The first human mars mission?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Since we now definitely know that Mars is basically a frozen muddy glacial
ice ball just a few meters below the surface (to a depth of several
kilometers), and that Mars is only dry and desiccated in the top few meters
of soil, then the whole in situ fuel manufacturing scenario suddenly becomes
considerably more plausible.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

The best interpretation of the currently available
evidence is that; however, speculating about the
subsurface layers without a *lot* more remote sensing,
including some really good radar work, and/or surface
penetrator/drill sampling, is really a high degree of
hubris.

The only resources for ISRU I count on personally are
the air, though I agree that enough evidence for
significant subsurface water exists, and its value is
so high if present, that we really ought to go
specifically looking to confirm its apparent
presence.

The air, by the way, clearly includes useful quantities
of water (though it's a lot harder to extract than CO2).
WAVAR seems quite reasonable and reliable as a concept.
An ISRU test mission should bring a small WAVAR test rig
even if we don't need the water for the propellants cycles.


-george william herbert

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Since we now definitely know that Mars is basically a frozen muddy glacial
ice ball just a few meters below the surface (to a depth of several
kilometers), and that Mars is only dry and desiccated in the top few meters
of soil, then the whole in situ fuel manufacturing scenario suddenly becomes
considerably more plausible.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

Sure we do. It's easily recognized via photo interpretation.

The best interpretation of the currently available
evidence is that; however, speculating about the
subsurface layers without a *lot* more remote sensing,
including some really good radar work, and/or surface
penetrator/drill sampling, is really a high degree of
hubris.

No, it simple geology and climatology applied to the imagery evidence.

The only resources for ISRU I count on personally are
the air, though I agree that enough evidence for
significant subsurface water exists, and its value is
so high if present, that we really ought to go
specifically looking to confirm its apparent
presence.

Then I suggest you look at the MGS and Odyssey photos.

The air, by the way, clearly includes useful quantities
of water (though it's a lot harder to extract than CO2).
WAVAR seems quite reasonable and reliable as a concept.
An ISRU test mission should bring a small WAVAR test rig
even if we don't need the water for the propellants cycles.

Those useful quantities of water in the air come from a vast underground frozen
reservoir, clearly distinguishable by even a cursory glance at the imagery
evidence, and verified by spectroscopy.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Since we now definitely know that Mars is basically a frozen muddy glacial
ice ball just a few meters below the surface (to a depth of several
kilometers), and that Mars is only dry and desiccated in the top few meters
of soil, then the whole in situ fuel manufacturing scenario suddenly becomes
considerably more plausible.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

Sure we do. It's easily recognized via photo interpretation.
[...]

Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

Pardon me if I fail to agree with your self-aggrandizement
in this matter. Somehow, Mike Malin strikes me as having
better education, experience, and judgement than you do in
regards to the MGS imagery. You are free to hold and
espouse your own opinion, of course.


-george william herbert

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Since we now definitely know that Mars is basically a frozen muddy glacial
ice ball just a few meters below the surface (to a depth of several
kilometers), and that Mars is only dry and desiccated in the top few meters
of soil, then the whole in situ fuel manufacturing scenario suddenly becomes
considerably more plausible.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

Sure we do. It's easily recognized via photo interpretation.
[...]

Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there was no water on the
surface of Mars, then "urged caution" about the possibility of water on Mars, a
position that has since been rendered completely untenable by Mars Odyssey
spectroscopic results?

Pardon me if I fail to agree with your self-aggrandizement
in this matter. Somehow, Mike Malin strikes me as having
better education, experience, and judgement than you do in
regards to the MGS imagery. You are free to hold and
espouse your own opinion, of course.

Well, lets consider Malin's opinion.

"Malin added, "I have not previously been a vocal advocate of the theory that Mars
was wet and
warm in its early history. But my earlier view of Mars was really shaken when I saw
our first
high-resolution pictures of Candor Chasma. The nearly identically thick layers would
be almost
impossible to create without water." As an alternative to lakes, Malin and Edgett
suggest that a
denser atmosphere on early Mars could have allowed greater amounts of windborne dust
to settle
out on the surface in ways that would have created the sedimentary rock."

Wow, what a confident guy. All of those outflow channels created by windborne dust.
That is truly amazing.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/mars.htm

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong. You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.


