Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?

Originally posted by Larry L
Phage said: Mars' atmosphere is very dry

You DO keep saying that. But all the images of water clouds and water vapor fog in craters and valleys around dawn hours, in official NASA images, and NASA themselves is saying that's what it is, this is not my interpretation of the images, would suggest that perhaps your statement is still up for debate. The Jury's still out so to speak.

For there to be THAT thick of water vapor fog in the mornings, ALOT of dew is being put down for sure. Look at the third link in my post a couple before. I think the amount of dew morning fog like that would put on the ground would more than account for the amount of moisture needed to get dirt to stick to a wheel, and yes, even enough to form that little bit of ....wait for it.....mud.....on the tread of that wheel.

That seems logical to me, and is right in line with what NASA has officially shown and stated to be there.

I can't speak directly for Phage, but I do know he is intelligent and we share common knowledge.

Keep in mind that just because you see clouds doesn't mean it's "water", there are many gases and liquids that could be involved, not just pure, clean water that makes up those clouds. The atmosphere on Mars isn't like the atmosphere on Earth. Have you ever been in a chemistry class and had a lab assignment? Anytime you mix gases and liquids, you get "clouds" where the LIQUID vapor (liquid does NOT equal water, water's a liquid but not all liquids are water... I actually had a kid that couldn't quite comprehend that one) is changing state.

Moisture, as we know it on earth, is not the only possibility. There could be various explanations, some including liquids some not including any liquid at all and very few including "water", to explain what is seen in pictures. We need to take all of those explanations into consideration instead of just jumping in and saying "ohhhhh, look at the mud" when "mud" isn't likely the correct explanation at all.

The problem here lies in your insistance that it's mud when that isn't likely the case nor is it the only explanation. Other explanations have been given by several posters, yet those are ignored because people WANT to believe it's mud without any proof. Phage hasn't been telling you exactly what it is, he has been telling you that there are many possibilities and each of those must be taken into consideration, yet you insist, no, it has to be mud and it has to be sand of a particular kind and it has to be this and has to be that. No, it doesn't HAVE to be, and it probably isn't what you are claiming it to be.

Phage is open to other possibilities and wants to look at all the possibilities, you have jumped to a conclusion and insist that you are right without any proof whatsoever and he's been giving you counterexamples to debunk your inductive reasoning leading to your conclusion. It only takes one counterexample. If you want to prove something, you have to use deductive reasoning. Although the inductive approach is great for coming up with possibilities, they are still only possibilities until proven deductively. That's how things work.

At some point in time, after tests are run and possibilities are ruled out, it could possibly come down to, yes, it is mud (very unlikely), but until that point, your idea is only speculation, not absolute proof and you have to be open to other possibilities. Phage knows this and has been working from that standpoint but you aren't catching on to that and understanding what he's saying, you're just automatically arguing and trying to say he's wrong (and he isn't).

Phage is one of the people on here that I turn to for knowledgable, well thought out explanations. He thinks things through and looks at possibilities and explanations with intelligence. If you are having a "fight" with Phage, chances are, you are doing so with a closed mind because he always listens to all sides of an argument unless it's nothing but bickering.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


how about "very dusty mud"?

or "very muddy dust"?

anyways .... it's dust , clumpy and probably statically charged

OMG! I see exactly what you mean now. At first I thought it could've been just like the baking soda or flour theory. But now since I've seen the close-ups it looks like mud on the wheel!!! GREAT FIND LARRY L!!

If the rover was driving over wet sand i think nasa would be very excited to tell us all about it. What better way for them to silence all the critics of this project than to announce such a monumental discovery, just weeks after landing on the surface.

There are many reasons why that is not wet sand/mud on those wheels, but this is the most obvious one i can think of, and seems to have been totally overlooked..

I've been seeing what looks to me as a misunderstanding or misconception about humidity in this thread.

First: there is water on Mars. H2O exists there. Scientist are not saying that it doesn't. However, the state that the water is in (Solid, Liquid or Gas) tends to be different than here on Earth.

