Slashdot Mirror


"Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars

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.'"

20 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Well, admittedly, the image is interesting... by Icarus1919 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Direct link to image: http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/d n12026/dn12026-2_250.jpg

    Gotta say, can't think of what it could be besides water. On the other hand, aren't the images artificially colored?

    1. Re:Well, admittedly, the image is interesting... by kshade · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes they are. And water probably wouldn't look that blue ob the red planet ;)

    2. Re:Well, admittedly, the image is interesting... by Scynet85 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the pancam isn't completely black-and-white: http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_inst ru_pancam.html

    3. Re:Well, admittedly, the image is interesting... by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be more precise, the CCD in the pancam is black and white, but there are a variety of filter they can place in front of it. When they do a "true" color image they use a red, green, and blue filter and take three exposures. However the pretty "true" color images rarely support the science they are doing, so they may, for instance, shoot a picture in infrared, visable green, and UV because that best suits the science they are doing. Sometimes they arbitrarily assign colors to these frequencies of light and make a false color picture. Other times they take a picture of a color reference target attached to the rover using the same filter set they took the picture with. Since the computers on Earth "know" what colors are on the reference chart they can produce a close approximation of the colors in the scene. They photographed the reference chart with ALL of the available filters in a variety of lighting conditions, so they have a pretty good idea that the colors are reasonably accurate. So it would be useful to know if this picture was color corrected or if it is a false color image.

    4. Re:Well, admittedly, the image is interesting... by It'sYerMam · · Score: 2, Informative

      Water absorbs a little visible light in the 760nm region, making it faintly blue. Those small puddles in the picture, though, appear too blue for the apparent depth to be attributable to this blueness.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    5. Re:Well, admittedly, the image is interesting... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a comprehensive range of responses from a wide selection of informed MER followers at UMSF, ranging from "horsepucky" to "hogwash" via "ludicrous" and "bunk". I'll take UMSF over New Scientist any day.

      Sad really, as skipping PE every week when I found that enabled me to skive off to the school library and read the NS (along with the other NS, assorted leftie rags of the 80s, oh and some books) was one of the things that really got me interested in Mars in the first place - that and a big coffee-table atlas with gorgeous repros of Viking Orbiter images of landscapes with obviously terrestrial analogues.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  2. Re:Can't be by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it is water, then perhaps there is something present that has increased the surface tension of the water.
    According to this article

    Certain inorganic salts (called strong electrolytes) that readily dissolve and completely dissociate into their separate ions in water can raise the surface tension by modest amounts. For example a 10.5 mass percent solution of sodium chloride in water will have a surface tension that is raised by about 3.3 mN/m from the pure water level (at room temperature). That is, the surface tension goes from about 73 to about 76 mN/m. Some organic solutes can have a similar effect (sucrose, for example). There is also some evidence that some kinds of highly charged particles, when well dispersed, can raise the effective surface tension.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  3. JPL's original pictures by mrcgran · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems that the colored composite picture shown in newscientist's article was derived from these two original left-right pictures from Opportunity's navigation cameras on day 285. There are many more similar pictures around day 285, with these flat paths around the flat stones. In the 'Burns Cliff' Color Panorama (high res), the newscientist's image is just a fraction of the cliff: it's in its very center, where you can see a V and the steepness of where it is located.

    1) The surface just seems a bit too steep to me to accumulate any liquid water in such amounts for a pond, since it's facing up the border of the crater in the original pictures. The rover was taking the picture from the bottom up, so also the material wasn't in the lowest part of the terrain.

    2) In the original JPL's pictures, you can see the same 'watery' material all way up to the border of the crater: it's distinctly darker. In the panorama, it's interesting to note that it doesn't go all the way down to the bottom of the crater, where you can see a brighter dust covering everything.

    Does this darkness means humidity? I fail to see streaming water, maybe flat thin ice sheets from a humid surface but this seems to be explicitely discarded when the author says that "If they were ice or some other material, they'd show wear and tear over the surface, there would be rubble or sand or something." (btw, sand on this steep cliff?) A very thin dark powdery sand looks more likely, but someone needs to go there and poke it to be sure. Any ideas about this? I'm unable to find the original paper to have a look at it.

    Can anyone explain how they came up with the bluish hue in the composite picture, since the original pictures do not seem to have any filter information? (the 25th character in their names is 0 instead of some specific filter frequency)

    1. Re:JPL's original pictures by Weeg · · Score: 2, Informative

      I meant to add: There are more shots of the same scene on the Sol 279 page. These are from a different angle, and if you cook up a way to view stereoscopic pairs ( I used MS Paint ) you can see that the "water" surfaces are far from flat, as well as being inclined, of course. Try this left and right pair, which shows the top part of Levin's image viewed from the right side. The horizontal blue portion of Levin's "puddle" on the upper right is seen to have significant relief in this pair. You can actually see this by looking back and forth between the left and right images of the pair, if you don't feel like going to the effort of stereo viewing.

  4. not flat, part of Burns Cliff by J05H · · Score: 4, Informative

    MarsRoverBlog.com is discussing it, this isn't a flat area, but on a 20-30 degree slope. It is part of Burns Cliff in Endurance Crater.There is plenty of evidence for water on Mars, just not in these images. There is evidence of something other than dust, probably water seepage from underground, at Meridiani and Gusev. Orbital images have shown water in the polar caps and probably a frozen sea in Elysium. There are what appear to be ponds and flowing rivers in some images, especially the first Mars Express image released a while ago.

    http://www.marsroverblog.com/discuss-mars-rover-fi nds-puddles-on-the-planets-surface.html

    This "puddle" however, doesn't stand the test.