-george william herbert



Malin Recent Publications:

Christensen, P. R., J. L. Bandfield, R. N. Clark, K. S. Edgett, V. E. Hamilton, T. Hoefen, H. H. Kieffer, R. O. Kuzmin, M. D. Lane, M. C. Malin, R. V. Morris, J. C. Pearl,
R. Pearson, T. L. Roush, S. W. Ruff, and M. D. Smith, Detection of crystalline hematite mineralization on Mars by the Thermal Emission Spectrometer: Evidence for
near-surface water, Journal of Geophysical Research, in press, 2000

James, P. B., B. A. Cantor, M. C. Malin, K. Edgett, M. H. Carr, G. E. Danielson, A. P. Ingersoll, M. E. Davies, W. K. Hartmann, A. S. McEwen, L. A. Soderblom, P. C.
Thomas, and J. Veverka, The 1997 spring regression of the martian south polar cap: Mars Orbiter Camera observations, Icarus in press, 2000.

Thomas, P. C., M. C. Malin, K. S. Edgett, M. H. Carr, W. K. Hartmann, A. P. Ingersoll, P. B. James, L. A. Soderblom, J. Veverka, and R. Sullivan, North-south
geological differences between the residual polar caps on Mars, Nature 404 161-164, 2000.

Edgett, K. S., and M. C. Malin, New views of Mars eolian activity, materials, and surface properties: Three vignettes from the Mars Global Surveyor Mars Orbiter
Camera, Journal of Geophysical Research 105 1623-1650, 2000.

Malin, M. C., and K. S. Edgett, Oceans or seas in the martian northern lowlands: High resolution imaging tests of proposed coastlines, Geophysical Research Letters,
26 3049-3052, 1999.

Malin, M. C., and M. H. Carr, Groundwater formation of martian valleys, Nature 397 589-591, 1999.

Thomas, P. C., M. C. Malin, M. H. Carr, G. E. Danielson, M. E. Davies, W. K. Hartmann, A. P. Ingersoll, P. B. James, A. S. McEwen, L. A. Soderblom, and J.
Veverka, Bright dunes on Mars, Nature 397 592-594, 1999.

Hartmann, W. K., M. Malin, A. McEwen, M. Carr, L. Soderblom, P. Thomas, E. Danielson, P. James, and J. Veverka, Evidence for recent volcanism on Mars from
Crater counts, Nature 397 586-589, 1999.

McEwen, A. S., M. C. Malin, M. H. Carr, and W. K. Hartmann, Voluminous volcanism on early Mars revealed in Valles Marineris, Nature 397 584-586, 1999.

Malin, M. C., M. H. Carr, G. E. Danielson, M. E. Davies, W. K. Hartmann, A. P. Ingersoll, P. B. James, H. Masursky, A. S. McEwen, L. A. Soderblom, P. Thomas, J.
Veverka, M. A. Caplinger, M. A. Ravine, T. A. Soulanille, and J. L. Warren, Early Views of the Martian surface from the Mars Orbiter Camera of Mars Global
Surveyor, Science, 279 1681-1685, 1998.

Malin, M. C., 1992, Mass movements on Venus: Preliminary results from Magellan Cycle I observations, J. Geophys. Res. 97 (E10), 16337-16352.

Malin, M. C., Danielson, G. E., Ingersoll, A. P., Masursky, H., Veverka, J., Ravine, M. A., and Soulanille, T. A., 1992, The Mars Observer Camera, J. Geophys. Res.
97 (E5) 7699-7718.

Malin, M. C., Danielson, G. E., Ravine, M. A., and Soulanille, T. A., 1991, Design and Development of the Mars Observer Camera, Int. J. Imaging Sys. Tech. 3, 76-91.

Phillips, R. J., Grimm, R. E., and Malin, M. C., 1991, Hot-spot evolution and the global tectonics of Venus, Science 252, 651-658.

McEwen, A. S. and Malin, M. C., 1989, Dynamics of sediment gravity flows: Lahars, avalanche, pyroclastic flows, and blast surge of Mount St. Helens, J. Volcan.
Geotherm. Res. 37, 205-231.

Kelley, A. D., Malin, M. C., and Nielson, G. M., 1988, Terrain simulation using a model of stream erosion, Computer Graphics 22 (4), 263-268.

