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

[rlb2]

Thanks Jon<br /><br />2P185753479EL5M1.5 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[bonzelite]

thank you, jon, for your continuing contributions. i am staying tuned in. <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

yeah, rib2, that looks a helluva lot like mud there. very compelling. of course, looks can deceive. but that looks like muddy areas within the trackway. the "mud" is darker, clumpier and less granular looking than the surrounding sand. like a bit wet and globular. there is a definite texture change going on, at the very least. the tracks appear as if the rover's wheels have tilled the soil a bit, revealing a damp near-subsurface.<br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

<br />"The majority of scientists would *still* say liquid water can't exist on Mars under current conditions."<br /><br />What gives you that idea? There are over 700 journal hits on liquid water and Mars using standard search enginese like Scirus.<br /><br />I think most, if not all scientists would recognise that liquid water is possible on Mars today, under the right conditions. Not everyone is convinced it is actually present, but that is a different story.<br /><br />The Viking 2 site was chosen specifically because of the possibility of seasonal soil moisture.<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>

 

[bonzelite]

exactly, and there was lots of frost in the ground there. <br />

 

[JonClarke]

They were hoping that the abalation of the season frost (which was visible from earth) at such a low elevation would lead to tranistory soil moisture and thus be a favourable habitat for microorganisms. <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>

 

[Philotas]

Exciting. Presence of water! That`s what I`ve been waiting for...as long as they`re talking about liquid water.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">newly-discovered surface and atmospheric features</font><br /><br />That is interesting for sure too. Thanks for bringing the link up. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

It's a press release, don't read too much into it. ME had observed hydrated minerals, water ice, water vapour, gullies and outflow valleys. All these are "traces of the presence of water".<br /><br />However, I do note that there is something on MARSIS, we have been waiting for some concrete results for some time, it maybe we will hear something of this. But remember the results of MARSIS could just as easily be any one of "no", "don't know", or "not yet", as they could be "yes" with respect to liquid water.<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]

1P150908257EL5M1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[exoscientist]

There is more investigation of the idea of liquid water *now*. But remember when Malin & Edgett first found their gullies? They had to be dragged "kicking and screaming" to the idea of liquid water on the surface of Mars today. And this was just in 2000.<br /> The discovery of these gullies was probably the big impetus to investigate the possibility of liquid water on Mars currently. I dare say you wouldn't have found nearly that much research on the idea prior to 2000.<br /> Gil and Ron Levin made their prediction for liquid water on Mars prior to the discovery of the gullies.<br /><br /><br /> - Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Of course there is more discussion on present liquid water - we have more data and more evidence. But there was quite a bit of discussion before hand, as I have said it was a factor in the site selection for Viking 2.<br /><br />But I would take the journalistic hyperbole of "kicking and screaming" with the same amount of salt has has been suggested is in a typical Martian brine. Edgett and Malin had every right to be cautious. Yes, liquid water was a theoretical possibility, but to actually argue for recent flows they had to be very sure of what they were saying. And so they should be.<br /><br />Nothing the Levins' have written on water was original. The possibility of liquid water was pointed out by others well before they did. This desire people have to make them into some great authority on everything Martian is completely unfounded. The father did some great work in the 60's and 70's, and since then has been a very minor player.<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]

Who am I to argue that someone with a PhD in geology has a right to talk about Mars? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />When people are talking about their passion they can get very excited, what the media can then do with even a direct quote can make your air curl - speaking from experience here! Rita Skeeter would be proud....<br /><br />I think what flabbergasted everyone was that these are channels, not just signs of liquid water. People previously were thinking soil films of emphermal soil water or massive eruptions associated with volcanic activity, like Athabasca Vallis (which is very young). Not small springs and channels on crater and valley walls.<br /><br />Plus the fact that the source of some these channels appears to be very shallow aquifers at mid to high latitudes, which does not sit comfortably with our current understanding of the sub surface temerature regimes, nor do they seem to be associated with volcainic hot spots, which might be an explanation for some of the larger outflow channels, like Athabasca Vallis.<br /><br />A few seem to be associated with melting snow packs, which, which was also unexpected. Melting frost, yes, but not thick snow.<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>

 

[jatslo]

Them folks are cowards; the ones who did not take the risk.

