This just in from NASA HQ: Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington March 2, 2004 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Guy Webster Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 04-077 OPPORTUNITY ROVER FINDS STRONG EVIDENCE MERIDIANI PLANUM WAS WET Scientists have concluded the part of Mars NASA's Opportunity rover is exploring was soaking wet in the past. Evidence the rover found in a rock outcrop led scientists to the conclusion. Clues from the rocks' composition, such as the presence of sulfates, and the rocks' physical appearance, such as niches where crystals grew, helped make the case for a watery history. "Liquid water once flowed through these rocks. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin, Spirit. "We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion," he said. Dr. James Garvin, lead scientist for Mars and lunar exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington, said, "NASA launched the Mars Exploration Rover mission specifically to check whether at least one part of Mars ever had a persistently wet environment that could possibly have been hospitable to life. Today we have strong evidence for an exciting answer: Yes." Opportunity has more work ahead. It will try to determine whether, besides being exposed to water after they formed, the rocks may have originally been laid down by minerals precipitating out of solution at the bottom of a salty lake or sea. The first views Opportunity sent of its landing site in Mars' Meridiani Planum region five weeks ago delighted researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., because of the good fortune to have the spacecraft arrive next to an exposed slice of bedrock on the inner slope of a small crater. The robotic field geologist has spent most of the past three weeks surveying the whole outcrop, and then turning back for close-up inspection of selected portions. The rover found a very high concentration of sulfur in the outcrop with its alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, which identifies chemical elements in a sample. "The chemical form of this sulfur appears to be in magnesium, iron or other sulfate salts," said Dr. Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver. "Elements that can form chloride or even bromide salts have also been detected." At the same location, the rover's Moessbauer spectrometer, which identifies iron-bearing minerals, detected a hydrated iron sulfate mineral called jarosite. Germany provided both these instruments. Opportunity's miniature thermal emission spectrometer has also provided evidence for sulfates. On Earth, rocks with as much salt as this Mars rock either have formed in water or, after formation, have been highly altered by long exposures to water. Jarosite may point to the rock's wet history having been in an acidic lake or an acidic hot springs environment. The water evidence from the rocks' physical appearance comes in at least three categories, said Dr. John Grotzinger, sedimentary geologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge: indentations called "vugs," spherules and crossbedding. Pictures from the rover's panoramic camera and microscopic imager reveal the target rock, dubbed "El Capitan," is thoroughly pocked with indentations about a centimeter (0.4 inch) long and one-fourth or less that wide, with apparently random orientations. This distinctive texture is familiar to geologists as the sites where crystals of salt minerals form within rocks that sit in briny water. When the crystals later disappear, either by erosion or by dissolving in less-salty water, the voids left behind are called vugs, and in this case they conform to the geometry of possible former evaporite minerals. Round particles the size of BBs are embedded in the outcrop.
From shape alone, these spherules might be formed from volcanic eruptions, from lofting of molten droplets by a meteor impact, or from accumulation of minerals coming out of solution inside a porous, water-soaked rock. Opportunity's observations that the spherules are not concentrated at particular layers in the outcrop weigh against a volcanic or impact origin, but do not completely rule out those origins.
Layers in the rock that lie at an angle to the main layers, a pattern called crossbedding, can result from the action of wind or water. Preliminary views by Opportunity hint the crossbedding bears hallmarks of water action, such as the small scale of the crossbedding and possible concave patterns formed by sinuous crestlines of underwater ridges. The images obtained to date are not adequate for a definitive answer. So scientists plan to maneuver Opportunity closer to the features for a better look. "We have tantalizing clues, and we're planning to evaluate this possibility in the near future," Grotzinger said. JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Mars Exploration Rover project for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington.
Was this result unexpected? It seems that there is a BUNCH of evidence that water was (and is still) on Mars. Let me ask the following questions: 1. What is the current thinking about Valles Marineris (if that is how you spell it)? 2. Is there really a good alternative to exlain the erosion there? 3. Is there solid evidence for water ice at the poles? 4. Does water ice at the poles indicate that there may be pools of liquid water during at least a part of a season? 5. Although it is frozen for at least part of the Martian year, the water at the poles is water that has been on the planet for a long period. Is this being ignored, and why? 6. What is the real significance of the announcement today? It almost seems to me that NASA scientists are really only stating that the rover is in agreement with what they already knew. What am I missing here? Brent --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
This just in from NASA HQ:
Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington March 2, 2004 (Phone: 202/358-1547)
Guy Webster Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. (Phone: 818/354-5011)
RELEASE: 04-077
OPPORTUNITY ROVER FINDS STRONG EVIDENCE MERIDIANI PLANUM WAS WET
Scientists have concluded the part of Mars NASA's Opportunity rover is exploring was soaking wet in the past.
