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

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">in my opinion, that is a leftover aqueous runoff footprint.<font color="white"><br /><br />You may be right but we need something that can recognize it as a aqueous solution. Maybe something as Jon referred to from above, overlaying datasets may find other clues that were hidden or tossed away as unknowns before.</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[jatslo]

"...<font color="yellow">where does the hate come in?</font><br /><br />The "Naysayerism", if that is a word, paired with your lack of contribution through arrogance and ignorance of alternative viewpoints is hateful. The evidence is building for past, present, and future Martian mud puddles of primordial sludge, and like big foot, it will take an actual specimen to convince people like you that there is, in fact, Martians. However, I am not convinced that an actual specimen will convince you, because you can always cry conspiracy, and then loathe and behold the shoe is suddenly on the other foot. Your ignorance in this matter; the one, in which the mighty Jatslo is accusing you of, will be considered evidence to support my accusations.

 

[centsworth_II]

Maybe I'm laboring under a false impression here, but I thought that in mini-tes images wet soil would stand out like a searchlight in relation to dry soil. I'm sure the heat emmission characteristics of wet soil must be very different to dry soil. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i'm connecting the dots, perhaps with naivete', with the newly formed gullies at the sand dunes, the gullies in the crater walls, and the existence of subsurface and surface water vapor signatures from satellite data. this all leads me to think that sporadic bursts of outlfow, of liquid, happen on mars. <br /><br />in general, we know the liquid cannot exist on the surface for long. but i believe it can exist. and it can especially exist if the millibar readings are in the zone of allowance for such events. ponding water could plausibly occur in the Hellas basin. or at the bottom of Vallis Marineris. and outflow from fissures could exist as liquid in higher areas. <br /><br />in all due respect to you, jon, i am not whatsoever denying atmospheric wind erosion dynamics. that is also a key element in martian surfacing. evidence for that is everywhere on mars. <br /><br />the low hollowed areas of smoothed darkened soil with ripple signatures DO NOT AT ALL look like wind erosion to me. the staining of rocks, much resembling "hard water" rust stains on bathroom porcelain fixtures, local to the footprint areas and streaming exactly into these areas, further builds a case in my assessment FAR AWAY from wind erosion. <br /><br />it would stand to reason that the erosion is done in spurts, from the same vents, over decades and centuries of time in varied geyser or trickling events. this allows stained paths left behind by outflow to tattoo the brighter rocks. just as it takes months for hard water stains to build up in a bathroom tub, such is a similar case on mars. some of the stains we're seeing may be thousands of years in the making. with some of these areas being recently active and eroding the sand just a few years or months ago.<br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

It's blatantly obvious to me from some of the images I've seen that significant standing water existed on Mars at some point in its geological history.<br /><br />And while it's very interesting that a simulation shows that some form of liquid water could exist on the surface briefly, what's important about that? I mean, how would it be germane to humans existing there?<br /><br />If I understand the simulation correctly, it wouldn't seem to me that those temporary water bodies could harbor life. It seems almost anectdotal to me if water DOES occasionally exist on the surface.<br /><br />We already know that water ice exists at the poles. We're fairly sure there are significant quantities of subsurface water ice.<br /><br />I guess I just don't see this as some significant revelation. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the revelation is endemic to the scientific awareness that water ice is at mars right now, at the poles, and perhaps in vast quantities underground. this water, at the very least, could be fetched remotely from wells. <br /><br />getting back to the pictures, i reiterate that the erosional characteristics that we are seeing highlighted, if you will, in a forenzic visual assessment --in no way whatsoever reveal mere wind erosion to me. the areas appear like aftermath of rainwater runoff. not that they were created by actual rain, but by outflow. you don't at all see that --in any way-- from the visual data? <br /><br />wind erosion is most evident, most obvious, at the vast dune fields and plains. and nobody has a problem with visually seeing that this is obvious and as clear as the day is long. nobody seems to need any further validation of this truth or further indirect data to bolster this evidence. <br /><br />but the pictures being posted here that harken to past runoff of liquid are among rock outcrops and tighter areas, replete with smoother textured hollows, abruptly differentiated from the surrounding uneffected, unwetted, sand. and the runoff stains on the brighter rock surfaces just put the icing on the cake --such a stain feature is absolutely NOT created by wind erosion. <br /><br />so why would, then, the other areas of sand adjacent to them, following the same pattern of flow as the stains, be suddenly created by the wind? <br /><br />why is there such a reluctance to at least seriously speculate, with conviction, a liquid water event history that is recent? i just don't get it --the hatred is as deeply entrenched as the water. <br /><br />

