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

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">We are getting right off topic here.... <br /><br />Would adding detergent reduce viscosity? Or am I thinking of surface tension? </font><br /><br />This is off topic...but anyways,<br /><br />A detergent would reduce surface tension.<br /><br />There are very effectove additives which could be used to increase viscosity. However, it is very difficult to reduce the viscosity of water, unless one blended water with a large amount of another low viscosity miscible sovent (such as ethanol). <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>

 

[silylene old]

rlb2, I think this very recent image ni Erebrus crater on sol 657 by 'dilo' would interest you:<br />http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2605 <br /><br />And this one too (unusualy dark colored stratified mound): http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2606 <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]

He did a good job but he needed to darken it a bit, most all the raw images are a bit overexposed to start with.<br /><br /><br />Here is a close-up of the same area, with contrast and bit of darkening. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">And this one too (unusualy dark colored stratified mound):<font color="white"><br /><br />I post this on the image of mars board in color but here is lightened image to see the stratified mound better. Are you thinking that this may be the result from a recent meteorite impact?<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">He did a good job but he needed to darken it a bit, most all the raw images are a bit overexposed to start with. </font><br /><br /><br />I thought you'd find it interesting since it has the appearance of once being wet.<br /><br />+++++<br /><br />The dark mound in the other picture is niteresting. I hope Oppotunity can get closer. It looks like a collapsed shale-boulder from this distance. <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]

Here is some more recent wet looking terrain.<br /><br />1P186154412EL5M1.5 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Substantial quantities of liquid water must have been stably present in the early history of Mars. The findings of OMEGA, on board ESA's Mars Express, have implications on the climatic history of the planet and the question of its <font color="yellow">'habitability' <font color="orange">at some point in its history. <br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18417</font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="orange">"...implications on the climatic history of the planet and the question of its 'habitability'</font>font color=yellow> at some point in its history."<br /><br />Of course, "at some point in its history" means 3.5 billion years ago or so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Of course, "at some point in its history" means 3.5 billion years ago or so.<font color="white"><br /><br />I read the article. No one is going to jump off the cliff just yet, I said since the rovers first landed they will be many baby steps to a verifiable watery conclusion, this is just one more. Not too long ago there were hundreds of skeptics of water carving the surface of Mars, blue Mars, red Mars etc. now they are down to a very few, No doubt when MARRIS and OMEGA is done surveying the planet there will more news, we will then have a better understanding of where to send future rovers. <br /><br />There still doing testing on Brine existing on Mars today.............</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

You should get no argument about water and Mars. There's obviously a great deal of it there right now -- maybe even liquid. The sensitive point is "habitability", which was <font color="yellow">highlighted</font>in your post. So, water is there now, surface habitability... 3.5 billion years ago.<br /><br />By the way, I do not assume, think, or even suspect that smooth, featureless, or dark areas in rover photographs indicate wetness. I think they represent dust, shadow, and dark material. So there!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">By the way, I do not assume, think, or even suspect that smooth, featureless, or dark areas in rover photographs indicate wetness. I think they represent dust, shadow, and dark material.<font color="yellow"> So there!<font color="white"><br /><br />Don't trust your eyes ah. Is it a coincident that they are layered rocks in the areas that appear to be wet??? All developed by Aeolian erosion....right..<br /><font color="yellow">so here......<br /></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="yellow">and here....</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="yellow">and here</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="yellow">and here</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[bonzelite]

in my opinion, that is a leftover aqueous runoff footprint. you can see the sand smoothed out and there are flow patterns left behind there. like after a rainstorm and the puddles have dried up, leaving behind the water traces in the dirt. this seems as obvious to me as the day is long. <br /><br />

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Is it a coincident that they are layered rocks in the areas that appear to be wet???"</font><br /><br />Are you saying that if the rocks formed in water billions of years ago, that water must still be present?<br />Or are you saying that if the rocks were eroded by water millions of years ago, that water must still be there?<br />I don't think that a picture of rocks either formed by or eroded by water proves the current presence of water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

so the clearly smoothed areas of past liquid ponding, replete with ripples and erosion patterns ---are all fossilized?

 

[centsworth_II]

All you see is the effect of wind on dust (fines). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

on this topic you seem a naysayer and a hater. <br /><br />

 

[centsworth_II]

I admit to being a naysayer on martian mud puddles at the rover sites, but where does the hate come in? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

That image is a nice example of what can be done with multiple datasets. It is the false colour OMEGA mineral map draped over the 20 m resolution HRSC DEM. You can correlate specific mineral abundances with specific topographic features such as recessively eroding or resistant units.<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]

"so the clearly smoothed areas of past liquid ponding, replete with ripples and erosion patterns ---are all fossilized?"<br /><br />You 's razor? basically it means you don't postulate superfluous explanations. Wind action will form sediment "pondss" and ripples, and erode rock. We know that wind is currently active across the entire surface of Mars. We can see its action at almost every scale at Meridiani. It is evident in the rosion of the rocks, the cformation of dunes, the surface lags. <br /><br />Conversely we do not see flowing water. We see no obvious signs of water in the recent past. Any liquid water present there now will be ephemeral films from the melting.<br /><br />It makes much more sense to explain these features as due to wind, a known active process which is entirely consistent with what we see, than to invoke water, which we have not seen and has not left obvious traces in the recent surface features of Meridiani.<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">Are you saying that if the rocks formed in water billions of years ago, that water must still be present? <br />Or are you saying that if the rocks were eroded by water millions of years ago, that water must still be there?<font color="white"><br /><br />What I am guessing by the images are that brine [water saturated salts] might have been present as early as millions of years ago and may be present today on Mars surface from new tests being done today on brine in a controlled Martian type environment. What I said in the past was that I think water is on mars today but covered up by soil or water ice, this was something I was saying for years. All it takes is enough energy and the water pressure from the water vapor in a confined area to build up to the point where the density of the air increases to allow water ice to form a liquid under pressure.<br /> <br />What I said was recorded in depth here on this thread, I know it takes a lot of time to go back through all the dialogue but it may answer some of your questions before you ask or it may bring up more questions not well explained. <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">That image is a nice example of what can be done with multiple datasets. It is the false colour OMEGA mineral map draped over the 20 m resolution HRSC DEM. You can correlate specific mineral abundances with specific topographic features such as recessively eroding or resistant units.<font color="white"><br /><br />Good point. There sure getting better at extrapolating out more information, with MARRIS up and running and a new one soon joining the parade we will be getting even better datasets of information. I'm hoping they may be able to extrapolate out more information from Minnitess and the MER rovers.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[robnissen]

I never understood why NASA should so little interest in the "mud" at Opportunity's lander, their explanation that it was too risky to analyze that "mud" seemed lame to me, but I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I think NASA is stupid, so I accepted it. But what I don't understand is why NASA hasn't attempted to analyze any of the "mud" shown in the pictures here. Isn't that what Opportunity is there for? Am I missing something here?