Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by Phage

 

So........You're not willing to concede to, or at least entertain the thought that: the numbers you and other people are quoting pertaining to Mars' atmosphere, don't quite JIVE with the ground and orbit level visual evidence, which are both ironically from the same source?

Now as I said before, you can't always judge by just what you see, but this is also based on the numbers. And those numbers don't work with the amount of vapor clouds shown in the images. Based on the numbers you quoted, the closest thing to clouds we'd see anywhere on the planet outside of the poles should just be dust storms that appear like clouds.

It's like those numbers are based on what scientists said Mars PROBABLY was back in the 50's and 60's, and even though that just can't be the case, based on modern evidence, scientists just seem to REFUSE to revise the numbers.

You can't see this?

edit on 12-9-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)

If Mars atmosphere was more as you say, then certain things would be different:

Air breaking for landing on Mars would have to been done differently.

The way Curiosity was landed, was done so based upon the make up of the atmospheric pressure being at 6.1 millibars at the surface.

Weather sensors on the Viking landers would have reported a much denser atmosphere.

So the numbers as you put it are not based on old data from 50 to 60 years ago.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with ice clouds and ice fog on Mars with the atmosphere it has, and insist that it has to be water vapor instead. The science says it can and does happen for ice, but not for liquid water.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by Phage

 

So........You're not willing to concede to, or at least entertain the thought that: the numbers you and other people are quoting pertaining to Mars' atmosphere, don't quite JIVE with the ground and orbit level visual evidence, which are both ironically from the same source?

Now as I said before, you can't always judge by just what you see, but this is also based on the numbers. And those numbers don't work with the amount of vapor clouds shown in the images. Based on the numbers you quoted, the closest thing to clouds we'd see anywhere on the planet outside of the poles should just be dust storms that appear like clouds.

It's like those numbers are based on what scientists said Mars PROBABLY was back in the 50's and 60's, and even though that just can't be the case, based on modern evidence, scientists just seem to REFUSE to revise the numbers.

You can't see this?

edit on 12-9-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)

If Mars atmosphere was more as you say, then certain things would be different:

Air breaking for landing on Mars would have to been done differently.

The way Curiosity was landed, was done so based upon the make up of the atmospheric pressure being at 6.1 millibars at the surface.

Weather sensors on the Viking landers would have reported a much denser atmosphere.

So the numbers as you put it are not based on old data from 50 to 60 years ago.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with ice clouds and ice fog on Mars with the atmosphere it has, and insist that it has to be water vapor instead. The science says it can and does happen for ice, but not for liquid water.

Just as a point of order, Phoenix did detect falling snow from water ice.

I guess the secret is out. The little Martian family was out on the beach enjoying a swim in the Martian ocean and that darn rover came along and they had to hide from the camera. The little Martian boy had a squirt gun and sprayed the beach right below the tires and caused sand-mud to cake up on the tires and that explains the whole thing

reply to post by eriktheawful


I didn't say I had any problem with it being ice. Whether it's ice or not doesn't matter. Go back and look at my post again because I decided to edit it with another link to the Viking images of Noctis Labrynthis. NASA says that's water vapor fog, and that's ALOT of it. Whether it's ice or not, that condensation is going to stick to the ground and canyon walls. And these pics are from "morning", which means the suns going to come up, and if it's ice, that ice is going to get warmer than it was in the morning (even if it's still cold, it's warmer.....the sun's up, unless you're saying the sun's heat energy doesn't affect the surface of Mars, which would be silly). There's NO WAY some of that thick fog isn't causing some level, even if very light, of moisture on the ground. LOOK AT ALL THIS FOG in this pic and the one below it!!!! lol

www.thelivingmoon.com...

You're saying there's NO CHANCE some of that is condesing on the environment and forming even trace amounts of moisture on the ground? IDK man, that's an awefull lot of fog that we know consists of at least some water.

EDIT- To further make my point about the Martian atmosphere being more dense than the official numbers suggest, I present this link to some Hubble images of Mars

www.cosmiclight.com...

Now the air glow itself is quite noticable in the first image as well, but the important image to my argumant is the 2nd one down labeled "Spring Time on Mars".
Notable is the pronounced air glow and atmosphere itself, but FAR more importantly is the left side of that image. See the big blob of blue white covering the whole left side of the planet? Well, that's not air glow, that's CLOUD COVER......ALOT OF IT. And that black spot in the middle?.........That's the peak of the 16 mile high extinct volano Ascaeus Mon reaching up through that thick cloud cover. That's a paraphrasing of NASA's own description. I didn't make it up.

There's no way I'm going the buy that there's NO CHANCE of ground level moisture accumulating in conditions such as these.

reply to post by Larry L

And those numbers don't work with the amount of vapor clouds shown in the images.