Water here on Earth we normally see vast amounts of it in all three states. Our oceans, lakes, rivers, etc are showing us the liquid state. The clouds in the skies showing us the gas state (however, water as a gas in our air can be present without being in cloud form. That's a very saturated state). And all the ice in the arctic, glaciers, and your freezer.

However, the Earth has something Mars does not: higher atmospheric pressure. The amount of air pressure we have, is what allows us to see all 3 states of water here on Earth. It's this pressure at sea level that sets the boiling point of water at 100 C (212 F). If you go up to mount Everest, the boiling point of water drops, due to the decrease in air pressure.

Air pressure on Mars averages at 0.0061 or 6.1 millibars. That's very low compared to the 1013.25 millibars here on Earth. Because of that lower air pressure, the boiling point of water drops, in this case, it drops all the way to 0 C (32 F), which happens to also be the freezing point of water.

That means that water on Mars does the same thing that dry ice (CO2) here on Earth does: it goes straight from solid to gas (sublimation).

Is it possible to have ice crystals of water in the soil on Mars?

Absolutely. Here is why:

The temps on Mars swing very largely. It can get as cold at -122 F at night, and heat up to -22 F in the day as an example. Even though at 6 millibars water will try to boil, if the temp is cold enough, it will do so very, very slowly. So it's possible to have the temps get warm enough to where the water sublimates into the atmosphere on Mars, but when night falls and the temps drop down to that frosty -122 F, the water will freeze back.

You can see this for yourself. This works best on a rainy day, when the humidity is high. Get a jar that is dry and empty. Put the lid on it tightly and let it sit for about 10 minutes, then place it in your freezer for about an hour. Get the jar out of the freezer and note the frost on it. You've just seen water go from a gas to a solid.

Next: Humidity. Wow am I seeing a lot of misunderstanding about this in this thread.

Okay, people here have said and posted links that "Mars is dry." and we've had people that have said and posted links that show Mars atmosphere can be come saturated with water with 100% humidity.

And you all are arguing over it. The answer is: both.

Mars is very dry compared to the Earth, but yes, it is possible for it's air to have 100% humidity, form clouds and even fog.

When we say 100% humidity, that is a relative measurement. 100% humidity here on Earth is NOT the same as 100% humidity on Mars as far as how much water there is.

Consider our planet and how much water we have here. Yet it's possible to have days in certain places here where the humidity is only 10%. Then there are those hot, steamy days where the humidity is over 40%, and then those lovely days where it's raining and the humidity is at 100%.

Mars goes through the same thing: at night the air is very dry, as the water has frozen out of the air, but during the day as the temps warm up and because the air pressure is so low that solid water sublimates into a gas, the air on Mars quickly fills up with water vapor, and because the amount of air on Mars is so small compared to Earth, it quickly saturates to 100%

However, how much water are we talking about? No where near as much as here on Earth.

Here is another thing you can do to see this for yourself using Water and Sugar:

Take a glass that can hold 2 cups of water. Measure out 1 teaspoon of sugar and stir it into the water. You'll see the sugar dissolve into the water, all of it. So we can say the water is 100% saturated with sugar.

Now fill the glass with only 1 ounce of water. Measure out 1 teaspoon of sugar again, but this time slowly sprinkle in the sugar a little at a time while stirring the water. How much of the sugar does the water take, before the sugar stops dissolving in the water? (IE the sugar starts to just sit on the bottom of the glass).

Notice how it's a very small fraction of the sugar now. Yet, we can say that the water is 100% saturated with sugar.

It's the same thing with humidity: it's a relative measurement based upon a percentage. It's not an absolute value like air pressure or temps.

------------------------------
Technically we can replicate all this with a bag of flour (consistency of Mars soil), a large freezer, a vacuum chamber where we could lower the pressure to 6 millibars, and a remote controlled car.

If you have the money, become your very own "Mythbuster" and see for yourselves what happens.

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky

Can I ask you, do you have any absolute 100% proof that they really have a little vehicle prancing around on Mars with cameras attached to it? Or are you just believing what they tell you to believe via the most believable, honest, propaganda system of the highest integrity on earth. The MSM? (swallow..... ok, my sarcasm has now gone down.)