 

[bonzelite]

cowards, indeed, yes. <br /><br />having never been to mars, humanity is so arrogantly convinced it knows everything about it, based on earth conditions and comparisons. and this is far from reality. the near subsurface could vary in temperature from sub-freezing to temperate. it does not need to be necessarily frozen for hundereds of metres down. why is this assumed? <br /><br />inasmuch as mars is like a kindred spirit to the earth, it is also entirely alien and exotic. there IS some liquid process altering the surface RIGHT NOW. the dune erosions, the very recently created gullies, is but the very tip of the iceberg. the photos being posted in this thread are showing areas of recent ponding events, with runoff stains and blueberry debris. how can spherical deposits come into formation without being in a suspension medium for some time? these did not form within some solid matrix of stone. spherical forms occur in liquid suspension or in the vast suspension of zero-g outer space. why is this never talked about in any papers? <br /><br />as well, the polar water ice got there from somewhere. it did not magically plant itself there. i don't understand why there is such reluctance to address the thousand pound gorilla in the living room. we must just ignore it quietly as it eats the scenery.

 

[jatslo]

I don't know why; NASA does not seem to have a problem with speculating about a anti-matter cloud at the center of our Milkyway Galaxy, but when it comes to Mars, they will not, or rarely stick their necks out. If it were me, I would be speculating up a storm and calling it for what it is, mainly because its great publicity and a good means of getting the necessary funds to achieve objectives and goals.

 

[bonzelite]

exactly. well put. <br /><br />they will boldly publish things that purport with "near absolute certainty" that the center of the galaxy is this no-holes-barred, center of every possible cosmological gimmick and pony show: black hole, antimatter cloud, bastion of dark matter. but they will NEVER admit or provide as compelling a gesture to suggest that ------ /> water ------ that's it ----- liquid water may actually still exist on mars, somehow, somewhere, to any extent, and be responsible for shaping that planet's surface right now. they will not go there. <br /><br />i don't get it. <br /><br />oh wait. i do get it: theoretical ballyhoo like 11th dimension and shadow matter and the big bang can NEVER be disproven really. so they cannot really be cornered like an animal over those things. but if they go out and put their necks on the real chopping block over something as real and possibly as incriminating as WATER, then, hey, they present the opportunity to look like a royal fool in front of their peers if mars does not deliver on the goods. <br /><br />but they can forever say that invisible unicorns exist, and there is nothing anyone can ever do to disprove those. so they are safe.

 

[rlb2]

1P152951459EL5M1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Cowards? Why?<br /><br />Please read more widely (and just not on the internet) before you assume that just because you don't understand something it means that other people don't. <br /><br />Yes, Mars is an active planet, but, as you wrote, it is not earth. So therefore to say you can see evidence of runoff in the rover images is in fact falling into the trap of thinking it is like earth. We have seen some great images, but so far not the slightest consistent evidence for recent runoff from the rovers.<br /><br />What is this gorilla you think is being ignored? Don't be coy, spell it out.<br /><br />It can't be the "blue berries". Spherical features commonly form in solid stone on earth by many different processes. A common class of these are concretions. They are common in sedimentary rocks which have undergone movement of groundwater. The Burns formation at Meridiani is a sedimentary deposit and has abundant evidence of groundwater movement. Furthermore the blueberries have morphological, compositional and terrestrial counterparts on earth. There are many papers on these already.<br /><br />It's not the polar caps either. There is lots discussion and modelling going on as to how the polar caps formed, from many different approaches. Formation of snow, ice budgets, global climate models, global CO2 and H2O cycling, physical chemistry of clathrates and mixed ice, and the dynamics of mixed ice and clathrate glaciers. <br /><br />All of this can be found in papers and abstracts readily located on the internet. A lot more can be found from a good library. Take advantage of this resource.<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]

