A puddle ?

chaosman · 2004-05-02 02:46:27

Is there a puddle at the bottom of this image ?

http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opport … ...7M1.JPG

Rxke · 2004-05-02 03:19:50

OOOAH!

That surely *is* something weird... had to download the pic to get it full screen, and it is definitely a depression with a flat 'something' at the bottom... a *very* flat something...

atomoid · 2004-05-02 04:45:23

i used to think it might be a dust puddle, but why does this one look so different from the other ones? the other ones being the flat rock tops at the bottom of the divets in a lot of places between Eagle and here. the flatness coming from the wind eroding the bedrock chunk which leaves a vacancy left except for the few blueberrries that fall out of it and dont blow away. the other blueberries form a slope down to this vanishing point remnant of an eroding crater ejecta fragment. but this one is too smooth and anomalously flat

if it were water that would imply a water table very close to the surface and there shoudl be more evidence of such everywhere like in the crater bottoms and other low points, perhaps the ice-dune sculptures in the bottom of Endurance crater are related.

but most likely there lies some alien feature that the shadow government's black ops inside NASA has decided to replace with this compression artifacted and neutralled-out splotch since the world is not ready for the truth yet.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-02 05:18:45

Wow, Chaosman!
That certainly looks like a puddle, or frozen puddle, to me. In fact, I find it very difficult to imagine what else it could be.
So, where's the JPL commentary?
Why isn't there any public discussion about this potentially important development?

Incidentally, if that's a small pool of water ice, my wife's assessment of the 'dunes' at the bottom of Endurance crater is starting to look better and better!

Stu · 2004-05-02 05:48:17

(raises eyebrow in a Spock-like gesture)

Mmmm, fascinating...

However, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment (I guess someone has to)...

I want to see and find puddles, or ice ponds, on Mars as much as anyone else, but it looks a bit small to me. Surely a water puddle this small wouldn't last long, the water would evaporate away very quickly..? And if it was ice wouldn't it be brighter than this?

I may have an alternative excplanation, but no flames please, it's a purely personal, amateur view... look closely you'll see some rocky fragments close-by. Maybe these are meteorite fragments... Why think this? Well, think back to Eagle Crater, and the smooth areas left by the impact of the airbags... the impact of the airbags left very smooth, blueberry-free areas on the crater floor. Maybe an impacting meteorite would have the same effect - i.e. press the hematite beads into the surface leaving a flat patch..?

Like I said, just a thought, not claiming to be an expert in any way. And of course I hope I'm very, VERY wrong!!!

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-02 06:08:00

Ahh, you're too humble Stu (not that that's a bad thing).

Tell ya what, I'll be the devil in this instance. I don't think it's a puddle, I think you're correct in saying that a puddle wouldn't survive, especially of that size, very long.

An impact is one possible explanation. I'm reminded of this schoolgirl in AU who had her toe get hit by a small meteor (she didn't get hurt, apparently terminal velocity comes into play for something the size of a pebble), and I imagine that this depression/flat spot could've been created the same way.

Another equally plausible explanation is that it could be a buried circular rock, whose surface was blown clean, leaving a circular, "puddle-like" depression.

If it is a puddle, even a brine, it would have to be very very recent. Something that small should burn up real quick (remember, "objects in rover camera are bigger than they appear").

We should definitely check it out, though.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1083499812

cassioli · 2004-05-02 07:00:29

Puddles, springs or "coldspots"?!?
This site is even more interesting than we expected: following "suggestion" by chaosman, I did some searches and experimentations with Opp's images. I found several images of "puddles", and I also noticed a strange thing: in IR version of images, they appear surrounded by a darker area, i.e. a colder area. So, are they just puddles, are they water springs, are they evidences of water coming from under the soil and freezing, or what?!?

I prepared some color version of the "puddles" I found: for two of them I was even able to build 2 color photo.

Puddle 1
Blue filter:

IR filter:

Color (L2-L4-L7):
10:28

14:46

Puddle2:

Blue filter:

IR filter:

Color:

10:01

14:22

Zoom:
http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … jpg]Puddle 1 10:28

http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … jpg]Puddle 1 14:46

http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … PG]puddle2 10:01

http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … 14_22.jpg] Puddle 2 14:22

http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … 16_51.JPG] Puddle 3 16:51

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-02 07:02:11

A small puddle would certainly be inclined to evaporate away quickly if it resulted from rainfall and had no means of replenishment.
But what if there is actually a near-surface water table in this area of Mars? (Or should I say 'brine table'?) Wouldn't that feed low lying parts with fresh brine?
It's difficult to judge from these photos, but it looks like the 'puddle' is at the lowest point in the picture - the place you'd expect to find water, if there were any water to be found!
???

cassioli · 2004-05-02 07:03:39

The 3rd paddle (too may images for jst one post):

Puddle 3:

Blue filter:

IR filter:

Color:

Luca

cassioli · 2004-05-02 07:29:38

I found the other components for puddle 3:

16:51 (same as bove post):

13:02

Luca

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-02 18:19:55

Thanks, Luca, for all the 'filter' shots.
I'm not sure the temperature differential near the 'puddles' is any more than you might expect from simple shadowing. Where there's a dip in the ground, you get less insolation per unit area on the slope facing away from the Sun.

