Click here to get back home

What will Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter find?

 HomeNewsGroups | Search | About
 alt.sci.planetary    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content
Subject Author Date
What will Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter find? rgregoryclark 04-06-2006
Posted by Aidan Karley on April 22, 2006, 5:05 am
Please log in for more thread options
> I want to see ancient ruins, giant faces,
> anything that proves Martians lived there once.
>
And if the Martians reached the technological
environment-modifying state of inserting twigs into Mars-termite nests
before succumbing to environmental degradation, would that not be
almost as significant a discovery?

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233


Posted by don findlay on April 8, 2006, 9:26 pm
Please log in for more thread options

rgregoryclark@yahoo.com wrote:
> With each factor of 10 improvement of visual resolution of Mars has
> come revolutionary changes in our understanding of the role of liquid
> water on Mars. What revolutionary improvement over the discovery of
> possibly currently forming gullies by MGS might we predict for MRO?
> I suggest small ponds will be observed by MRO on Mars, oases if you
> will. These will be analogous to Don Juan pond in Antarctica. Note that
> Don Juan pond is able to remain frozen year round down to perhaps -45 C
> temperatures because of abundant salts. The MER rovers suggest such
> salts are also abundant on Mars.
> I believe that such ponds have been seen by MGS, but they have been
> hard to prove at the resolution of MGS. I'm suggesting they will be
> proven by MRO. Note that the Malin-Edgett gullies were not discovered
> by Viking orbiter imaging, but the fact that THEMIS on Mars Odyssey has
> been able to detect them at similar resolution to the Viking orbiter
> resolution suggests they were visible by Viking, just not provably so.
>
> A *possible* example of ponding seen by MGS:
>
> Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) High Resolution Images:
> Seepage and Ponding within a Southern Hemisphere Crater
> http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/5_27_98_agu_release/
>
> My guess for where they will be found is at near equatorial areas that
> are known to have low lying fogs or clouds:
>
> Clouds in Noctis Labyrinthis on Mars.
> http://www.photovault.com/Link/Universe/Planets/Mars/UPMVolume01/UPMV01P0=
2_06NoctisLabyr.html
>
> Note that the frost deposition on the MER Opportunity rover was
> observed in connection with clouds over the site. The fogs/clouds seen
> over Noctis Labyrinthis are much denser and closer to the surface.
> Indeed they look more like cumulus clouds than thin cirrus clouds,
> which is why I'm suggesting visible surface ponds with better
> resolution imaging. To be precise, I'm predicting such ponds will be
> seen during the period such low, dense fogs are seen over these near
> equatorial locations.
>
> Here is another image of the western end of Valles Marineris showing
> dense low lying fogs/clouds:
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/986073/marsiswet.jpg
>
> taken from:
>
> Adsorption water-driven processes on Mars.
> D. M=F6hlmann, DLR-PF, Berlin.
> FIRST MARS EXPRESS SCIENCE CONFERENCE. 21-25 February 2005, ESA/ESTEC
> http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/doc.cfm?fobjectid=3D36779
>
>
> Another possible location for ponding is in Newton crater:
>
> Evidence for Recent Liquid Water on Mars:
> Channeled Aprons in a Small Crater within Newton Crater.
> http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/newton/
>
> At 41 S latitude, this is not a near equatorial site, but there are
> abundant low lying fogs in the image and the connection with gullies is
> suggestive.
>
> Another possible site may be the Hellas crater basin since this also
> presents frequent low lying fogs or clouds.
>
> Some MGS images of Hellas are here:
>
> MOC Narrow-Angle Image Gallery: Mars Chart 28: Hellas
> http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/mc28.html
>
>
> Bob Clark

Nice stuff. I wonder though when talking about the water that leaked
out of the Valles Marineris in the great big bubble of the Tharsis
region on Mars, they will make the connection with the water that
leaked out of the Valles Pacificus in the great big bubble of the Asian
American region on Earth
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/cpr/valles.html
that became the Pacific
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html
(as the Earth got bigger).

It's all very well to say there's no Plate Tectonics on Mars, ..but
there's none on Earth either. Anyone can see that the picture
geophysicists put forward of moving plates etc. etc. to explain what we
see is totally screwed up. Personally I don't know why they persist
with it, and they're probably beginning to wonder why they do too. (Not
before time.) It's all about 'Tharsian/ (Pacifican) uplift' and
rupture, and spewing out of (more or less) water all over the place.
(And mantle.) Right now, we're lucky to be getting a swim on the
beach.


Posted by Henry Spencer on April 12, 2006, 11:21 am
Please log in for more thread options
>It's all very well to say there's no Plate Tectonics on Mars, ..but
>there's none on Earth either. Anyone can see that the picture
>geophysicists put forward of moving plates etc. etc. to explain what we
>see is totally screwed up...

The motions of Earth's tectonic plates are now routinely directly
measured, by VLBI and precision GPS. There is still some uncertainty
about some of the details in Earth's interior, but the division of Earth's
crust into separately-moving plates is beyond reasonable doubt.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net

Posted by don findlay on April 12, 2006, 7:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options

Henry Spencer wrote:
> >It's all very well to say there's no Plate Tectonics on Mars, ..but
> >there's none on Earth either. Anyone can see that the picture
> >geophysicists put forward of moving plates etc. etc. to explain what we
> >see is totally screwed up...


> The motions of Earth's tectonic plates are now routinely directly
> measured, by VLBI and precision GPS. There is still some uncertainty
> about some of the details in Earth's interior, but the division of Earth's
> crust into separately-moving plates is beyond reasonable doubt.

