Starship Asterisk*

Again, you make the most basic assumption- because you were told it did not rain on Mars, you have stuck to this opinion as if it were a fact. Prove it. Just because some other scientists said it did not rain, does not mean that is so. It is their pure, unadulterated opinion that you are fostering.

Sorry again, I'm looking at the evidence. Taking into account the cratering historical evidence, the location and the type of H2O erosion, the fine striations in the sedimentary rocks ...

At the end of the intense meteor bombardment 3.7 billion years ago Mars was at it's most geologically active stage. With the (more dense) atmosphere filled with ash and dust from volcanism and the not so uncommon meteor impact, resulting in keeping the temperature down to the point if there ever was precipitation it most likely fell as snow. If you study the areas of H2O activity you'll notice most of the larger areas will have involved catastrophic movement, as H2O trapped under surface ice, rock, silt ... released by geothermic activity creating raging torrents then a slow progression of layering the result of slow cooling, seasonal melting and wind erosion depositions. Mars has changed very little the 3 to 2.5 billion years ago time line, long before the Cambrian explosion on Earth .5 billion years ago when the first records of complex life forms are found.

Here is a picture of a geyser on Mars. This is a cross-eyed stereo view. Look at the slots and the flow patterns in the soil. This is not created by wind. This is also not billions of years old. It cannot be more than a decade old in any event, because it would have been covered by dust and sand.



The whole article is at this link:http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey6.htm

There you will find full color stereo views of this feature, some magnified so you can see the details clearly. If your view of Mars being dry for all these millions of years is correct, then how do you explain this image? Let's look at another one, a little more interesting in my opinion.



Well, this is clearly where water has flowed over this area and left trails behind the spherules. There is no other credible explanation for this. Water did this, and it did it recently. Otherwise, it would be covered or erased by sand storms, dust, meteorite impacts, dust devils... or do you really believe that this has lain untouched and unchanged for billions of years, as you claim? Let's make a comparison here. This is an image of dry sand on Mars.


It's pretty clear that this soil is like any you might find on Earth. Now, compare it to this:

This is clearly a picture of mud. Not only that, but you can see a dark area in the ring- that ring is from the Mossbauer head being pressed to the soil. The dark area is where the mud stuck to the Mossbauer head and was peeled out of the imprint. See proof of that here:



The mud stuck to the aluminum ring around the Mossbauer head and peeled up out of the imprint in the soil. You cannot use a weasel explanation for this; the soil is sticky and muddy. It bulged when compressed by the ring, it retained the imprint of the tool, and it stuck to the head. No dry soil will do this, only a muddy soil can do it. The rest of this information is on this page:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/wetnow01.htm

Here is a series of color images of the large geyser field above Endurance Crater. This is mud, not dry sand. Sand will not stick together as this soil does unless a liquid is present in it. That is why sand is used in hourglasses. If this is dry, then why does it not flow into the holes instead of sticking together like mud?

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/imo114.htm

And finally, do you think there is plumbing on Mars? I ask because it looks like a pipe broke here.



This is an active geyser on Mars today. Just look at it. You can see the false color stereo view here:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsgey2.htm

Finally, read the chapters I have posted. All the information is there, complete with references. Stereo, color, anaglyphs, even spectral data are present. It answers all those questions and proves that there is presently liquid water on Mars. Just read it. No amount of theory can overrule an empirical observation. There are the empirical observations.

Your evidence is remarkable at supporting my theory that the transportation of surface materials by H2O is not by precipitation but by seepage of trapped subterranean ice melt making its way to the surface to be quickly boiled away.

Viscous debris flows caused by wind erosion and/or gravity can emulate fluid erosion so be careful how you pose your evidence.

Present day hydrology on Mars is mostly from geysers and sand boils, given this evidence. But take note of the fact that the water is not boiling away. This is mud. The soil is wet at this moment. The environment for microbial life is still intact and many other organisms might survive just below the surface.

This actually supports a much wetter Mars in years past, complete with oceans (as NASA has stated did exist). Rain is only a small step away. But for your statements, you have been saying that the surface is desiccated. You are wrong. You claimed that there is no erosion on Mars similar to what occurs on Earth, but I have shown here that there is mud. Water in the soil can freeze inside rocks, splitting them. That is a major force of erosion on Earth and on Mars.

So now, you are again shifting your position. We can track it in this thread quite easily. But what seems to elude you is that the glaciers and ice under the surface are from the oceans that froze when the climate became much colder. There were indeed oceans, a hydrological cycle, the soil is muddy today, the water is not boiling away, and there are active geysers and sand boils in Meridiani, which was once a sea bed.