I've been staring at the original photo Chaosman posted and the 'puddle' still looks like a puddle to me. In fact, it almost appears translucent and I think I can make out blueberries or other stony fragments under the surface - unless I'm imagining things(! ).

From the little I remember of basic geography in highschool, a water table isn't necessarily flat, is it? In some areas, it can be significantly higher than in others, depending on the local ground conditions and porosity. Is that not true?
If so, the water table in the vicinity of our 'puddle' may be very close to the surface, while considerably lower in other regions. This may resolve the inconsistency of finding a puddle at this relatively high point, while the bottom of Opportunity's landing crater was dry.
Just some thoughts and questions. ???

[Hi Atomoid! I assume you were joking about NASA deliberately blurring out something we weren't supposed to see?! But, just to eliminate the possibility that our 'puddle' is no more than a transmission glitch, can any of our resident computer/image gurus tell from the JPL raw data whether the pixels are all 'kosher' in the area in question?
Thanks in anticipation. ]

RobS · 2004-05-03 00:03:05

It looks like an erosional remnant to me:

1. Area was covered by a relatively flat, thin layer of eolian dust.

2. Wind erosion blew away the dust, leaving

3. A small erosional remnant, a tiny "plateau" of dust.

-- RobS

chaosman · 2004-05-03 05:55:05

But what happened to the berries at the puddle area ?

Why is this area berry-free ?

RobS · 2004-05-03 09:56:40

The "puddle" is a dust layer covering the "berries."

-- RobS

chaosman · 2004-05-03 11:35:42

I wish that NASA would decide to test that hypothesis.

But I think their attention is fixed to the bigger "puddle" now.

Can't wait to see more images...

By the way:

Does anybody know if the rovers would be able to remote sense liquid water (brine, acid) or ice (snow) on the surface ?

cassioli · 2004-05-03 14:26:19

Does anybody know if the rovers would be able to remote sense liquid water (brine, acid) or ice (snow) on the surface ?

I think that if we'll see a dark area in place of the "big puddle" in IR filtered images at any time of the day, we would be near sure it's ice.
BUT, if we'll not see a dark area, we will NOT be sure it is NOT ice, as it could be covered by dust warmed by sun... ???

I don't know if the rover has an "ice-detector"... but it was sent there to look for water evidence, so it probably has it. Or was te mission objective just to look for evidence of PAST water? ???

Luca

chaosman · 2004-05-04 05:02:35

Thank you for your thoughts, cassioli.

But I have no confirmation yet.

Strange...I asked this question a couple of times but never got a "yes" or "no".

I seems to me that the rovers are not equipted to detect surface or subsurface water (ice, brine).

cassioli · 2004-05-04 12:54:45

All water puddles or all sand "puddles"?

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/pres … .jpg]Image

Luca

C M Edwards · 2004-05-04 14:00:04

The closest thing the rovers have to a water detector is their thermal emission spectrometers. Both lack the mass spectrometers necessary for definitive identification of water. Neither the Mossbauer spectrometer nor the XRF spectrometer can detect water because neither molecular water, hydrogen, nor oxygen emit at frequencies these types of spectrometer are designed to detect. In fact, one possible test the rovers can make for water using their limited equipment is to identify a candidate target using the thermal spectrometer and check it with the alpha XRF spectrometer. If the XRF spectrometer gets significantly lower than expected counts, it's a safe bet that it's only reading traces of dust in a matrix of something it can't detect -- like ice.

dicktice · 2004-05-05 07:05:19

I'd like to suggest the obvious: sidle up to the "puddle" and wade through it, then look back to see what happened to it. Most of the amazing things discovered so far have been visual, so why get so suddenly academic at this late date about the lack of chemical analysis capability. Ditto, the "wind-blown dunes": drive down there and drill a hole in 'em to see if they're ice. Sheese! as Cindy (I assume) would say.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-05-05 07:34:50

First of all, thanks Luca for the Spirit panorama. A couple of those depressions look decidedly as though water had something to do with their form and appearance.
At almost the exact dead centre of the panorama, there's a small roundish area which you could be forgiven for thinking still has water in its right-hand half! It may be quite deceptive, though, since I suppose very fine dust could effectively mimic the appearance of water in some cases.