Those numbers work just fine when the low density and temperatures are considered. Learn some atmospheric physics. And again, water vapor is invisible, you cannot see "clouds" of water vapor. You are seeing clouds of ice crystals.

It's like those numbers are based on what scientists said Mars PROBABLY was back in the 50's and 60's, and even though that just can't be the case, based on modern evidence, scientists just seem to REFUSE to revise the numbers.

Those numbers are based on actual observations.

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I didn't say I had any problem with it being ice. Whether it's ice or not doesn't matter. Go back and look at my post again because I decided to edit it with another link to the Viking images of Noctis Labrynthis. NASA says that's water vapor fog, and that's ALOT of it. Whether it's ice or not, that condensation is going to stick to the ground and canyon walls. And these pics are from "morning", which means the suns going to come up, and if it's ice, that ice is going to get warmer than it was in the morning (even if it's still cold, it's warmer.....the sun's up, unless you're saying the sun's heat energy doesn't affect the surface of Mars, which would be silly). There's NO WAY some of that thick fog isn't causing some level, even if very light, of moisture on the ground. LOOK AT ALL THIS FOG in this pic and the one below it!!!! lol

www.thelivingmoon.com...

You're saying there's NO CHANCE some of that is condesing on the environment and forming even trace amounts of moisture on the ground? IDK man, that's an awefull lot of fog that we know consists of at least some water.

That's because Moisture refers to water in a liquid state.

I did say however, that water in the atmosphere can freeze out and on to the surface.

It can also freeze to other objects, like say, oh, Curiosity's wheels.

Do you know what the temp was when that picture of the wheels were taken? Just because the sun is up and out doesn't mean it's a balmy 50 F. It could have still be -50 F, which is still cold enough to have frozen water vapor, very, thin on the wheels.

Do this, I just did it a little while ago. Remember my post about putting a Jar int he freezer? Do that, give it at least 30 minutes or more.

Then lay out a thin layer of flour on your counter top (Mars dusty soil has the same consistancy). Now grab the jar and roll it on the flour like one of Curiosity's wheels. And look at the Jar.

I think you'll see something that looks a lot like what we see in the picture. Let the Jar sit and warm up and see what it looks like. Again, you might be surprised.

Water doesn't always have to be a liquid to make things stick to other things.

reply to post by eriktheawful


You just made the whole point I've been making, but at the same time saying I'm wrong. You said:

I did say however, that water in the atmosphere can freeze out and on to the surface.
It can also freeze to other objects, like say, oh, Curiosity's wheels.

EXACTLY !!!! This is what I've been saying. Nor have I suggest "much" more. I specifically said multiple times, that I suspect morning condesation is forming in this area. It formed on the rover's wheels, and when they satrted rolling the moisture on the wheels is making the dirt cake to the wheel.

And if that condesation is forming on the wheel, it would also be forming on.....oh, say.....the ground. Right? Am I out of bounds here? I never suggested the "mud" was caused by anything more than condesation.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Methane has a boiling point of -161 C at 1 Earth atmosphere (or 1013 millibars).

Mars get's cold, but it's coldest averages around -143 C, and of course it's atmosphere pressure averages around 6 millibars, so methane on Mars would boil into a gas at an even lower temp than -161 C.

Liquid methane on Mars naturally can not happen. Not cold enough and not enough pressure.

Titan's surface temp is around -179 C and it's atmospheric pressure is at 1467 millibars, so it gets cold enough and has more than enough atmospheric pressure for it to remain in a liquid state on it's surface.

thank for the info is wasnt quite sure just a differance of 30 degrees

if you read about the methance articles in my last post scientist claim that beacuse of Methane GAS that The Ice is Starting to Flow in the Martain Summer months in certtain Areas and possible water Deep under the Surface


man it would be Great Terraforming Mars ,, even NASA had IDEAs About it on thiar website


a Major Blue Sky On Mars ( Total Recall ) kind of Way

reply to post by AGWskeptic


I don't disagree with that.
We are talking about caking and not coating.

Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

You just made the whole point I've been making, but at the same time saying I'm wrong. You said:

I did say however, that water in the atmosphere can freeze out and on to the surface.
It can also freeze to other objects, like say, oh, Curiosity's wheels.

EXACTLY !!!! This is what I've been saying. Nor have I suggest "much" more. I specifically said multiple times, that I suspect morning condesation is forming in this area. It formed on the rover's wheels, and when they satrted rolling the moisture on the wheels is making the dirt cake to the wheel.

And if that condesation is forming on the wheel, it would also be forming on.....oh, say.....the ground. Right? Am I out of bounds here? I never suggested the "mud" was caused by anything more than condesation.

Okay, then the whole debate may simply because of the definitions of words you are using, such as "Moisture"

Moisture refers to water in a liquid state. Water can't be in a liquid state on Mars. It can either be a solid (ice, frost, snow, etc), or a gas.
If frost forms on the wheel (and when I say that, it can be a very thin layer that's not even visible to the eye or pictures), then the wheel can pick up the soil (my jar trick shows that).

