melting frost would have a similar result, although not as intense.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You need both. Science is a creative activity, as much as literature or art of music. Imagination, intution etc. are essential. However in science these need to work on a substrate of data, which what distinguishes science from fantasy.<br /><br />I certainly expect that sooner or later we will find present seeps on Mars, as well as other evidenc eof active processes, including wind action, seismic activities, hydrothermal processes, gas seeps, etc. I think we are homing in areas of interest.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[exoscientist]

"Levin is not the source of all knowledge about Mars. So why do people treat him as if he was? In fact he has been completely wrong on just about anything he has theorised about Mars."<br /><br /> Huh? How about his argument that liquid water could exist for short times on Mars.<br /> The observational and experimental evidence is pointing in that direction.<br /><br /><br /> - Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[exoscientist]

"The fact is that it has been known for years that liquid water could be stable on the surface of Mars. It is not my fault that the press gets it wrong."<br /><br /> I don't agree here. The majority of scientists would *still* say liquid water can't exist on Mars under current conditions.<br /> It's current conditions being discussed here not billions of years ago.<br /><br /> - Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>