Two things. The majority of Mars research is not done by NASA. Even on NASA funded missions the majority of scientists are not NASA employees. There are more Europeans on the Mars Rover science team than there are NASA people.<br /><br />The other is that there is a lot a wide ranging hypothesis generation about Mars in the reseach community. Nobody is afraid of speculation, even though it will mostly turn out to be wrong.<br /><br />The problem is what most people think of as "speculation" about Mars is just stupidity. Faces on Mars, technological artifacts everywhere, worms, tendrils, and bunnies, UFOs, blue sky, green patches, open pools and lakes of water.<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>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">The problem is what most people think of "speculation" about Mars is just stupidity. Faces on Mars, technological artifacts everywhere, worms, tendrils, and bunnies, UFOs, blue sky, green patches, open pools and lakes of water. </font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"theoretical ballyhoo like 11th dimension and shadow matter and the big bang can NEVER be disproven really. "<br /><br />Physicists and cosmologists would disagree with you. All of these things are in principle falsifable. Raising this is at this point is also a red herring - we are not discussing quantum theory or cosmology, we are discussing Mars. Let's keep it that way.<br /><br />"but if they go out and put their necks on the real chopping block over something as real and possibly as incriminating as WATER, then, hey, they present the opportunity to look like a royal fool in front of their peers if mars does not deliver on the goods."<br /><br />There are ways and then there are ways of getting it wrong. You can come up with a good explanation that makes sense at the time but later proves to be wrong but still advances out understanding. This is a good way to be wrong. Or you can get up and say something really stupid that does not make sense based on what is known at the time. This is a bad, unprofessional, and career limiting way of being wrong.<br /><br />Now if you read the literature about water on Mars you will find a huge discussion about every aspect imaginable. We know that liquid water is theoretically possible on the surface and subsurface of Mars, We have direct evidence of its presence in the very recent past, we have very limited indirect evidence from terrestrial radar that it may be locally present, possibly on the surface and more likely in the subsurface. What we have not yet found, despite extensive looking is direct evidence for liquid water now, in any quantity in any imagery, from either landers or orbiters. <br /><br />No amount of rude comments about unicorns and cowards will change this fact. Only evidence, and that to date is in short supply.<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>

 

[bonzelite]

the gorilla is the liquid water. <br /><br />"Blueberries. These are hematite concretions, i.e. they are little rocks containing iron. The concretions were formed under rocks when the rocks were under water. The rocks then eroded away, leaving the concretions exposed and littering the ground. Similar rocks, called Moqui Marbles, are found in the American SouthWest."<br /><br />"Scientists believe that these blueberries grew inside the rock while these rocks were submerged in water. This indicates that Mars was much wetter in the past, an environment potentially suitable for life."<br /><br />---a liquid suspension was present to form the spheres. in the rock or not. that is my point. a spherical form will not form if gravity alone is acting upon it's surface in one direction for too long. else, a spheroid shape will not happen. <br /><br />water is water on earth, mars, disneyland. if the staining of the bright faced rocks was not due to flowing water, then what was it? lemonaide? whiskey? liquid nitrogen? what substance, in what state, could be responsible for the myriad dune gullies that are brand new? <br /><br />mars is as different as it is similar. the conditions there differ, absolutely. various raw materials of earth are on mars, though --way back aeons ago, and NOW. <br /><br />in all due respect, i do apologize if i offended you about the invisible unicorn statement. i learn a lot from you and enjoy your input and regard it highly. <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Jatslo's Response

 

[rlb2]

As stated after first viewing the blueberries when they first were imaged “Spherules resemble Geyser Beads a pisolite.” Geyser beads Hot Spring Yellowstone Park. To have suggested that at the time a person would have to infer some underground artesian type wells. Got myself in Hot water (pun) for suggesting that, it would have to be a huge eruption or a large amount of evenly displaced artian wells to cover an area as large as where Opportunity is at. I also said "some kind of underground water supply percolating to the surface may do the same thing on Mars upon reaching the surface of a 7 milibar atmosphere.<br /><br /><font color="orange">Bead Geyser is named after its large number of "beads," or pisolites, small, round formations of sinter. Sinter is formed as silica precipitates out of the erupting water. When the geyser erupts, the pisolites roll around in the turbulent water. After the eruption ends, water on the pisolites evaporates, leaving a new layer of silica precipitated on the rock.<font color="white"><br /><br />http://schwehr.org/yellowstone/Explore/Beads.html<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

The image you shown above were done before, I wonder if they are checking for new erosion years later.<br /><br />Here is one I colorized from a single image, notice in the image there are vary few impact craters.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>