Phoenix on Mars - Page 28

MRO Dec 23, 2008 view of Phoenix Landing site here.

False color. I hate it, yes I said I hate it. This is composite image in gray scale. Water frost line animated. Where is Phoenix?

Do not dare to go H2O vs. CO2 with me.

Fred

test

Some interesting data in regards to soil water gas or conductivity results from Phoenix.

This graph is consistent with temperature driven hydro-cycle.

Area I- Atmospheric Moisture to ground at 8PM. Ground cooling and sub-surface condensation

Area II- this shows atmospheric heating and ground heating with vapor rise with phase change the only explanation in the underground environment.

Area III- This would be an underground phase change flash off forming ground frost

The bottom line- On Earth the water comes from above. On Mars it comes from below.

Ummm?

Fred, where did you find the graph of reply 544?

From Near-Surface Humidity at the Phoenix Landing Site as Measured by the Thermal and Electrical
Conductivity Probe (TECP):

The daytime averaged H2O pressure is steady throughout the mission (LS 76 to 147) at ~1.8 Pa. Daytime RH was initially

Subsequent to about Sol 70, nighttime condensation was observed by lidar [4] and SSI surface images, consistent with high relative humidities. As the season progressed, temperatures dropped and saturation occurred earlier in the evening.

Oops. a "less than" in the quoted deleted a big chunk of the text. Just read the paper...

Hello Hort,

That paper is full of scientific jargon with little relevance.

The bottom line is the warmer the air the more moisture it can hold. Just basic science. To try and interpret vapor pressure as a hydro-cycle base-line with unknown impurities or antifreeze agents is folly.

Without antifreeze agents then we could not get the fresh water flash-off and bounce of conductivity in the early morning on the graph above. What kind is speculation.

Perchlorates? probably

Source,

http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gid=0&cID=381

Fred

Hort,

Just one more thing.

The name of the paper is, “Near surface humidity.” This is not consistent with ground conductivity. Micro-climate rules.

The title its self denotes a non-weatherman perspective. May I suggest he right a paper on the development of planets. He is not a specialist for sure. Near surface and surface are not the same. Bottom line, if you can not title your paper correctly then you are just some kid spending government money. “Get a real job.”

Just the other day it was 9F outside. The dew point was -10F. Surely they could be no condensation on my car window. That would mean no scraping. This was not the case. Was the temperature of the glass at or below-10F? Nope. The data collection was not in my driveway. Damn. Micro-climate on Earth.

Fred

Now from time to time I do go with a gross oversimplification as with my windshield analogy. It was an example of numerical data from one point extrapolated to another and all the variables that are the lowest part of the atmosphere. Micro-scale meteorology I believe.

I will now reconcile the paper and surface graph posted earlier.

The paper above does not allow a mere copy and past so I will need to simply explain. The graph does denote atmospheric water vapor reduction from all sources, the humidity that is relative does increase in the paper to above saturation around midnight. This would coincide with max cooling. This also coincides with ground fog development . Images we are not privy to.

We should also state that this data was at 2 meters and is compared to surface conductivity data in a juvenile attempt to draw conclusion. Atmospheric condensation does coincide with minimum atmospheric water availability due to temperature drops. And water source. This is the part were Earth analogs and Mars conditions diverge.

The porosity of the soil matrix and thermal inertia creates a subsurface hydro environment unlike most Earth locations. These air pockets dictate water phase change with a thermal lag.

I hope this helps.

Fred

Now it never stops to amaze me how they can accomplish such feats like land on another world and still scratch there heads about such a simple world.

They would never last when trying to forecast on the East coast of the U.S. Now Earth is the mother of all water worlds. After blowing a forecast I do indeed want to, “Take the Long Way Home.”

Fred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nvT3_iSaHU

This LPSC 2009 paper is quite interesting...

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1440.pdf

Did Phoenix find liquid water brines? Were the "droplets" on the lander leg actually briny droplets that were splashed upwards during the landing?

Thanks for the post Paul.

I was inspired to go look at the original data and create this sol 8 4x Extended Exposure Photograph under the lander - which I promptly shadow enhanded to show details of the droplets on the lander legs:

Unfortunately, the Phoenix original data is still publically available only to sol 30 ( I wonder why???) , so I couldn't do an animation of the changes on sol 31 and 44 shown in the paper from original data.

Not only am I happy to see that there is a reasonable scientific explanation of the spherules as frozen drops of liquid brine - but also encouraged by the scientific speculation that this sort of thing is quite common all over Mars.