Horizontal movements of the Earth's receiving stations prove nothing;
it's a natural consequence of outwards movement and crust-mantle
decoupling. And the spin symmetry of ('plate') movment is a clincher
for spin-mediated deformation (which is ignored by plate tectonics).
Spin-mediated deformation leads axiomatically to the Earth getting
bigger.

To draw the conclusion you do is overly simplistic. To assume that
vertical movements would be (a) uniformly distributed, and (b) on the
crust (with receiving stations) (and not on the spreading ridges where
there aren't any) and (c) happen in our lifetime to a significantly
measurable extent, is 'scientific' in the extreme. And in any case,
if you do a check of the receiving-station movements we do have, there
are as many going up as down, as show none. (In the sample I've
checked anyhow.)

Now, that's from the perspective of looking at toys. But if you look
at the **GEOLOGY**, and **READ IT** ... Well, then, .. you get a
**COMPLETELY** different story from Plate Tectonics.

Maybe you would have a go at the QUESTIONS FOR THE BORED ? :-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/fb8de217c2a91d6e/?hl=en#
Nobody has been able to answer one yet ... Since you've raised the
point about moving plates and gps maybe you would like to begin with
NUMBER 29 - "How does plate Tectonics explain the polar-symmetric
opening of the Atlantic - if spin has nothing to do with global
tectonics?"

And if you concede that it does, then you are well down the Path of
Earth Expansion. (Tough one for you Henry.) (Which card will you play
on that one..?)

Plate Tectonics has nothing to do with the Geology; if you don't
believe me, check the logic of Harry Hess at QFTB - NUMBER 28, on which
Plate Tectonics has been built - railroaded not only by a stupid
assumption, but one that flies in the face of every geological fact we
see (when taken in the context of all the others). Plate Tectonics is
constructed 'elementally', 'anatomically' simplistically, and with NO
regard for how the bigger picture hangs together (..as the answer you
give shows : why anyway do you (scientifically) assume, with the
qualifiers above to be considered, that expansion would be happening
incrementally to be measurable in the window of opportunity of 'toys'?
)


Posted by Henry Spencer on April 13, 2006, 1:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>> The motions of Earth's tectonic plates are now routinely directly
>> measured, by VLBI and precision GPS. There is still some uncertainty
>> about some of the details in Earth's interior, but the division of Earth's
>> crust into separately-moving plates is beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>Horizontal movements of the Earth's receiving stations prove nothing...

*Independent* horizontal movements in directions matching predicted plate
motions prove a great deal: as I said, the division of Earth's crust into
separately-moving plates is now a directly-verifiable fact. (And it has
practical implications, too -- in particular, precision tracking of
planetary missions must correct for the tectonic motion of the antenna
sites on Earth.) Doubting it is like doubting the rotation of the Earth:
it marks you as a crank, who's made up his mind and doesn't want to hear
inconvenient facts.

>it's a natural consequence of outwards movement and crust-mantle
>decoupling...

Except that there is no "outwards movement", since the precision-GPS
measurements in particular are three-dimensional and don't show any
systematic pattern of upward motion (except very locally in specific
volcanic/fault areas, an important use of this measurement technique).

>To draw the conclusion you do is overly simplistic. To assume that
>vertical movements would be (a) uniformly distributed, and (b) on the
>crust (with receiving stations) (and not on the spreading ridges where
>there aren't any) and (c) happen in our lifetime to a significantly
>measurable extent, is 'scientific' in the extreme.

Here we have one of the classic signs of pseudoscience: when a strongly
predicted effect (consistent upward motion of receiving sites) is not
seen, make excuses for it instead of conceding that the theory might
simply be wrong. One of the most important properties of a scientific
theory is falsifiability: being able to identify a specific set of
observational results that would definitively prove it wrong. If you can
make excuses for anything, what you have is religion, not science.

Considering (a), what mechanism would make it non-uniform, except the
urgent requirement to reconcile an invalid theory with inconvenient data?
As for (b), there are some receiving stations on or near spreading ridges,
e.g. in Iceland, and uplift under the oceans but not under the continents
would quickly have detectable effects on sea level. As for (c), tectonic
drift is detectable over a period of months with modern instrumentation;
even setting aside issues like the near-constancy of sea levels observed
over thousands of years, any global expansion must be very small for it
not to be easily and unambiguously detected from a precision-measurement
history now decades long.

>Maybe you would have a go at the QUESTIONS FOR THE BORED ? :-

I've wasted too much time on this already.

(Similarly, don't expect further responses from me unless some genuinely
new and interesting issue -- not just further crackpottery -- is raised.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: What will Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter find? April 6, 2006, 10:39 pm
Re: What will Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter find? April 15, 2006, 6:16 pm
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is on the Approach February 6, 2006, 12:04 am
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Nears End of Aerobraking August 28, 2006, 4:16 pm
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Update - June 16, 2005 June 16, 2005, 4:07 pm
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Adjusts Angle of Orbit September 6, 2006, 3:14 pm
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Successfully Concludes Aerobraking August 31, 2006, 12:03 pm
UA Team Heads for Launch of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and HiRISE August 1, 2005, 3:41 pm
UA Team Cheers Launch of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, HiRISE August 12, 2005, 12:46 pm
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission Status - August 17, 2005 August 17, 2005, 8:28 pm

Our other projects:

Art Dolls, Fairies and Mermaids - Sunnyfaces.net

Roy's Linux, Programming and Search Engines messages

1-Script XML SitemapXML Sitemap