But the whole process involved does not have water ever being in a liquid state on the surface of Mars, so there for statements like "Mud" "Wet Sand" "Wet Dirt" "Moist Dirt" are technically wrong. But that's because those words define water as a liquid.

So if you are agreeing that it's possible that the soil is stuck to the wheels because of "frost" that formed on them (or the ground), then I really don't see what the argument really is.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Methane has a boiling point of -161 C at 1 Earth atmosphere (or 1013 millibars).

Mars get's cold, but it's coldest averages around -143 C, and of course it's atmosphere pressure averages around 6 millibars, so methane on Mars would boil into a gas at an even lower temp than -161 C.

Liquid methane on Mars naturally can not happen. Not cold enough and not enough pressure.

Titan's surface temp is around -179 C and it's atmospheric pressure is at 1467 millibars, so it gets cold enough and has more than enough atmospheric pressure for it to remain in a liquid state on it's surface.

thank for the info is wasnt quite sure just a differance of 30 degrees

if you read about the methance articles in my last post scientist claim that beacuse of Methane GAS that The Ice is Starting to Flow in the Martain Summer months in certtain Areas and possible water Deep under the Surface


man it would be Great Terraforming Mars ,, even NASA had IDEAs About it on thiar website


a Major Blue Sky On Mars ( Total Recall ) kind of Way

Oh I totally agree there could be lots of water both frozen, and if you go deep enough, in liquid form under ground on Mars (go deep enough and the water has enough "pressure" and the temps are warmer so that it can stay in a liquid state down there).

What I would love to see is for water to rupture to the surface and be captured on camera by us. Not to prove that this is water, we know that there is.

But just because it would be a awesome picture or video!

I just finally remembered that were talking about mars and were assuming that we something appearing similar to something here on earth would logically be the same.
Who is to say that it's not coca cola on the tracks maybe there is something we don't know about on mars.
Surely that robot has some type of scientific earth based instruments that can check for water in soil samples and such.

Did any one mention the possibility of electro static conducted on stagnet areas (or some sh it like that) on the what seems to be rubber tires? and any one mentioned the what seems to be "wet" dirt might just be newly exposed dirt that hasnt expirenced long years of exposure to the sun? still possibly retaining some moisture

reply to post by Larry L

EXACTLY !!!! This is what I've been saying. Nor have I suggest "much" more. I specifically said multiple times, that I suspect morning condesation is forming in this area. It formed on the rover's wheels, and when they satrted rolling the moisture on the wheels is making the dirt cake to the wheel.

No. You haven't been saying that, nor does your OP, nor does the title. You have been saying (or asking if) Curiosity went through mud.

Let's look at the idea of frost on the wheels. The images were taken at about 01:30 UTC. That was about 12:50 PM local solar time for Curiosity. It was about the hottest part of the day. The air temperature reached 0ºC on Sol 34 so it's pretty certain that the wheels got quite a bit warmer than that, being exposed to direct sunlight and all. The frost would have sublimated. Even if the pressure allowed it to melt into liquid water, that would have evaporated very quickly because of the very low atmospheric pressure.

In the OP you claimed the rover was moving when the pictures were taken. It wasn't. In fact the Rover hasn't moved since Sol 29. So when those images were taken that "mud" had been exposed to the dry, dry Martian atmosphere for 5 Martian days. There was no mud on the wheels. There was no moisture.
www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Larry L


THanks for your great reply. Your openhearted response is well received whereby you explain your reasons for having some faith, limited and not blind faith, as you remain skeptic about the amount of data you believe they share. Ok, so even though my gut tells me that I cannot trust this thing, I am now willing to say that it is not totally impossible. However, its this nagging feeling that rules my decision.

I absolutely MUST commend you for your extraordinary sharp observation skills though! To me the sand on the threads on the buggy definitely looks wet. As an artist my observation of colour variations are above average.

I once worked for an importer of textiles here in South AFrica, on one of his trips to Hong Kong the boss came back with cream coloured paper and 4 different 'shades of white' squares embossed onto it. He asked all us office girls to put these 4 whites in order from brightest to darkest. The other girls could not see the difference. I put them into order without hesitation. To me it was clear as daylight. Though the variations in the colour of the sand on the threads are quit obvious, your observation reminded me of that experience.

You have to be on the sharp side to have picked up on this!

Respect.

Is the surface really wet? I haven't the faintest clue but take a peek at the image taken by MRO that shows the tracks of Curiosity. Check out the start point that shows a different color. Though the image has been enhanced at source, the color of the surface at the start point is completely different from the surrounding area that shows the typical color of the surface of Mars - a brownish tinge.