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  5. Re:Why oceans are blue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is an urban myth. The oceans are blue because pure water is very slightly blue. In large quantities, like lakes or oceans, the blue comes out. If it was just due to the reflection of the sky then large bodies of water would by white on overcast days.

  6. Not this again by orangepeel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Am I really the only one here who actually played in the dirt as a kid?

    Originally an outwash plain during the final ablation phase of a glacier, the 5+ wild acres I grew up on as a kid had a variety of clay, soil, and silt types. This "OMG, there's water on Mars!" reaction has come up at least once before here on Slashdot, after someone posted a link to a photograph that showed dark plumes spilling down a small incline. Some of the reactions here depressed me back then too. Have so many people really become so disconnected from the earth that they can't recognize ultra-fine silt when they see it?

    Ok, so fine ... let's assume you don't have first hand experience with how liquid-like dry silt can be. Just today I read an article on Nasa's site that got me thinking about this topic. It's about how one of the rovers has again had its solar panels cleaned off by wind. If Martian winds can pull that trick off, clearly wind erosion must be ongoing on Mars, and has been going on for what, BILLIONS of years? Now...

    without any liquid water...
    without any biological activity...
    without any volcanic activity...

    ...but with that wind erosion, what would be the lowest limit for particle size on the Martian surface?

    Let me put this another way: there has been an erosional force running on that planet for a billion plus years, to this day, and no force (at least on the surface) is present to conglomerate or cement those particles back together. This, to me, means that all surface particles must be being eroded down to some lower limit in silt particle size. I bet there's all kinds of weird and wonderful physics going on down at that level, but I'm digressing.

    Folks, as apparently the only person here on Slashdot who's ever played with dry silt, I have some sad news for you: I would be shocked if there weren't patches around that didn't look a heck of a lot like liquid.

    Here's another story to contemplate: do you remember when one of the Mars rover's got stuck? The NASA engineers went off to the hardware store to recreate the soil conditions, and picked up things like dry cement powder and diatomaceous earth. And you have to remember that Mars' gravity is what, 1/3 that of Earths? 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.

    Mars: where a dry surface flows like water.

    --
    Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
  7. You're confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    My red baseball cap looks black in the dark. Does that mean it's not really red? No, of course not. It just means there's not enough light for the color to be seen.

    Likewise on overcast days there is not enough light for the blue of the ocean to reveal itself. If you were correct and the ocean was just reflecting the gray of the clouds, it would appear white on many overcast days (when the clouds are white), but it does not.

    1. Re:You're confused. by nanosquid · · Score: 2, Informative

      As for the topic in question. The tracks in the original image do indeed look like they have gone through a puddle. How it could survive in the near vacuum is interesting ... maybe it is very salty

      The triple point of water is at 0.01 C and 0.006 atm, which tells you that plain water can, in fact, exist in liquid for in "near vacuum" (salt, of course, probably helps even more). Those conditions are pretty close to what you get on Mars.

  8. Those aren't puddles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They're canals!

    We've known about the Martian canals for decades!

    This is news?

  9. Re:Why oceans are blue by Yoooder · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep in mind that our pools are also laden with chemicals to keep them "clean"

    In nature there aren't too many sources of pure H2O, collections of glacial water pools/collections are probably one of the few naturally-occuring sources of relatively pure water, and you'll note that they tend to be quite blue.

    http://crevassezone.org/Photos/Graphics/2836L-(Ogi ve-lake).jpg

  10. Re:NASA budget by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem is context. I could build a small scale model of my backyard, dig a hole in it, and pour some bleach into it. From the picture, you would think it is a puddle of water. You would base your decision on your decades of experience seeing how things work on this planet. The problem is that Mars doesn't have the same landscape, materials, temperatures, or pressures that earth does. So you can look at the picture and say it looks like water, but it is really bananna pudding, or bleach, or fine nano-particles of dust that ae so light they flow like water. There's a lot of crazy materials in this world, and you can't base a scientific conclusion on Mars from your Earth-based assumptions.

  11. Re:Somethings wrong here... by jgoemat · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
    Not exactly true. They can create near-real color images in the same way many digital cameras do. They have seven filters for different wavelengths of light. By using pictures from the same point of view with different filters, the images can be combined into true-color images. That is the same way cameras with CCDs work, they have filters over red, blue, and green wells, they just take samples of all three at the same time. This is common in astrophotography as well. You fit a CCD device to your telescope and take multiple pictures with different filters then assemble the results into a true-color image. This is no more "false color" than current LCD displays that actually display individual red, green, and blue pixels that our eyes combine (via red, green and blue cones) into what we perceive as a color.

    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.
    The pictures may have been taken "on" the rim (where do you see that?), but they are pictures "of" the crater floor. "The surface is incredibly smooth, and the edges are in a plane and all at the same altitude," - the top of the supposed water is all at the same altitude.

    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.
    The article seems to doubt it is water also. Theoretically liquid water could exist in the absence of wind despite the low pressure as an amount of liquid vapor would accumulate over the water, but there is wind on mars. Maybe in this crater there is little wind?