Hi Hort,

Would it be ok to use that image in a blog post I'm going to do about this? Credit and a link to your Flickr page, of course. If you haven't seen the blog yet, it is here:

http://web.me.com/meridianijournal

Those droplets on the larger part of the lander leg do look liquid (even if frozen now in the open air), reflective even. More so than I realized before. After all the debate about whether liquid water brines could exist on Mars, could the evidence have been right there in front of us (for the past several months anyway)? I wish we could have obtained closer images of these.

Paul, I would be happy for you to link to the image of reply 552 - or any of the images I have created.

If you have any other Phoenix images up to sol 30 that you would like created from the original data just say which ones.

Perhaps someday all of the original Phoenix images will be available... the last one was taken almost 5 months ago...

Paul,

Nice site. When I get time I will look it over more, Titan is an interesting place.

The paper you posted looks good. Did we find brine? I would say yes. The debate of visible data being proof will rage on. It would be good to have some numerical data but it is not available.

The state of brine in the in the underground of Mars is unknown but it is safe to say we made some upon landing. We were, “Slinging Mud.”

Hort posted the best image of brine forming in the trench during max heating, will repost.
The ice formation under the Lander is from high humidity courtesy of exposed ice sublimation.

Fred

Just noticed this new article this evening:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213110731.htm

"Using thermodynamic calculations and the temperature information gathered experimentally, Chevrier and Altheide created a map that shows where brine might be found above and below the surface on Mars. The map also shows whether or not the brine would be frozen or evaporating as a result of the temperatures. The map shows an area where the temperatures are such that the brine could, at times, be liquid and flowing.

They then created a map that shows all of the places on the surface of Mars where gullies have been discovered. The vast majority of the gullies lie within the zone where the brine could be liquid.
“We’re calling this the episodic liquid zone,” said Altheide. “Temperature swings in this region could cause the release of liquid in the form of brine and thus explain the formation of present-day gullies.”

I'm intrigued with the blobs on the lander legs again because we've now seen an abstract in which 21 scientists take them as direct evidence of liquid water on Mars. One question that they raise: Why do the spheroids on the leg grow while the exposed ice under the lander sublimates away? The leg is probably at least slightly warmer than the ground surface at times during the day. If there is no deliquescense then how can the spheroids grow in an environment where the opposite of frost deposition, that is, loss of ice by sublimation is the prevailing process. If the spheroids are fairly pure ice then they should be disappearing over time. If they are a mechanical mixture of ice and soil thrown together by the thrusters while the water was temporarily liquid then they should sublimate more slowly perhaps but one would still expect them to sublimate away when the relative humidity was low during the day. I don't see why they would attract any more frost deposition at night than other surfaces in their environment unless solutes are involved.

I think that just the persistence and growth of the "oblate spheroids" is enough in itself to show that these authors are on to something.

Kye,

If the Lander legs were as warm as the air then the blobs would not grow, they must be colder. This would make sense to me as metal in the shadows would retain the cold longer than the thin dry air. This would allow condensation of the vapor on the leg as it sublimates from below. No other explanation would fit.

This process continued to about sol 40 then it waned. What changed? My guess is that a thin layer of wind blown dust deposition coated and slowed the sublimation of the exposed ice.

Fred

Fred, re your 555: How can we account for two opposing processes - deposition of ice (frost) from the air and loss of ice to the air in the same environment. Conditions changed continuously at the landing site but the net effect over many sols on the exposed ice under the lander was deterioration and loss to the air. The only explanation for frost buildup on the nearby leg strut over the same period would be a different overall climate for the strut than for the exposed ice.

Because I am short essential information I have to admit that it is possible that the strut received overall less direct sun than the ice under the lander. At that latitude and season the sun would track almost all the way around the horizon without ever getting very high in the sky, so it is not obvious what surfaces would get direct sun. Direct sun aside, the struts would likely be warmer than the ice during the warm part of the day because they are surrounded by moving air and less massive and not subject to the strong cooling effect of sublimation itself.

Frost buildup on the strut doesn't make sense to me now. The authors of the abstract that Paul linked in 553 can't make sense of this process without interpreting the spheroids as a deliquescent liquid. Solid chemicals can be deliquescent and aqueous solutions of chemicals can be deliquescent but how about frozen deliquescent solutions? If the blobs need to be liquid to grow why don't they all slide downward? On the other hand droplets do not always slide down, Mars gravity is weaker and the droplets should be viscous and sticky if they are concentrated solutions of salt.

Kye,

The blobs under the Lander can not be or never were in a liquid state. The only way for them to grow is to be condensed out of the air. The only way this can happen is for the leg to be colder than the vapor laden air rising up from the exposed ice. There is no other way regardless of any other factors.

Bottom line is the legs are colder.

Fred