 

[silylene old]

<b>A fascinating interview with Dr Steve Squyres:</b><br /><br />be sure to read the full interview here, a lot more than the excerpts I posted below: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/podcast_mars_squyres_transcript.html<br /><br /><i>my emphasis in bold</i><br /><br />"Well what we found is that this was a place where there was once water on Mars. The water was primarily beneath the ground. The water was not nice, pure water, it was salty stuff, and it was probably very acid. It was probably sulfuric acid. And what happens is this sub-surface water, think of it as a water table. It goes up and down and sometimes it would rise to the surface, and when it rose to the surface it would evaporate away and leave sulfate salts behind. And then those sulfate salts would blow around in the Martian winds and form dunes. And we see evidence of these dunes, we see evidence of water soaking the sub-surface, and <b>we see occasional evidence of water coming to the surface</b>. But it was a pretty dry place much of the time with most of the water beneath the ground. "<br /><br />"Well, what it’s told us is that Mars is a place where there was water, there was water beneath the surface. We haven't found any evidence for waves, we haven't found any evidence for deep water, we haven't found any evidence for rainfall. That doesn't mean none of those things happened. But what we have found has been evidence for a much more limited sort of water activity where water just comes to the surface for brief periods. It could have been very different on other parts of the planet. " <br /><br /><font color="yellow">And what about the composition of the rocks? You studied that as well. </font><br /><br />Yeh, that was key. What we were able to do is not only just verify what we had concluded previously about the composition, but really enrich our understanding. What we had learne <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>

 

[JonClarke]

He is of course, talking about the evidence at Meridiani, not the whole planet.<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>

 

[silylene old]

Yes, certainly. Nor does not say that the surface water was anytime recent .<br /><br />Still, interesting. <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>

 

[bonzelite]

Squyres basically says what i just said in my prior posts, however more eloquently and with prudent study of in-depth scientific analysis. he shys just short of saying the liquid is there NOW. as does Jon and you, silylene. but the scenario for it's existence is clear. <br /><br />i can get away with saying it is there TODAY because i don't have a scientific reptuation to protect. i don't care what i say in this context. and i feel i am correct. i would bet my amateur scientist's badge on it. <br /><br />the areas of hollows and rock stainings and apparent leftover rippled aqueous drainage runoff prints are recent. i'd say within the past hundred years to hundred months.

 

[JonClarke]

"but the pictures being posted here that harken to past runoff of liquid are among rock outcrops and tighter areas, replete with smoother textured hollows, abruptly differentiated from the surrounding uneffected, unwetted, sand. and the runoff stains on the brighter rock surfaces just put the icing on the cake --such a stain feature is absolutely NOT created by wind erosion."<br /><br />The problem the people who see the influence of water in the geomorphology visible in the rover images are not people with relevant expertise. <br /><br />So, on one hand we have hundreds of geomorphologists, sedimentologists, hydrologists, spectroscopists and soil scientists from around the world, experts in how liquid water erodes, transports and deposits materails and shapes the landscape at all scales, scanning these images for evidence of present liquid water, eager to be the ones who who can announce the presence of liquid water but so far not finding any. <br /><br />On the other we have people on internet fora who have demonstrated little or no knowledge of these subjects, confidently announcing they have seen evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />The simple fact is that nobody has yet come up with any evidence for the spectrosopic presence of water in minTES, nobody has identified any obvious channel or fan features, any signs of salt effloresence, in short any of the basic evidence for recent water activity. <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>

 

