Just a thought.

Martian Apollo · 2004-01-09 23:03:02

Could these valleys and gullies really be the product of dust flows?

I have seen some of the theory that this could be the case in some instances. I know there is water at the poles.

Glaciers carved up the Earth, could they be the result of this same process there?

A great many people much more informed and educated then I could answer.

It would be nice to know we are not alone in the universe.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-10 08:00:33

There are quite a few theories, that's why we have to send rovers to look at the local geology. There's simply only so much you can glean from an orbiting spacecraft, you need to get down and dirty and pick away at the rock to get an idea of what is going on there.

So basically, our chance to find out is finally here, and none of us can really wait until we find out the answer. And we should have that answer within the next few months, with a little bit of info trickling down every day. Just think, it was only two days ago that we knew nothing about the carbonates, but yesterday we come to find out that carbonates are local, and we have two signatures.

This is a really great time, it really is.

Martian Apollo · 2004-01-10 09:13:55

Cool!

sethmckiness · 2004-01-15 09:43:27

but yesterday we come to find out that carbonates are local, and we have two signatures.

Do you have anymore information... you kinda lost me?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-15 18:18:47

[http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rover-i … ge-10.html]Source.

Well, my memory is a bit shoddy, but during the press briefing, it was noted that the carbonate signatures are distinct, that is, one which may be related to atmospheric 'dusty' carbonates and one which may be related to water precipitates.

Does that make sense? Sorry about my post quality lately. Not getting much sleep.

sethmckiness · 2004-01-16 10:00:24

Interesting.. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't look convincing but looks with some more information..

Rxke · 2004-01-16 10:45:36

What do you mean , Sethmckiness? That they have to do more readings or...

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-16 20:25:10

Here's an interesting discovery which leaves Mars geologists mystified: [http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sp … 40116.html]Mystery at Gusev Crater

We no less about Mars than we can possibly imagine. :;):

sethmckiness · 2004-01-17 09:14:17

Rxke Posted on Jan. 16 2004, 11:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean , Sethmckiness? That they have to do more readings or...

Read this quote

This graph, consisting of data from the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's mini-thermal emission spectrometer, shows the light, or spectral, signatures of carbonates - minerals common to Earth that form only in water. The detection of trace amounts of carbonates on Mars may be due to an interaction between the water vapor in the atmosphere and minerals on the surface.

from Nasa...

Basicly what it means to me is that is MAY be something.. but not for sure.. merely a Hypothesis. So, with more information, maybe a more solid answer could be arrived at.

Rxke · 2004-01-17 09:45:59

Yes, thanks for clearing that up... It's definitly not convincing, you're right (i read your post 'wrong')

Indeed, *trace* amounts could've been formed through atmospherical H2O instead of running water...

Hmmm... Frustrating, isn't it? Guess we'll have to wait some more... Hopefully (or, not depending you like the liquid water idea,) they'll find some 'serious' deposits of CaCO3 or related stuff...

Hazer · 2004-01-20 00:49:10

Could these valleys and gullies really be the product of dust flows?
I have seen some of the theory that this could be the case in some instances. I know there is water at the poles.
Glaciers carved up the Earth, could they be the result of this same process there?

Have you considered massive flows of mud triggered by a catastrophic global event? Some recent data suggests that there is subsurface water on Mars. If the water was frozen, sudden vulcanism could cause the flow of massive amounts of mud.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-20 07:56:17

There have probably been several erosive forces at work on Mars, just as there have been here on Earth. I know there are many martian landforms consistent with extensive past glaciation, for example.
However, I believe that many meandering valleys, with channels in their lowest sections, are difficult to explain by any agency other than the long-term slow and gentle flow of liquid water.

Gusev crater, the current focus of attention for Mars nuts everywhere ( ) ... whoops, there's another one! ... , is only a relatively small part of a major water feature in the near-equatorial region of the southern highlands. Some of you here may recall my post of June 30th 2003 over at "Water on Mars. H2O, where'd it go?", in which I linked to a perspective view of part of a vast paleolake basin in the highlands south of Gusev(?).
The lake, whose shoreline has been identified, had an area equal to Texas and New Mexico combined and contained 5 times as much water as the Great Lakes of North America! At its northern end, water flowed over a natural weir into Ma'adim Vallis, which is a valley feature larger than America's Grand Canyon. Ma'adim Vallis in turn, emptied into Gusev crater at its northern end, which is why so many scientists are so convinced that Spirit is now sitting on a dry lake bed.
The natural weir between the massive lake in the highlands (I call it Lake Ma'adim) and Ma'adim Vallis sat at an altitude of at least 1.5 km above datum, yet it's believed that liquid water flowed over it for long enough to gradually erode the rock until the weir catastrophically collapsed. The contents of Lake Ma'adim surged northward along the 500 kilometre valley and into Gusev crater, which was unable to contain the thousands of cubic kilometres of water. The northern wall of the crater gave way and the waters poured out onto the northern plains, or perhaps into the Oceanus Borealis (if it ever really existed).

One of the most interesting points about all this is the fact that liquid water flowed over that weir, at an altitude of 1500 metres (about 1 mile) above datum, for an extended period - long enough to wear away the rock. This indicates that the atmospheric pressure and the ambient temperatures, even at that height above datum, were much higher than today and remained so for a long period of time.

The evidence, though I admit it's contradictory in some ways (see the discussions about olivine in Mariner Valley), suggests that Mars experienced relatively long periods of comparatively balmy weather, longer than the "few decades of terrestrial temperatures" which BGD mentioned.

I think the choice of Gusev for the Spirit landing site was an excellent one. Wouldn't it be wonderful to take a shovel and dig down a metre or two?! I wouldn't be surprised if the sands are soggy with brine, even today.
:;):

Just a few more rambling thoughts.

sethmckiness · 2004-01-20 11:49:33

Posted on Jan. 20 2004, 01:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could these valleys and gullies really be the product of dust flows?
I have seen some of the theory that this could be the case in some instances. I know there is water at the poles.
Glaciers carved up the Earth, could they be the result of this same process there?
Have you considered massive flows of mud triggered by a catastrophic global event? Some recent data suggests that there is subsurface water on Mars. If the water was frozen, sudden vulcanism could cause the flow of massive amounts of mud.

Well, all types of erosion usually have some sort of tell tale sign. Glaciation leaves moraines, drumlins, eskers, cirques.. etc. Dust erosion, umh, wind erosion works.. look at Arches National Park. The true signs that will give away erosive natures will show under close scrutiny or high res photographs.. resolutions that could read license plates! The NRO needs to let NASA borrow some tech for the next orbiter!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-09 23:03:02

Re: Just a thought.

#2 2004-01-10 08:00:33

Re: Just a thought.

#3 2004-01-10 09:13:55

Re: Just a thought.

#4 2004-01-15 09:43:27

Re: Just a thought.

#5 2004-01-15 18:18:47

Re: Just a thought.

#6 2004-01-16 10:00:24

Re: Just a thought.

#7 2004-01-16 10:45:36

Re: Just a thought.

#8 2004-01-16 20:25:10

Re: Just a thought.

#9 2004-01-17 09:14:17

Re: Just a thought.

#10 2004-01-17 09:45:59

Re: Just a thought.

#11 2004-01-20 00:49:10

Re: Just a thought.

#12 2004-01-20 07:56:17

Re: Just a thought.

#13 2004-01-20 11:49:33

Re: Just a thought.

Board footer