You sarcasm is pretty fail, UNLESS you seriously consider your fringe sites and sources like "Coast 2 Coast" or any of the countless, random, badly made "conspiracy sites" better sources than what you hear from the MSM.

It's funny, because history has already shown over and again that the lies and hoaxes usually come exactly from THOSE sites..those sites which you deem to be more trustworthy than NASA or mainstream news.

So you seriously think that your average conspiracy site or conspiracy guru HAS NO AGENDA, and there is never any propaganda and lies involved? It must be "true" simply because it is not what the MSM says, regardless how idiotic the theories might me?

And..in regards of Curiosity on Mars..what makes you think its NOT up there? Because "someone" on "some site" made up a nice story which cannot be validated and doesn't make any sense whatsoever...so this is enough to believe that there is no rover on Mars?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Would like to see the moon buggy tires and how caked up the moon dust was for comparison.

The lunar vehicles had flexible mesh tires. Plenty of adhesion on the hubs though.

thought it was determined there was plenty of water on mars in some form, be it ice or simply percipitation.

Not plenty, not at the surface. But water ice was found in the north polar region by Phoenix. No precipitation has been found (not any reaching the surface anyway).

edit on 9/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage, In the sample image you provided, Yes there is 'Plenty of adhesion on the hubs' yet there is one small problem I would like you to explain. When a vehicle is driven and particles adhere to a hub then you would expect there to be tyre tracks? both front and rear wheels? We can see the foot prints but NO signs of tyre tracks in the image you provided so how can we assume it was driven to the location it was photographed?
Why is this So?

reply to post by eriktheawful

Like where you are going with this but one thing is not right:

Take a glass that can hold 2 cups of water. Measure out 1 teaspoon of sugar and stir it into the water. You'll see the sugar dissolve into the water, all of it. So we can say the water is 100% saturated with sugar.

No, you need to keep adding sugar until it can no longer dissolve any more then it is 100% saturated.
Sorry

reply to post by RocketMan0266

I hate being +10 GMT, so thread behind, but time ahead

Why can't we shoot up some water and take it fr there. Shoot a pack of water various life forms at different stages maybe into the ground see if something can get started under ground with some air pockets and check back and ten trillion years maybe things can get off and popping.

This is the reply I received from a NASA scientist via tweet.

marsroverdriver-dcmb1409- Mars atm H2O=v low so dirt on wheels not= moisture. Static electricity=good guess & wheel surrough

I did find two articles that talked about soil moisture but many more claimed if it existed it was at the poles. Here are the two I found.

The experience sparked Arvidson’s interest in the terramechanics of Mars, studying the properties of soil at different depths and under crusts. He’s a co-investigator on a new terramechanics experiment using Curiosity, which will use detailed telemetry from the rover to help it plot a safe course, avoiding sand traps like the one that caught Spirit. It will also help scientists understand how crusted soil forms, and their relation to the modern Martian water cycle. It’s based on a system Arvidson built to free Spirit. “I decided that will never happen again,” he says. source: www.popsci.com...

Detailed computer modeling allows us to infer that there is another significant reachable reservoir of water on Mars, besides the polar caps and the atmosphere. Approximately 10 times the total atmospheric inventory of water can be found adsorbed in the top few centimeters of the Martian soil. This could represent an important resource and will be the object of future landed spacecraft missions. Indications are that this adsorbed water supplies much of the atmospheric water vapor that exchanges between the hemispheres during the course of the Martian year. source: humbabe.arc.nasa.gov...

So, after all of this I don't think even NASA knows the answer. Hopefully Curiosity will answer some of the questions by the end of the year.

I'm not saying it's NOT mud but the electrical charges of dry particles could cause the same thing. Anyone who's lived in the desert knows how dust will stick to anything. After driving on desert dirt roads in New Mexico my tires used to be covered by dust.

reply to post by Larry L

IMO I think it does look like it went through a patch of mud hence the covered patches of dirt on the tread, though most of them look like its dried up.
Seriously if it's just gradulated "dirt" there wouldnt be these "sticky"(another clue) patch of dirt sticking onto the treads. What would cause that? obviously if it's wet it will. Dried granulated dirt doesnt affect it like that.