[bonzelite]

rob says: "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?"<br /><br />bonzelite says: no. you're right on the money. the answer is exactly your question: they avoided it on purpose. look at all of the other chances to dig in the "mud" hollows that are not taken either. if i am wrong, then slap my wrist and correct me, please. i will gladly take it to learn more. <br /><br />i have a question, then: are there microscopic imager datasets of the rock stainings? of the hollowed areas of smooth soil with the blueberries? of the areas of sand ripples in the nooks and crags of runoff areas? <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[asteroid6649]

I quite agree. I thought that, that was suppose to be the perfect time to do some research.Guess not.But something's not right, why would they not take that chance to analyze, and do research.Now the question is, Am i missing anything?

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">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,<font color="white"><br /><br />Me neither. However all that data they taken can be scrutinized for decades to come, its all digital - even the images...<br /><br /><br />1P138654448EL5M1</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i know i'm not a trained scientist. and i know thousands of amateurs are out there that claim bigfoot exists and they have seen it, too. but the visual data of the past water flows in question seem, to make a pun, pretty cut and dry to me. <br /><br />despite a lack of spectral data, eg, jarosite, perhaps, as signatures of recent outflow, these may not necessarily be requisite markers for such activity on mars. and if it is, then i don't know of any as of yet exhaustive analysis of those areas that are posted in this thread. i just do not buy that those hollows and stain features, with ripples and smoothed bowl-like features, are of wind origin. <br /><br />were i a scientist by trade, i would look at the wind as culprit as a necessary process of elimination, but not really buy it. there is a flow signature there. it cries out to us. i am either in extreme denial and in a fantasy world, wishing upon a star for liquid, or there is some serious denial in the scientific community about the strong chance it is actually there right now. <br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

When we recognise our limits that gives us the opportunity to start learning and expanding those limits. There are lots of books out there that give a basis for understanding the basic parameters of Mars surface conditions. I believe I have already recommended Hartmann's "Traveller's guide to Mars", there are others. You really should read it.There are also lots of books, and some excellent web sites, that will teach you the essentials of small scale geomorphology. If you are willing to learn from this material you will unerstand what you are seeing much better. There is so much data from these rovers there is real scope for intelligent and informed non-professionals to make real contributions, just as there is in astronomy. <br /><br />One difficulty that you are having is with weighing evidence for present surface water at the Meridiani sites. You dismiss the absence of spectral data for recent outflows, or the lack of obvious channels, puffy ground, salt effloresences (all wighty evidence) because "these these may not necessarily be requisite markers for such activity on mars" but at the same time are prepared to state categorically that stains, hollows, bowls and ripples (or light evidence) are definitive evidence for liquid water when you have been shown repeatedly that they are not. None of the stains I have seen on this discusison and elsewhere look like those left by flowing water. Hollow, bowls, and ripples can and do have mutiple origins. In the case of the ripples, the ones we have seen so far are morphologically and contexturally like those formed by wind, not by flowing water.<br /><br />Hundreds of scientists with high levels of experience studying the effects of water and wind in desert environments all over the world have been looking at these images, all bursting with the desire to be the first one to find evidence of flowing water. None of them have found it. What is more likely, that they are incompetent, in denial or that you are wrong?<b></b> <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]

i'm not tooting the incompetence of scientists horn; as well, i'm not above being wrong. i even postulate that i could be in a fantasy world of denial and delusion -- i'm going on amateur exposure to physics and astronomy. i know the best of the best are on the mars trip. and i am not among this peer group; you may be, and i respect you for that. again, your posts are ever informative and engaging. <br /><br />you are correct: there is no conclusive evidence. so you must throw out speculation in a court of law. i am simply speculating. and enthused about liquid water. and the pictures certainly look like it to me. nearly perfectly. <br /><br />we can debate this all night long and will still hold to our opinions. i did jot down the title of that mars book, by the way. and yesterday i got my Greaves & Thomas mars globe shipment. man, she is a beauty! the best globe of mars out there. now i can know the locales, names, and proximities of areas with greater knowledge. and it is a gorgeous piece on the shelf. <br /><br /><br />

 

[rlb2]

