Mars Rovers' Images

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...portunity.html

Stereopairs are a nice touch. What have we gotten for our ~$billion?

1) Volcanic regolith background, plus
2) Meteoric strikes, then
3) Mix well with wind and cook with solar UV; wait a billion years.
4) http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2003/03_87AR.html
5) WIRED 12.03 146 (2004)

Nothing. The only thing NASA will eructate is studies on its
studies. There are no "discoveries" because there is nothing present
to be discovered. Not all real estate is valuable. At least the moon
is a competent and accessible platform for observation (UV through
deep radio in hard vacuum, with the bonus of low gravity and for large
structures and physically blocked terrestrial EMF emissions) and
launch (vacuum, low gravity).

BTW - no canals. The only usable major power source on Mars would be
a local nuclear reactor. Combustion is out, solar panels don't
receive enough sunlight even at the equator.

The singular interesting project would be to pepper Mars with
synchronized seismic sensors then de-orbit and crash Deimos (2.4X10^15
kg or 22.6% the mass of Phobos, and orbiting more slowly 1.36 vs.
2.138 km/sec mean). A big thump would tell us about Mars' internal
structure.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)

Uncle Al wrote:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...portunity.html

Stereopairs are a nice touch. What have we gotten for our ~$billion?

1) Volcanic regolith background, plus
2) Meteoric strikes, then
3) Mix well with wind and cook with solar UV; wait a billion years.
4) http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2003/03_87AR.html
5) WIRED 12.03 146 (2004)

Nothing. The only thing NASA will eructate is studies on its
studies.

You continue to neglect the human factor. That's what funds
everything worthwhile and inane. A virtual "we" has now visited
Mars, an unthinkable project in my father's lifetime. The
people who bear the brunt of the funding are pleased.

As a salesman and a realist you suck. You are the critic troll
you most despise.

There are no "discoveries" because there is nothing present
to be discovered.

You criticize this, all the while spamming your own
"no results after millions are spent" Eötvös chirality
project? (see below) LOL

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm

Uncle Al wrote in message
...
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...portunity.html

Stereopairs are a nice touch. What have we gotten for our ~$billion?

1) Volcanic regolith background, plus
2) Meteoric strikes, then
3) Mix well with wind and cook with solar UV; wait a billion years.
4) http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2003/03_87AR.html
5) WIRED 12.03 146 (2004)

Nothing. The only thing NASA will eructate is studies on its
studies.

Those damn studies, always getting in the way of scientific progress.



There are no "discoveries" because there is nothing present to be discovered.

Cool. Just send them your proof that there is nothing to be discovered,
including all the notebooks from your visits there, the readings Uri
Geller gave you about Mars, and your Certificate of Omniscience from
God. NASA will listen.



Not all real estate is valuable. At least the moon
is a competent and accessible platform for observation (UV through
deep radio in hard vacuum, with the bonus of low gravity and for large
structures and physically blocked terrestrial EMF emissions) and
launch (vacuum, low gravity).

This I can agree on. Do more moon stuff.



BTW - no canals.

Damn! If we had only known that last year...



The only usable major power source on Mars would be
a local nuclear reactor. Combustion is out, solar panels don't
receive enough sunlight even at the equator.

Bigger solar panels. More efficient machines. I do find the short life
of the current rovers annoying.



The singular interesting project would be to pepper Mars with
synchronized seismic sensors then de-orbit and crash Deimos (2.4X10^15
kg or 22.6% the mass of Phobos, and orbiting more slowly 1.36 vs.
2.138 km/sec mean). A big thump would tell us about Mars' internal
structure.

Isn't that just like a curmudgeon? Give him a planetary system
with a couple of nice little moons and the first thing he wants to
do is break it.

If Uncle Al is appointed NASA Administrator, I want to sign the
recall petition.

Servo

Hi,

I'm a geologist (igneous petrologist) and I'm totally baffled by the recent
microscopic images from Opportunity.

This is clearly a very fine grained chemical sediment with occasional
detrital grains (Blueberries). Its not detrital, not bedded.
Totally weird.
As for the "jointing" it almost looks like weathering along crystal
faces..but what.. calcite,dolomite, gypsum, barite????

What does the Mossbauer and Alpha Xrf say???? Oh to see the spectrums.

Certainly NOT volcanoclastic!

pj

"Paul Henney" wrote:

Hi,

I'm a geologist (igneous petrologist) and I'm totally baffled by the recent
microscopic images from Opportunity.