Evidence the rover found in a rock outcrop led scientists to the conclusion. Clues from the rocks' composition, such as the presence of sulfates, and the rocks' physical appearance, such as niches where crystals grew, helped make the case for a watery history.
"Liquid water once flowed through these rocks. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin, Spirit. "We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion," he said.
Dr. James Garvin, lead scientist for Mars and lunar exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington, said, "NASA launched the Mars Exploration Rover mission specifically to check whether at least one part of Mars ever had a persistently wet environment that could possibly have been hospitable to life. Today we have strong evidence for an exciting answer: Yes."
Opportunity has more work ahead. It will try to determine whether, besides being exposed to water after they formed, the rocks may have originally been laid down by minerals
precipitating out of solution at the bottom of a salty lake or sea.
The first views Opportunity sent of its landing site in Mars' Meridiani Planum region five weeks ago delighted researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., because of the good fortune to have the spacecraft arrive next to an exposed slice of bedrock on the inner slope of a small crater.
The robotic field geologist has spent most of the past three weeks surveying the whole outcrop, and then turning back for close-up inspection of selected portions. The rover found a very high concentration of sulfur in the outcrop with its alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, which identifies chemical elements in a sample.
"The chemical form of this sulfur appears to be in magnesium, iron or other sulfate salts," said Dr. Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver. "Elements that can form chloride or even bromide salts have also been detected."
At the same location, the rover's Moessbauer spectrometer, which identifies iron-bearing minerals, detected a hydrated iron sulfate mineral called jarosite. Germany provided both these instruments. Opportunity's miniature thermal emission spectrometer has also provided evidence for sulfates.
On Earth, rocks with as much salt as this Mars rock either have formed in water or, after formation, have been highly altered by long exposures to water. Jarosite may point to the rock's wet history having been in an acidic lake or an acidic hot springs environment.
The water evidence from the rocks' physical appearance comes in at least three categories, said Dr. John Grotzinger,
sedimentary geologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge: indentations called "vugs," spherules and crossbedding.
Pictures from the rover's panoramic camera and microscopic imager reveal the target rock, dubbed "El Capitan," is thoroughly pocked with indentations about a centimeter (0.4 inch) long and one-fourth or less that wide, with apparently random orientations. This distinctive texture is familiar to geologists as the sites where crystals of salt minerals form within rocks that sit in briny water. When the crystals later disappear, either by erosion or by dissolving in less-salty water, the voids left behind are called vugs, and in this case they conform to the geometry of possible former evaporite minerals.
Round particles the size of BBs are embedded in the outcrop.
From shape alone, these spherules might be formed from volcanic eruptions, from lofting of molten droplets by a meteor impact, or from accumulation of minerals coming out of solution inside a porous, water-soaked rock. Opportunity's observations that the spherules are not concentrated at particular layers in the outcrop weigh against a volcanic or impact origin, but do not completely rule out those origins.
Layers in the rock that lie at an angle to the main layers, a pattern called crossbedding, can result from the action of wind or water. Preliminary views by Opportunity hint the crossbedding bears hallmarks of water action, such as the small scale of the crossbedding and possible concave patterns formed by sinuous crestlines of underwater ridges.
The images obtained to date are not adequate for a definitive answer. So scientists plan to maneuver Opportunity closer to the features for a better look. "We have tantalizing clues, and we're planning to evaluate this possibility in the near future," Grotzinger said.
JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Mars Exploration Rover project for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
=== message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
I had the same reaction, Brent. That's one reason I speculated they were going to announce they had found evidence of past or present life. It's just not big news that Mars once had water. We have had proof for some time that water ice exists at the poles and there are numerous photos of river channels on Mars. So why did NASA fly scientists from Pasadena to Washington to say they found proof water once soaked the Opportunity site? Just to show the rover found what it was looking for, I guess. And I'm still not convinced the spheres are only concretions. Best wishes, Joe
Joe, as I explained to Brent, the question was not if water has existed on Mars in the past, it was if it was present in OCEAN quantities, over large geographical (areological?) areas. You have to read the announcement carefully, I was underwhelmed at first too, but this really is big news to a Martian geologist. C. --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
It's just not big news that Mars once had water. We have had proof for some time that water ice exists at the poles and there are numerous photos of river channels on Mars. So why did NASA fly scientists from Pasadena to Washington to say they found proof water once soaked the Opportunity site? Just to show the rover found what it was looking for, I guess.
And I'm still not convinced the spheres are only concretions.
Right. They are blueberries! ;) C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Brent: --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. What is the current thinking about Valles Marineris (if that is how you spell it)?
In the press release, they state that Valles Marinaris is obviously caused by water erosion, but it could have been a catastrophic event. What they are looking for now is evidence of prolonged pooling, which is thought of as a requirement for the development of life.