The posted link to <font color="orange">A fascinating interview with Dr Steve Squyres: <font color="white"><br /><br />I found interesting on how he categorized the dunes. The dunes had some of the brightest yellowish hue to them in some places that I have seen from all of the MER rover images . I mentioned this when the first raw images came out showing it "some places it looks like an abundance of yellowish sulfur looking material.<br /><br />Hers is what Dr Steve Squyres said in that link you provided:<font color="orange"><br /><br />Now the dunes, the sand grains themselves are made largely of salt. So this is, these are sand grains that formed when water came to the surface, evaporated away, left salt behind, and then the salt blows around to pile up to form dunes.<br /><br />Yeh, it was a place where there was water beneath the ground, the water was probably very acid, it was probably <font color="yellow">sulfuric acid<font color="orange">, the water table fluctuated, it would go up and it would go down. We don’t really understand what caused the water table fluctuations, but we see very, very clear evidence for it. Sometimes the water would rise all the way to the surface and you would actually have exposed water at the surface that might have lasted only for a very short period of time and the water would evaporate away and leave salts behind. <font color="yellow">These sulfate salts would blow around in the wind and form the dunes and so forth that we see preserved in the geologic record.<font color="orange"> It’s the kind of place that had all the necessary ingredients for life, but it could have been a challenging sort of place for life to take hold.<font color="white"><br /><br />Here are two images of the dunes below; I included a sample image of sulfur taken from the Smithsonian to the left in the image below.<br /><br />1P146915466EL5M1.5<br /><br /></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[rlb2]

1P146915535EL5M1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[newtonian]

RobNissen, you all - NASA did not analyze the "mud" by the Opportunity lander?<br /><br />Is that true?<br /><br />If it was analyzed, what were the results as to composition?<br /><br />If not, why not?

 

[newtonian]

rib2 - You posted a quote stating:<br /><br />"It’s the kind of place that had all the necessary ingredients for life, but it could have been a challenging sort of place for life to take hold."<br /><br />The quote makes no sense - what ingredients necessary for life were detected?<br /><br />The context is concerning sulfate salts formed in water. <br /><br />This implies ions in water, which would react with many precursor to life molecules (pre-biotic molecules) in said water and precipitate them out the same way sulfate salts were precipitated out - this would not allow any truly complex prebiotic molecules to form. <br /><br />This seems like one of the many typical statements about origin of life scenarios that skip over basic chemistry and cover over laws of chemistry with rhetoric.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

I hope you get Hartmann, I really can't praise this book enough. Hartmann is a legend, he has been working in planetary science since before Ranger, is is a first rate, world class scientists. he also is a great man, with a perspective on space exploration as global enterprise, not just the province of one nation. he is also an excellent writer, a reasonable novelists, and a great space artist. the book is well laid out too. It is a like martian equivalent to a travellers guide to Europe, handy in size, laid out according to the features you would most want to see, and briming with facts.<br /><br />You have bought a mars globe? I envy you! I haven't quite been brazen enough to justify that amount of outlay to the family treasurer.. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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]

Mars is a big pace with a long history. we know from the alteration assemblage in the Nakhalite meteorites that some aqueous alteration was at much higher pH, depositing carbonates. So different places or different times had quite different waters. Both the clays reported by the ME team and the Meridiani sediments though are supposed to come from the approximately same period - Late Noachian to Early Hesperian.<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>

 

[newtonian]

psa_space - Interesting!<br /><br />I haven't read your link yet.<br /><br />However, alkaline water also has ions - as does earth's oceans today. Reactions still occur with ions which would make creation of life difficult.<br /><br />I will respond further after researching.

 

[bonzelite]

yes. i bought a blemished one cheap on the popular auction site that i probably cannot mention here. but you know what it is. G&T will occasionally post a slightly off globe at a tremendously reduced price. believe me, the globe is awesome --there is one on there now. check it at auction versus the retail:<br />http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/greavesandthomas/facsimile/globe_Mars.html<br />and if you get it, request in email to seller the red base. it's much more attractive. <br /><br />i am stoked about getting that book. <br /><br />