This is clearly a very fine grained chemical sediment with occasional
detrital grains (Blueberries). Its not detrital, not bedded.
Totally weird.


My hunch is that the Martian "blueberries"

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-1.html

are meteorite-impact spherules that form as minerals vaporized by
meteorite impacts recondense and cool in the atmosphere. Spherules,
also known as microtektites, are even predicted to be common on Mars:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/5thMars99/pdf/6039.pdf

They are also found on Earth

http://gisp.gi.alaska.edu/tutorial/tekt.htm
http://geology.rutgers.edu/spherbig.gif
http://geology.rutgers.edu/brimages.html

and throughout the K-T boundary that's believed to be debris from a
massive meteorite impact that may have wiped-out the dinosaurs. The
world-wide distribution of spherules at the K-T boundary is considered
to be strong evidence that the K-T boundary was caused by a meteorite
impact versus a massive volcanic event, which should not distribute
spherules throughout the world. It's also possible that the Martian
"blueberries" might be volcanic spherules. Either way, in my view
there's a strong similarity between the "berries" and spherules.


Ian Goddard's Journal: http://iangoddard.net/journal.htm

"When we have lived any time, and have been accustomed to
the uniformity of nature, we acquire a general habit, by
which we always transfer the known to the unknown, and
conceive the latter to resemble the former." David Hume

Ian Goddard wrote in message . ..
"Paul Henney" wrote:

Hi,

I'm a geologist (igneous petrologist) and I'm totally baffled by the recent
microscopic images from Opportunity.

This is clearly a very fine grained chemical sediment with occasional
detrital grains (Blueberries). Its not detrital, not bedded.
Totally weird.


My hunch is that the Martian "blueberries"

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-1.html

are meteorite-impact spherules that form as minerals vaporized by
meteorite impacts recondense and cool in the atmosphere. Spherules,
also known as microtektites, are even predicted to be common on Mars:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/5thMars99/pdf/6039.pdf

They are also found on Earth

http://gisp.gi.alaska.edu/tutorial/tekt.htm
http://geology.rutgers.edu/spherbig.gif
http://geology.rutgers.edu/brimages.html

and throughout the K-T boundary that's believed to be debris from a
massive meteorite impact that may have wiped-out the dinosaurs. The
world-wide distribution of spherules at the K-T boundary is considered
to be strong evidence that the K-T boundary was caused by a meteorite
impact versus a massive volcanic event, which should not distribute
spherules throughout the world. It's also possible that the Martian
"blueberries" might be volcanic spherules. Either way, in my view
there's a strong similarity between the "berries" and spherules.


Hi Ian

I suggested the same thing a couple of weeks ago on another thread
here on sci.astro (wind erosions farms is the thread name I think) Im
glad to hear someone concur with me that it is meteor impact. Did
these recent microscopic images you refer to come out in the last few
days only? I hope so as it means I predicted the phenomena you suggest
before this `blueberry info` was available.
Below is the quote from my post from sci astro from about a week and a
half ago....

If the nodules are on the surface maybe...
Going back to the explosion idea I suggested before,..
I dont know if there are enough craters to allow the statistical
chance of finding these all over Mars and at the lander site but I was
thinking a bit more on maybe how they were created, if by an impact
crater event.
If lets say at impact either water or another gas either present as
liquid or solid in the projectile or in the sediment ,were to be
instantly heated to extreme high tempratures. The material that the
nodules is made of could also mix in that instance with that breif
extremely hot gas cloud above the explosion site sort of like a soupy
particulate mix of gas and liquid droplets mixed with the nodule
element. As it is forced out and away from the site at great speeds by
the explosion the mixture is cooled rapidly as it spreads out into
the presumabley extreme cold of the martian atmosphere. This would
cause the cloud to precipitate out in a sense into droplets , all
small , and very rapidly `freeze` into shape in seconds as they are
speeding through the extreme sub zero martian atmosphere and then
presumably are hard all consistently sized small frozen droplets when
they land around the impact site. They then over time `freeze dry`
out the liquid water (or whatever liquid it is) in the sun and climate
to the present state of a nodule consisting of just the original
material which could have initialy pre impact have been a powder or
granular material like glass once was sand?
One idea would be to look for similar phenomena at old nuclear test
sites as in essense I am suggesting they a sandy or powdery medium
mixed in with a liquid and as baked `nodules in extreme rapid heating
, cooling and speeding `event` through a cold atmosphere to get the
small sized droplet shape. Maybe the thinner matian atmospher would
aerodynamically produce a rounder projectile rather than the heavier
earth atmosphere which would have elongated the droplets .As I
mentioned this phenomena may also occur similarly at nuclear test
sites.
They then erode by wind into the observed sandy mixture
Sean

Ian,

I had similar thoughts.