2. Is there really a good alternative to exlain the erosion there?
See above, not in dispute.
3. Is there solid evidence for water ice at the poles?
Spectroscopic evidence only as of now, but even polar ice is not indicative of past, prolonged pooling.
4. Does water ice at the poles indicate that there may be pools of liquid water during at least a part of a season?
Not currently
5. Although it is frozen for at least part of the Martian year, the water at the poles is water that has been on the planet for a long period. Is this being ignored, and why?
Long-term ice is not as favorable for the formation of life, as liquid water. The polar ice could have been a permanent feature.
6. What is the real significance of the announcement today?
Your next statement is the answer to #6. Remember that for every liquid water scenario put forth, there was always a "dry" alternative. This mission was to try and nail-down the early Martian conditions once and for all, based on the geology
It almost seems to me that NASA scientists are really only stating that the rover is in agreement with what they already knew. What am I missing here?
Nothing at all. We were prepped for something "big", not realizing that what gets the scientists off is not what gets the general public off! It is an important finding, as it lays to rest some "what if" scenarios and assures us of the right direction in future research. No biggie. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
It still seems to me that there was not much "new" information given today. Underground aquifers even at the poles are easily understood, and these are extremely likely today. And here I was all ready for something "Mars" shattering! I bet you could dig a well on Mars and get water. You may have to go a bit deeper than most on the earth, but some in So. Utah are 350-1000 feet deep. Bottom line is - we need to go there with some permanance and get some real answers. Brent __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Even with "some permanence" you're not going to be able to drill more than a few dozens of feet into the surface, at least during your kids life time. Has anyone given any thought to the incredible pollution to the Martian atmosphere that these landings are causing, or to the unimaginable pollution even one human landing and return to Earth would cause. No future surface exploration would be left untainted. It was different on the moon, because there was no atmosphere to spread the rocket propellant exhaust around. Just my .02 Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Watson" <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mars Water | It still seems to me that there was not much "new" | information given today. Underground aquifers even at | the poles are easily understood, and these are | extremely likely today. And here I was all ready for | something "Mars" shattering! | | I bet you could dig a well on Mars and get water. You | may have to go a bit deeper than most on the earth, | but some in So. Utah are 350-1000 feet deep. | | Bottom line is - we need to go there with some | permanance and get some real answers. | | Brent | | | __________________________________ | Do you Yahoo!? | Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster | http://search.yahoo.com | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com |
--- "B. Bettilyon" <aaah@sisna.com> wrote:
Has anyone given any thought to the incredible pollution to the Martian atmosphere that these landings are causing, or to the unimaginable pollution even one human landing and return to Earth would cause. No future surface exploration would be left untainted.
It was different on the moon, because there was no atmosphere to spread the rocket propellant exhaust around.
I think you can only use the term "pollution" in the presence of an eco-system, perhaps "spoiling" the wilderness would be more appropriate terminology. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Hey, this news really IS Mars-shattering. Up until this evidence, all of that business about large liquid bodies of water has been only informed speculation. The fact that the news seems ho-hum is because we've all had our wishful thinking plugged in for the last several years. It seems obvious, but remember those "canals" were equally obvious to Percival Lowell. So, I reserve my right to be excited. And I am. Michael
And here I was all ready for something "Mars" shattering!
Hi friends, I still can't get over the feeling that NASA is missing the boat, and that the "blueberries" are some form of life, either fossil or presently alive, that we don't easily recognize as life because they are so alien. Look at this closeup: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a/12-ss-12-... -- isn't it at least worth considering that this thing might be a relic of some lifeform, or an actual living thing? What if Mars life evolved really differently from life on Earth and looks somehow more mineral than life here? I would be surprised if the requirements for life were the same on every planet. What if this is some organism that grew over thousands of years, accumulating minerals slowly? It might not look like a bunny, might not respire in any way we are used to, but that wouldn't mean it isn't alive. Incidentally, NASA screwed up and posted images of the same thing as supposedly coming from the "El Capitan" outcrop and the "Guadalupe" outcrop. The first is the URL I copied above, where the photo has the label "Focus on El Capitan-2" and the other is the URL I'm pasting in below this, where the label is "Focus on Guadalupe." http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a/16-jg-02-... They, and other interesting photos, are posted on this page: http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040302a.html Anyway, as Patrick noted, it's fun to speculate. Best wishes, Joe
Joe, I'd share your suspicions, but these things have been found on earth and are not new. They are related to precipitation during volcansim. I read about scientists finding them at several sites on earth, decades ago. BUT- you never know! C. --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Hi friends, I still can't get over the feeling that NASA is missing the boat, and that the "blueberries" are some form of life, either fossil or presently alive, that we don't easily recognize as life because they are so alien.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
I believe they are saying that the ones on Mars are volcanic in origin. --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Joe, I'd share your suspicions, but these things have been found on earth and are not new. They are related to precipitation during volcansim. I read about scientists finding them at several sites on earth, decades ago.