And thanks to Dicktice for offering the practical solution to the problem (spot the hands-on engineer! ) - get into it and see what it's made of! Go ahead .. get a little dirt on your wheels!
I just love a practical man.

cassioli · 2004-05-05 13:17:09

It looks like NASA is VERY interested on this "puddle": they took 4 different shots at 4 different times of it!

Here it is the result, in color:

http://jumpjack.altervista.org/immagini … gif](ZOOM)

Times:
Sol 91 13:01 , Sol 91 13:02 , Sol 90 15:06 , Sol 89 16:51

Maybe they are going to examine it more closely?

Luca

atomoid · 2004-05-06 14:06:23

[Hi Atomoid! I assume you were joking about NASA deliberately blurring out something we weren't supposed to see?! But, just to eliminate the possibility that our 'puddle' is no more than a transmission glitch, can any of our resident computer/image gurus tell from the JPL raw data whether the pixels are all 'kosher' in the area in question?
Thanks in anticipation. ]

Amazing what you miss when your away for a few days...

Thats a great sequence of images over 3 days, cassioli. It seems NASA *was* very interested in it. but no comment yet...

I'm a bit more receptive to the idea that this is a puddle of frozen brine, perhaps going liquid during the day... However, i still think its probable that its just a "dust puddle" (whatever that really is and the whatever the physics of that entails im not so sure), it just seems its so unlikely for there to be water pooling up without much evidence left behind by it. wouldnt se see erosion or patterns left behind from the thaw/freeze cycles. such action would tend to move debris around as the water expands each phase and we should see circles and other geometric patterns like we see in the semi-permafrost regions here on Earth. Or perhaps these depressions themselves are "evidence" of this freeze thaw process, or even soil slumping into these "sink holes".

But i still think its most likely that the depressions are merely places where the impact-tossed bedrock chunks left behind sloping vacancies as the bedrock eroded away into the wind and the blueberries dropped out. At the bottom of this depression is the last flat surface remnant of this bedrock. Maybe if the local wind conditions are right the dust collects here and looks like this.

And Shaun, yes im being facetious in regards to those NASA conspiracy theories, regardless of the Brookings report (which basically implies that the (american) gov't Earth isnt ready for Contact yet so hush it up, although it is from the early sixties i think?) i really think that think if they found eveidence they couldnt keep a lid on it... thats why i was hoping for an independent ESA lander (Beagle) to provide some parity (or perhaps the black-ops has "taken care of" the "Beagle problem"...ha ha ha) unfortunately im not good enough with pixels to prove NASA malfeasance, but the compression artifacts certainly obfuscate the issue in question dont they...

cassioli · 2004-05-06 14:30:54

..., it just seems its so unlikely for there to be water pooling up without much evidence left behind by it. wouldnt se see erosion or patterns left behind from the thaw/freeze cycles. such action would tend to move debris around as the water expands each phase and we should see circles and other geometric patterns like we see in the semi-permafrost regions here on Earth....

I suppose pancam is too far and compression too high to see similar patterns in the "puddle", I hope in a microscope examination....

Luca

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-02 02:46:27

Re: A puddle ?

#2 2004-05-02 03:19:50

Re: A puddle ?

#3 2004-05-02 04:45:23

Re: A puddle ?

#4 2004-05-02 05:18:45

Re: A puddle ?

#5 2004-05-02 05:48:17

Re: A puddle ?

#6 2004-05-02 06:08:00

Re: A puddle ?

#7 2004-05-02 07:00:29

Re: A puddle ?

#8 2004-05-02 07:02:11

Re: A puddle ?

#9 2004-05-02 07:03:39

Re: A puddle ?

#10 2004-05-02 07:29:38

Re: A puddle ?

#11 2004-05-02 18:19:55

Re: A puddle ?

#12 2004-05-03 00:03:05

Re: A puddle ?

#13 2004-05-03 05:55:05

Re: A puddle ?

#14 2004-05-03 09:56:40

Re: A puddle ?

#15 2004-05-03 11:35:42

Re: A puddle ?

#16 2004-05-03 14:26:19

Re: A puddle ?

#17 2004-05-04 05:02:35

Re: A puddle ?

#18 2004-05-04 12:54:45

Re: A puddle ?

#19 2004-05-04 14:00:04

Re: A puddle ?

#20 2004-05-05 07:05:19

Re: A puddle ?

#21 2004-05-05 07:34:50

Re: A puddle ?

#22 2004-05-05 13:17:09

Re: A puddle ?

#23 2004-05-06 14:06:23

Re: A puddle ?

#24 2004-05-06 14:30:54

Re: A puddle ?

Board footer