However the size and shape distribution is unusual..all the tektites in my
collection have very variable shapes. I would have expected to see some more
irregular shapes from melt droplets.

On the "berries" that have been sliced open there dosen't seem to be any
zoning or indeed any kind of structure..the structure is really isotropic.
Some of the weathering features on the rock itself really remind me of very
fine grained micritic carbonate rocks (limestones).

We really need to see the Alpha spec data to check for Ca.

pj



"Ian Goddard" wrote in message
news
"Paul Henney" wrote:

Hi,

I'm a geologist (igneous petrologist) and I'm totally baffled by the
recent
microscopic images from Opportunity.

This is clearly a very fine grained chemical sediment with occasional
detrital grains (Blueberries). Its not detrital, not bedded.
Totally weird.


My hunch is that the Martian "blueberries"


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rove...s/image-1.html

are meteorite-impact spherules that form as minerals vaporized by
meteorite impacts recondense and cool in the atmosphere. Spherules,
also known as microtektites, are even predicted to be common on Mars:

Paul Henney wrote:
Ian,

I had similar thoughts.

However the size and shape distribution is unusual..all the tektites in my
collection have very variable shapes. I would have expected to see some more
irregular shapes from melt droplets.

Terrestrial tektites get their shapes from aerodynamic
effects, no? Less Martian air, more spherical shape, yes?

On the "berries" that have been sliced open there dosen't seem to be any
zoning or indeed any kind of structure..the structure is really isotropic.

Didn't know any had been sectioned, but I'm not
surprised; less air for conductive cooling, less opportunity
to stratify on cooling. Conchoidal fracture?

Some of the weathering features on the rock itself really remind me of very
fine grained micritic carbonate rocks (limestones).

We really need to see the Alpha spec data to check for Ca.

Heh. NASA got sensors?

Mark L. Fergerson

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:MFj0c.7437$h23.6664@fed1read06...
Paul Henney wrote:
Ian,

I had similar thoughts.

However the size and shape distribution is unusual..all the tektites in
my
collection have very variable shapes. I would have expected to see some
more
irregular shapes from melt droplets.

Terrestrial tektites get their shapes from aerodynamic
effects, no? Less Martian air, more spherical shape, yes?

Less air and drag means the material might be near to
weightless in flight. There has been some talk about
single small marks on each spherule. Might these be
due to the formation of a trapped bubble as dissolved
gas is released during cooling? The reduced bouyancy
might make it less able to breach the surface which
would also be the first to cool.

George

"Paul Henney" wrote:

Ian,

I had similar thoughts.

However the size and shape distribution is unusual..all the tektites in my
collection have very variable shapes. I would have expected to see some more
irregular shapes from melt droplets.


Right, these Martian spheres are remarkably similar in size and shape.
However, dissimilarities between Mars and Earth (not to mention
between different impact events) might account for the differences you
observe. Consider that the paper I cited by R.D. Lorenz

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/5thMars99/pdf/6039.pdf

notes dissimilarities between microtektite formation on Mars versus on
Earth. For example, on Mars, impacts energetic enough to produce only
2.5-km-diameter craters may produce microtektite while 10 km craters
are necessary on Earth. With more impacts producing microtektites,
Lorenz predicts that microtektites "should therefore be widespread on
Mars." He also observes that: "for Mars, with lower escape velocity
and further from the sun, such velocities are lower than for Earth,
and so spherules are larger." Spherule size is also "limited by
surface tension's ability to overcome aerodynamic stress," and thus
Mars' thinner atmosphere should also affect spherule formation
differentially. These factors suggest that spherules on Mars may be
both more abundant and structurally different than spherules on Earth.




On the "berries" that have been sliced open there dosen't seem to be any
zoning or indeed any kind of structure..the structure is really isotropic.

Correct. In these images from Opportunity we first see some
"blueberries" embedded in rock. Subsequent images show the same
rock after being subject to Opportunity's Rock Abrasion Tool that
reveals a cross-sectional view of the interior of the sphe

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...nity_m034.html


Ian Goddard's Journal: http://iangoddard.net/journal.htm

"When we have lived any time, and have been accustomed to
the uniformity of nature, we acquire a general habit, by
which we always transfer the known to the unknown, and
conceive the latter to resemble the former." David Hume