Malin, M., 1986, Rates of geomorphic modification in ice-free areas, southern Victoria Land, Antarctica: Antarctic Journal of the United States 20 (5), 18-21.

Malin, M. C., 1986, Density of martian north polar layered deposits: Implications for composition: Geophys. Res. Lett. 13 (5), 444-447.

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong.

Let me see if I got your reasoning straight. Malin built a great camera, took a lot of pictures, published a lot of peer reviewed papers, but was demonstrably wrong in his
interpretation of the images, therefore his credibility in photointerpretation should be higher than Elifritz (that's me), who built no camera, published no papers, but was
demonstrably correct in his photointerpretation of the results (i.e. - his pre Odyssey claim that water exists on the surface of Mars).

It gets even more interesting, you claim that Elifritz (that's me), who was demonstrably right in his prediction of the existence of Martian water (post MGS, MOLA, pre
Odyssey) was right for the wrong reasons (i.e. - he published no peer reviewed papers) therefore his prediction is wrong about its general underground extant and
distribution..

You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.

But I apparently have an demonstrated ability to see frozen groundwater in the Mars surface morphology, and I am able to visualize plausible climatological scenarios for its
geological evolution and distribution.

At worst, that makes me a dilettante.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Side note: Thomas, typing in 200 character lines is annoying.
Please use standard screen widths.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong.

Let me see if I got your reasoning straight. Malin built a
great camera, took a lot of pictures, published a lot of peer
reviewed papers, but was demonstrably wrong in his
interpretation of the images, therefore his credibility in
photointerpretation should be higher than Elifritz (that's me),
who built no camera, published no papers, but was
demonstrably correct in his photointerpretation of the results
(i.e. - his pre Odyssey claim that water exists on the surface of Mars).

It gets even more interesting, you claim that Elifritz (that's me),
who was demonstrably right in his prediction of the existence
of Martian water (post MGS, MOLA, pre
Odyssey) was right for the wrong reasons (i.e. - he published
no peer reviewed papers) therefore his prediction is wrong
about its general underground extant and
distribution..

Yes.

Let us refer to... oh, I don't know, the Face on Mars.

People see all sorts of things in the low bits in data.
Some of it is true, some of it is wishful thinking.

We know now that the Cydonia 'face' is a pile of rocks.
We know that because we got significantly better resolution
imagery of the region, and stuff some people thought they
saw in the low bits of the Viking data turned out to be
noise and misdirection and random stuff.

Malin is thinking ahead to things like subsurface radar
sensors tuned to look for water, 10 cm and better future
imagers for the Mars surface, etc. The opinions he's
put out on the Water question, and a number of others
(along with the rest of the Mars Science community) have
been tempered by experience, deep education, and an awareness
that in many cases better data is needed to make more sure
answers on a lot of questions.

What are the odds that the surface features you interpret
as water signs look significantly different at much higher
resolution, and/or that the subsurface radar work shows
something different?

They are significant. Because that has happened every
time we send new sensors to Mars, or any other planet.
Not with every single thing, for sure, but many topics
have changed interpretation with new sensor results,
and many unpredicted new things are seen as well.

Malin knows that, because he's been there and done that
and knows it really well.

You appear to believe that the current data set is golden
and the last word we'll ever find or need.

I think Malin's approach is a lot smarter and more accurate,
over time.

You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.

But I apparently have an demonstrated ability to see frozen
groundwater in the Mars surface morphology, and I am able to
visualize plausible climatological scenarios for its
geological evolution and distribution.

At worst, that makes me a dilettante.

Lots of people think they see signs of frozen groundwater,
and climatalogical scenarios for the groundwater have been
pervasive in serious Mars science since Viking.

It is entirely possible, however, that the signs you are
so sure must be and only could be water, will turn out to
be something else on closer examination, and that it looking
like frozen water sign is due to side effects of the scale
of the imagery we're getting from the current missions,
not intrinsic accurate data.

This is a variation on the 'even a stopped clock is right twice
a day' theme. Are you right because you're right, or are you
right because the evolving accuracy of the data set just
coincidentally agrees with you right now, but may not tomorrow?

Not understanding that problem is why you're wrong,
and why Malin's got more credibility than you do.


-george william herbert