Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote: Nevertheless, the observation about the martian atmosphere is correct. The scale height of the atmosphere on Mars is 30% greater than that of Earth's... which is why meteor and meteorite production is similar on the two planets, and why aerobraking maneuvers work as they do.

(It sometimes makes sense to compare Olympus Mons and Everest, but other than representing their respective planet's highest points, they have little in common. Olympus Mons is three times higher, with its peak in an entirely different atmospheric regime than the top of Everest. If you were at that peak, you wouldn't even know you were on a mountain based on visual clues, just on a big plain with exceptionally thin air.)

chuckster wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:Intuition is a fine thing to use as an aid to analysis. But don't forget about the analysis.

And according to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

The atmospheric pressure on top of Olympus Mons (0.03 kPa) is only a twentieth of the Mars average, whereas on top of Mount Everest (33.7 kPa) it is as much as a third of the value at Earth sea level. The pressure on Mars is everywhere lower than the Armstrong limit of 6.25 kPa, below which water boils at human body temperature. (One could argue, I suppose, that if you need a space suit, you're in space.)

Maybe I just don't realize the people I am among here, and I apologize. Won't happen again. There are times when I must just read and absorb what I can. I've always worked in design and drafting departments (aerospace) and the standard notes at the top left of the first sheet of technical drawings starts with the statement "Unless Otherwise Specified :". If Mars gravity is automatically figured into all analysis and speculation around here, then OK, I get it.

Thanks, people.

Nitpicker wrote:Intuition is a fine thing to use as an aid to analysis. But don't forget about the analysis.

And according to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

The atmospheric pressure on top of Olympus Mons (0.03 kPa) is only a twentieth of the Mars average, whereas on top of Mount Everest (33.7 kPa) it is as much as a third of the value at Earth sea level. The pressure on Mars is everywhere lower than the Armstrong limit of 6.25 kPa, below which water boils at human body temperature. (One could argue, I suppose, that if you need a space suit, you're in space.)

ta152h0 wrote:who said there is no humor here ?

ta152h0 wrote:if the Mars Rover had landed in the Dead Sea, would it have found traces of past water ?

Nitpicker wrote:Intuition is a fine thing to use as an aid to analysis. But don't forget about the analysis.

And according to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

The atmospheric pressure on top of Olympus Mons (0.03 kPa) is only a twentieth of the Mars average, whereas on top of Mount Everest (33.7 kPa) it is as much as a third of the value at Earth sea level. The pressure on Mars is everywhere lower than the Armstrong limit of 6.25 kPa, below which water boils at human body temperature. (One could argue, I suppose, that if you need a space suit, you're in space.)

Nitpicker wrote:Intuition is a fine thing to use as an aid to analysis. But don't forget about the analysis.

And according to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

The atmospheric pressure on top of Olympus Mons (0.03 kPa) is only a twentieth of the Mars average, whereas on top of Mount Everest (33.7 kPa) it is as much as a third of the value at Earth sea level. The pressure on Mars is everywhere lower than the Armstrong limit of 6.25 kPa, below which water boils at human body temperature. (One could argue, I suppose, that if you need a space suit, you're in space.)

chuckster wrote:

chuckster wrote:Something you don't hear much discussion of is the way the roughly half-gee gravity on Mars affects Earth-based human intuitions about processes there. Everyone seems caught up in the Moab-type desert terrain and water effect analogies. I once thought that standing on the summit of Olympus Mons would be analogous to standing in open space, since my "intuition" told me that Mars' thin atmosphere would all be thousands of feet lower. I was corrected with the explanation that the low Martian gravity doesn't hug the atmosphere as closely as on Earth, and is therefore more "puffy", and more prevalent at higher elevations.
So, how about tumbling Mulligans ? What part does gravity play in their formation, or resistance to their formation etc etc ?

Good question, Chuckster ! Next question . . . ?

geckzilla wrote:I would venture to say that if no one answers your question, we either don't know the answer or aren't willing to speculate.

chuckster wrote:OKAY Thanks for saying SOMEthing. I'm only 17 posts into this forum, and I know they can get cliquish at times, or maybe I said something in one of those posts that didn't go down well, or whatever.

I have read so many abstract and scholarly posts around here, that I thought perhaps someone had some good thoughts on the subject of how Mars' gravity affects what the rovers are finding, and the geological processes inferred by them. If not, then
I'll sit tight and move on to other APODs !

BDanielMayfield wrote:

Tszabeau wrote:Here's a pic of some objects I found in North Texas. The two rocks on the left are both from Stony Creek and the one on the right I found in my backyard. The one on the left looks, to my untrained eye, to be an example of the "rocking" type of erosion. It has a tiered "nest" and an "egg", so to speak, that fits neatly into the wobbled-out "nest".
I imagine the one in the middle could have been made similarly, to the point it's egg hatched. The one on the right is not, actually, a rock but could be fused bearings or something mundane. It is metallic and harder than lead. The way it's fused reminded me of the "thigh bone" that was spotted on Mars, a while back.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hoyqcp71uq76p ... s.jpg?dl=0

We'd actually like to be able to see the photo you tried to show us Tszabeau, but the link to your photo is broken.

chuckster wrote:Something you don't hear much discussion of is the way the roughly half-gee gravity on Mars affects Earth-based human intuitions about processes there.

Tszabeau wrote:Here's a pic of some objects I found in North Texas. The two rocks on the left are both from Stony Creek and the one on the right I found in my backyard. The one on the left looks, to my untrained eye, to be an example of the "rocking" type of erosion. It has a tiered "nest" and an "egg", so to speak, that fits neatly into the wobbled-out "nest".
I imagine the one in the middle could have been made similarly, to the point it's egg hatched. The one on the right is not, actually, a rock but could be fused bearings or something mundane. It is metallic and harder than lead. The way it's fused reminded me of the "thigh bone" that was spotted on Mars, a while back.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hoyqcp71uq76p ... s.jpg?dl=0

chuckster wrote:

chuckster wrote:Something you don't hear much discussion of is the way the roughly half-gee gravity on Mars affects Earth-based human intuitions about processes there. Everyone seems caught up in the Moab-type desert terrain and water effect analogies. I once thought that standing on the summit of Olympus Mons would be analogous to standing in open space, since my "intuition" told me that Mars' thin atmosphere would all be thousands of feet lower. I was corrected with the explanation that the low Martian gravity doesn't hug the atmosphere as closely as on Earth, and is therefore more "puffy", and more prevalent at higher elevations.
So, how about tumbling Mulligans ? What part does gravity play in their formation, or resistance to their formation etc etc ?

Good question, Chuckster ! Next question . . . ?

geckzilla wrote:I would venture to say that if no one answers your question, we either don't know the answer or aren't willing to speculate.

chuckster wrote:Something you don't hear much discussion of is the way the roughly half-gee gravity on Mars affects Earth-based human intuitions about processes there. Everyone seems caught up in the Moab-type desert terrain and water effect analogies. I once thought that standing on the summit of Olympus Mons would be analogous to standing in open space, since my "intuition" told me that Mars' thin atmosphere would all be thousands of feet lower. I was corrected with the explanation that the low Martian gravity doesn't hug the atmosphere as closely as on Earth, and is therefore more "puffy", and more prevalent at higher elevations.
So, how about tumbling Mulligans ? What part does gravity play in their formation, or resistance to their formation etc etc ?

Guest wrote:Could the amoeba looking things could be a consequence of lightning strikes melting sand?