This is one of the latest images from Victoria Crater area.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 6L6M1.HTML
Interestingly the rock shown strongly resembles a Neanderthal Spear Point.

Maybe Neanderthals visited sometime in the past?

Itty bitty ones. Aren't those "blueberries" pretty small?

It seems to me in that image, in that the spherules are clean and some are embedded in the surface, that the surface seems muddy or recently wet.

Yet, isn't the temperature there supposed to be something like 50 degrees below zero? How can water-based mud exist in that condition?

Surely the rover can measure the temperature of the ground. Is it warm there from geothermal activity?

-Noel

Given the realtive size of the blueberries (appx 4-8mm) I would guestimate the size to be approx 2.5" wide x 3" long. I was looking at other fossils today and noticed that it also resembles the fossil of a shark tooth. Looking at the shadowing at the left side, this gives the appearance that this Rock is standing at about a 45deg angle relative to the surface.
Of course, one would need to take precise measurements and turn it over to examine the other side to determine weather it is nothing more or something more than a curiously shaped rock.

I didn't realize they're that big. I had thought they were about the size of BBs. Thanks for clarifying that.

-Noel

here is an interesting photo of Hematite nodules
http://web.utah.edu/unews/news_images_2004/jun/SF1.jpg






and it's from Utah

Air temperatures can be pretty extreme, with the most quoted range being from -20C to -60C. But the air is so thin that is acts like an insulator, not conducting the heat the way it does on Earth. Ground temperatures are measured from -20C to +35C, and considering the huge load of salts present, the water remains liquid because it is brine.

Warm soil can reach +27C easily (81F) as measured by the orbiter portions of the Vikings. Strangely, the ground temperatures in most reports are "model ground temperatures" and not actual data.

So don't be fooled by the quoted temperatures, which are almost always air temperatures, which in fact have little influence on the ground. It is a bare desert in raw sunlight during the day, something that few seem to take into account.

GOOD NEWS for water on Mars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... rface.html
direct from endurance crater to you (only 2 years late)
Of course, they won't take the rover back to verify this.

What is that magnifying spot on this image of the rover solar array?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... 6M2M1.HTML

Looks like Clear Ice from frozen condensate that fell to the deck from the mast.

I also thought this might be a water droplet some time back. I found many images of the droplets over the whole mission and they were unchanged.

They all look like clear epoxy adhesive, and it is easy to see that water or ice would not last for years under the heat that is present during some of the Martian days.

aichip wrote:I also thought this might be a water droplet some time back. I found many images of the droplets over the whole mission and they were unchanged.

They all look like clear epoxy adhesive, and it is easy to see that water or ice would not last for years under the heat that is present during some of the Martian days.

A Martian with a cold passed by?
What?
OK, I'll get my coat...

BMAONE23 wrote:GOOD NEWS for water on Mars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... rface.html
direct from endurance crater to you (only 2 years late)
Of course, they won't take the rover back to verify this.

Probably be too cold to skinny dip on Mars.
Orin

I hate to say "I told you so"... oh, wait a minute- no, I don't.

Here is a wonderful quote from the Phoenix mission:

"This soil appears to be a close analog to surface soils found in the upper dry valleys in Antarctica," Kounaves said. "The alkalinity of the soil at this location is definitely striking. At this specific location, one inch into the surface layer, the soil is very basic, with a pH of between eight and nine. We also found a variety of components of salts that we haven't had time to analyze and identify yet, but that include magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride." "This is more evidence for water because salts are there. We also found a reasonable number of nutrients, or chemicals needed by life as we know it," Kounaves said. "Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the amazing thing about Mars is not that it's an alien world, but that in many aspects, like mineralogy, it's very much like Earth."

Again, there is the sodium and the chlorine, along with potassium. Also confirmed, nutrients. So let's see, this nails the fact that Mars is very much like a part of Earth and contains all we need for life including water ice, damp, sticky soil, nutrients and salts.

Now, the pH of seawater is 7.5 to 8.4, while the soil at the Martian tundra is between 8 and 9. Guess what? 8.4 comes right smack between 8 and 9. Many crustaceans live quite well in lakes with pH levels of 9. This means that the soil of Mars, if wetted, would not be inhospitable based on pH levels. There are many, many species of plant and animal that will thrive in those conditions.

So here we blow the stupid "battery acid" theory out of the water (pun intended) and we also show the presence of sodium once again, and we show the presence of nutrients for life. Viking was right about the presence of organics, NASA covered it by claiming that the GCMS saw nothing, but now we see that this is absolutely false. Gil Levin is finally going to get his due after all these decades. Now, about those fossils...