Why two different colors? That means the area where the Curiosity started from is different in composition from the rest of the area. So, does that area have moisture? And therefore some 'mud' sticking to Curiosity's aluminum wheels?


Image of the tracks made by NASA's Curiosity rover taken by
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Courtesy: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Univ. of Ariz.



www.msnbc.msn.com...

Curiosity just went through mud, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

(sorry, just had to say this)

this thread is why the human race is doomed, its like Idiocracy is coming true. that people actually think this is mud saddens me.

please if you really think it is mud, go grab a childs truck, and go roll it around in the DIRT and see what happens to the wheels....

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Is the surface really wet? I haven't the faintest clue but take a peek at the image taken by MRO that shows the tracks of Curiosity. Check out the start point that shows a different color. Though the image has been enhanced at source, the color of the surface at the start point is completely different from the surrounding area that shows the typical color of the surface of Mars - a brownish tinge.

Why two different colors? That means the area where the Curiosity started from is different in composition from the rest of the area. So, does that area have moisture? And therefore some 'mud' sticking to Curiosity's aluminum wheels?

Image of the tracks made by NASA's Curiosity rover taken by
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Courtesy: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Univ. of Ariz.



www.msnbc.msn.com...

edit on 13-9-2012 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)

Those areas are where the retro rockets blew the dust away exposing the rock beneath.

NASA has reported this numerous times.

The color difference is to enhance the tracks, it's not water.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Methane has a boiling point of -161 C at 1 Earth atmosphere (or 1013 millibars).

Mars get's cold, but it's coldest averages around -143 C, and of course it's atmosphere pressure averages around 6 millibars, so methane on Mars would boil into a gas at an even lower temp than -161 C.

Liquid methane on Mars naturally can not happen. Not cold enough and not enough pressure.

Titan's surface temp is around -179 C and it's atmospheric pressure is at 1467 millibars, so it gets cold enough and has more than enough atmospheric pressure for it to remain in a liquid state on it's surface.

thank for the info is wasnt quite sure just a differance of 30 degrees

if you read about the methance articles in my last post scientist claim that beacuse of Methane GAS that The Ice is Starting to Flow in the Martain Summer months in certtain Areas and possible water Deep under the Surface


man it would be Great Terraforming Mars ,, even NASA had IDEAs About it on thiar website


a Major Blue Sky On Mars ( Total Recall ) kind of Way

Oh I totally agree there could be lots of water both frozen, and if you go deep enough, in liquid form under ground on Mars (go deep enough and the water has enough "pressure" and the temps are warmer so that it can stay in a liquid state down there).

What I would love to see is for water to rupture to the surface and be captured on camera by us. Not to prove that this is water, we know that there is.

But just because it would be a awesome picture or video!

That would be a Site to see a Guyser Could it ahppen Enough Pressure it Could ..

Especaily if a Moon half the Size Of Ours was Thier acting as a Buffer

Hell it May of Been thier ( Moon ) At one time Untill Some Rouge Object , Comet Planitoid, Asteroid Etc..

Hit it & knocked Out of Orbit and becoming Jupiters then we have the Asteroid Belt that Could of Been a Planet

The Core of Mars May of Been Like Earths at One time if Mars Had a Moon like Ours


and Mars 2 little Astroids Phobos and Deimos are not going to Cut it ... Making this Planet Alive Again

but then again theres that Speed Bump in the Search for Life On Mars ...

Read this ...

Tectonics on Mars

martianchronicles.wordpress.com...

Do we ? ...

Need a Moon half the Size as Earths Moon to Hold
a Magnetic Field and Keep the Core in a State Like Earths

, a High think Dense Atmosphere to Hold the Gases and Heat in

just to Terraform


to get this Planet to Hold and Life


my Curiosity about Curiosity
why this Spot This Crater its In having a Rover size of a Compact Car land there ?

where there are other places that Could find Much Better place that is

Well if Mars had some Life
Here is the Possible Reason Science has Come up why theres No Life Foound ( Yet )



Huge crater on Mars 'solves red planet's two-faced riddle'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:04 PM on 26th June 2008


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

A giant crater made by an asteroid or comet is the reason Mars is so lopsided, scientists have revealed.
The impact gouged out a hole 5,200 miles across and 6,500 miles long, leaving a basin covering 40 per cent of the red planet, researchers reported in the journal Nature.
The depression is the size of the combined areas of Asia, Europe and Australia, which makes it by far the largest crater in the solar system.

In 1984 scientists proposed an impact had caused the two-faced appearance of Mars with two strikingly different kinds of terrain in its northern and southern hemispheres.
This fell into disfavor because the 'Borealis Basin' didn't seem to fit the expected round shape


It appears the crater held an ocean in the early days of the planet, before Mars lost so much of its atmosphere and the water either sublimated away or froze beneath the surface.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...




Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...