Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Mars NASA Science

"Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars 237

eldavojohn writes "Further reinforcing the theory of a wet Mars, NewScientist is reporting on what appear to be water puddles in newly taken images from the Mars rover. While these results are controversial, the assumption that these blue 'puddles' are water still has to be tested by engineers. They'll try to measure the uniform smoothness of the puddle surfaces. Analysis will also examine their apparent 'opaqueness', where in some areas observers claim to see pebbles underneath the surface of the blue areas. From the article: 'No signs of liquid water have been observed directly from cameras on the surface before. Reports last year pointed to the existence of gullies on crater walls where water appears to have flowed in the last few years, as shown in images taken from orbit, but those are short-lived flows, which are thought to have frozen over almost immediately.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars

Comments Filter:
  • by CorSci81 ( 1007499 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @04:01PM (#19452503) Journal

    Yes, they're colored, and lots of things don't look quite normal under the lighting conditions on Mars. Right off the bat I have a lot of reservations about this work.

    1. His analysis method is based on stereoscopic image reconstructions of a height field. His claim essentially seems that there was no solution everywhere the picture was blue, so it must be flat. Unfortunately, this technique is pretty lousy for extracting height fields. It's noisy, and contrast issues cause it to fail frequently (I know, I've done it myself).

    2. He has no spectral data or any other data to back up his claim. Granted, he's a Lockheed engineer and may not have access. But I have a hard time believing the vast team of scientists analyzing the data overlooked something so obvious.

    3. And finally there's Mr. Levin's history of publishing rather dubious claims regarding water on Mars in the Proceedings of the SPIE but never once a full paper in a peer-reviewed journal that covers planetary science. Not that I want to make a personal attack, but this isn't the first time he's made a dubious claim that was never verified.

    So, while it's intriguing and might be worth a second look, I'm still firmly in the skeptic category on this one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09, 2007 @06:19PM (#19453459)
    God dammit, what a load of populist crap that site is. They should not be allowed to use the word scientist in their name. Their content is far from science. I guess someone at slashdot is getting paid well for the proliferation of links to that site.
  • by MichaelKaiserProScri ( 691448 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @06:29PM (#19453541)
    This is consistent with the picture. Depending on the filter they took the picture with, it might look VERY blue. They commonly represent the image obtained from the UV filter as "blue" when they want to produce a color image from the pancam, but have not used the true blue filter in the image set. Give the absorption spectrum, that would make it look bluer than usual because water absorbs UV even better than blue. Notice that the lowest point of that graph is just outside the visible range to the left of blue. That's UV.
  • by Darkfred ( 245270 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @07:32PM (#19453889) Homepage Journal
    Here is a picture of it in its original b&w glory from another angle.
    With the rover driving over that area.

    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/285 /1N153484776EFF37MIP0757R0M1.JPG [nasa.gov]

    It does look a lot like track prints in mud.
  • by nanosquid ( 1074949 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @07:57PM (#19454015)
    Plain water can't stay liquid for very long at Mar's near vacuum. So the question is what water solutions can stay liquid at that temperature and pressure and for how long?

    The triple point of water is around 0.01 C and 0.006 atm, which tells you that even plain water can be liquid at surface conditions that can exist on Mars. Salt solutions can exist in liquid form over a much wider range of conditions.

    See also here:

    http://mars.spherix.com/spie2/spie98.htm [spherix.com]
  • by Aerovoid ( 590728 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @09:57PM (#19454755)

    There are a number of things wrong with that article.

    1) The images are false colour. All images taken by the rovers (or any probe for that matter) are never true colour. They generally take images through various infra red and green and ultraviolet filters. When combined, they create unnatural coloured images. So that blue soil you see wouldn't really be blue if it were to be seen with the naked eye.

    2) The specific image shown were taken on the rim of Endurance crater, not at the floor of it. Water can't exactly pool on a slope.

    3) Although the summery on slashdot here says "newly taken images...". This is also incorrect. They were taken in 2004.

    I don't doubt that there is water on Mars, but I don't think it can pool on the surface (due to the low atmospheric pressure), nor do I think this photo contains any evidence of pooling water either. It may contain evidence of past water how ever.

  • Re:Not this again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Evil Pete ( 73279 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @11:30PM (#19455173) Homepage

    Actually I had these same feelings when I first saw the the images of the landing of the NEAR probe on Eros (note the final image [nasa.gov]). There was silt so fine that it flowed like a liquid and even looked like it had surface tension. This reminded me of when I was a kid I had seen fine silt mud settle out in water with a similar effect. Some very interesting physics must be going on the surface of Mars and the asteroids. Particles the size of colloids interacting like molecules to form a quasi liquid?

  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Saturday June 09, 2007 @11:37PM (#19455195)
    As a matter of fact, the ocean looks gray on an overcast day. In other words, it's the same color as the sky.

    Protip: any SCUBA diver will tell you that water absorbs the red end of the spectrum much faster than the blue end, which is why you lose all the reds at around 40 feet depth, and at 100 feet everything is mostly shades of blue. It has NOTHING to do with the color of the sky which, because of the Compton effect (ie lots of water vapor in our atmosphere) is also blue.
  • by MichaelKaiserProScri ( 691448 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @12:29AM (#19455437)
    I don't know. One would think that they went as durable as possible since the accuracy of the color reference is critical to getting accurate pictures. But the rovers were only supposed to last about 3 months. I think we're going on 5 years now, so who knows.
  • Re:Not this again (Score:2, Interesting)

    by goeldi ( 695706 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @01:19AM (#19455693) Journal
    OK, but how about the opaqueness?
  • by nanosquid ( 1074949 ) on Sunday June 10, 2007 @02:51AM (#19456067)
    Come on kids ... it's nice to dream and all, but what we're dealing with here -- again, at least on the surface -- is one very dry surface that has a heck of a lot of ultra-fine silt lying around in a low gravity environment.

    It's quite clear that soil surfaces on Mars must regularly be exposed to liquid water. Why? Because we've already pretty much seen it: the Viking lander saw ground frost in its images, and at temperatures and pressures on Mars, that frost can turn liquid.

    (Incidentally, silt was, by definition, created in running water.)

    So, while I agree that these pictures don't show liquid water and that we haven't seen any puddles of water on Mars yet, an ultra-dry explanation of Mars doesn't work, and liquid water or salt solutions on the surface of Mars are not just possible, but likely.

The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.

Working...