BUT- you never know!
C.
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Hi friends, I still can't get over the feeling that NASA is missing the boat, and that the "blueberries" are some form of life, either fossil or presently alive, that we don't easily recognize as life because they are so alien.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe they are saying that the ones on Mars are volcanic in origin.
Q.E.D. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Sorry, I did not tyep this correctly. I meant to say that the ones on Mars are NOT volcanic in origin. --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe they are saying that the ones on Mars are volcanic in origin.
Q.E.D.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Show me a picture of one from Earth that looks a lot like this, and I may change my sorry old tune ... jb
Joe, I don't have hours to do the research, but here is a discussion thread that mentions some of the sites where they have been found on earth, albeit not as ubiquitous as on Mars. http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=137468&t=137437 I make no claims as to the content of that site, it just popped-up during a VERY quick Websearch. My encounter with these things was thirty years ago, in a written archeology text. I can't recall the title of the book after all these years. Wouldn't it be funny if they were Martian "pearls"? C. --- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Show me a picture of one from Earth that looks a lot like this, and I may change my sorry old tune ... jb
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Joe, What is the average diameter of these 'blueberries'? They seem to be of a consistent size, and some with bulges on one end. I agree, that NASA sdould ask the question, to let others know they are still investigating. These objects seem too curious to just pass over. Jim Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: Show me a picture of one from Earth that looks a lot like this, and I may change my sorry old tune ... jb _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Chuck asked me for more info about my thoughts, and I sent him a note -- then I realized, well, maybe others in the group would enjoy reading this. So I'm posting it here too. Thanks, Joe Hi Chuck, No, it's not that I have a bet or expected anything -- I was just startled by these things. I have spent many years searching for and finding extremely strange fossils from the Middle Cambrian era. You want to see really odd life forms, check out the Middle Cambrian. Anyhow, there's something about these Mars objects that reminds me of peculiar life forms. In one of the recent views, Opportunity used the RAT to slice through the rock where some of these things were. One of the spheres shows rootlike extensions going off, and at least one other seems to have similar structures though the RAT didn't go deep enough to really exposure them. Here's a URL: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/035/1M131296201EFF0500P2933M2... Look at the things going off the sphere on the upper right. If it were a strictly geological process I'd suspect the form would be one thing or another, that is, kind of an undifferentiated mass or spiky or spherical, but not spherical with extensions going off parallel to the rock face. They remind me of "holdfasts" that some ancient organisms had to anchor themselves in the mud of the ocean floor. The sphere on the upper left also seems to have extensions just under the surface from where the RAT stopped. Then on the lower left there's something twiglike. Maybe it is just a crack, or maybe it was formed by solution moving through the matrix when it was softer, but what if it's a sort of fossil root? At least they should investigate these things and say they're doing it. I'm surprised by the symmetry these things display above the surface, and by kind of rootlets below the surface. I hope you don't think I'm a nut or a fanatic. It has nothing to do with a belief system, and everything to do with looking at really strange Middle Cambrian fossils. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/house.html Take a look at the Gogia fossil, third from the left under "Other Invertebrates." It's a Middle Cambrian fossil from Utah that has a basically round body plan with things radiating out -- I have found Gogia myself. I'm not saying these are anything like Gogia except that maybe they have a slightly similar look in some ways. Anyhow, after really years and years of splitting open rocks, studying reports, and finding very strange fossils, I was struck that these don't look much like any mineral form I know. But they do look a little bit like some early life forms. Just a thought I thought was worth looking into. Thanks for your patience, friend. -- Joe
Hi Jim, Don't know the answer but they aren't extremely tiny. You can see them in pancam pictures, which give about the same perspective as a person standing on Mars would see. I too thought I saw that some have a little extention or bud-thing at the top. -- Joe
Those are barely even bite sized. I would need a few good handful's of Mars bars to accompany the Mar's berries. On another note, these do seem logically like natural formations as a result of both volcanism and liquid precipitation (not necessarily water, could be a liquefied sulfur dioxide.) Still, they are interesting to see, and to ponder. I think of all the specimens that (we wish) could be brought back, these are among the top items. Cheers, James. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+cyanics=xmission.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+cyanics=xmission.com@mailman.xmission.com ] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:35 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: More comments to irritate everybody Hi Jim, Jim Stitley wrote:
What is the average diameter of these 'blueberries'?
During yesterday's news conference one of the speakers indicated the berries measured 1 to 3 mm. Patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (8)
-
B. Bettilyon -
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
James Helsby -
Jim Stitley -
Joe Bauman -
Michael Carnes -
Patrick Wiggins