The soil is icy and Curiosity is packing a lot of nuclear material, there is no reason to think that the heat and radiation Curiosity is giving off, couldn't melt the icy soil around it lingering in the same spot for an extended period. Curiosity sits, the icy soil melts due to the heat produced...Curiosity moves remains get stuck on tracks, looks like mud.

"Mud" as in moist with water seems like a stretch for Mars. However given the right conditions it is not impossible though. I would lean toward very fine dust particles that have been compacted. If it was "moist" it could be because of the heat generated by the rover. The overall visual reminds me of "Sand dust" you see this in very dry areas, with very fine sand, it leaves an impression easily and sticks to everything. When you come home you look like you are covered in soot. If you pick it up that throw it, it dust sprays out into a fine dust cloud.

Originally posted by dcmb1409

So, after all of this I don't think even NASA knows the answer. Hopefully Curiosity will answer some of the questions by the end of the year.

NASA dosn't know the answers, but Phage does ....

All Hail...

You can obviously see the difference between the soils. One wet, and the other dry. There’s no other explanation.

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky

Can I ask you, do you have any absolute 100% proof that they really have a little vehicle prancing around on Mars with cameras attached to it? Or are you just believing what they tell you to believe via the most believable, honest, propaganda system of the highest integrity on earth. The MSM? (swallow..... ok, my sarcasm has now gone down.)

You sarcasm is pretty fail, UNLESS you seriously consider your fringe sites and sources like "Coast 2 Coast" or any of the countless, random, badly made "conspiracy sites" better sources than what you hear from the MSM.

It's funny, because history has already shown over and again that the lies and hoaxes usually come exactly from THOSE sites..those sites which you deem to be more trustworthy than NASA or mainstream news.

So you seriously think that your average conspiracy site or conspiracy guru HAS NO AGENDA, and there is never any propaganda and lies involved?

It must be "true" simply because it is not what the MSM says, regardless how idiotic the theories might me?

And..in regards of Curiosity on Mars..what makes you think its NOT up there? Because "someone" on "some site" made up a nice story which cannot be validated and doesn't make any sense whatsoever...so this is enough to believe that there is no rover on Mars?

edit on 12-9-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

Ok, out of respect for the OP I would like to keep on topic. As you do not know me at all, and therefore cannot possibly know what my take is on conspiracy or my view of the big picture of the crazy world we live in is, and as it is not applicable to this thread, I will not respond to that part of your post.

However, My point on the Curiosity on Mars, as I mentioned in my very first post in this thread, was not at all taken from any conspiracy site or any other thing. It is merely a gut feeling, a feeling that I have come to trust, within myself that just does not want to accept it as true.

If it works for you that they have a little cabby on Mars roving around the dirt that looks like, well, many places I have seen here on earth, then that is great! Each to his own. I am not trying to convince anyone, I simply asked for proof beyond any doubt. Ok, so you guys are glued to NASA, I choose not to be.

Interesting, the mud on the wheels though.

If your convictions are so strong, why does it anger you that someone has a different take on it? Surely it is not personal. Mine is purely my opinion. Go in peace!

reply to post by Larry L

Thank for pointing out Noctis Labyrinthus. Yes, it is near the equator.

Like I said, actually look at how thick that water vapor fog is thats filling these VAST canyons that make the Grand Canyon look small.

The fog is not water vapor. Water vapor is invisible. Fog on Earth is composed of water droplets unless it is cold. When it is cold, fog is composed of ice crystals. It's called ice fog. On Mars it is cold. On Mars the fog and clouds are composed of ice crystals.

I know from experience in the AZ desert that if you were in those canyons with a sheet of plastic, you'd be harvesting enough dew to fill you cantine with fresh, clean martian drinking water in a few hours.

Thats nice. But on Mars you would die unless you had a space suit because the air is too thin keep you alive or for liquid water to exist for long.

I think you're just going to have to admit defeat here and admit that may just be moisture.

I think you should study atmospheric science and the behavior of water at low pressures.