Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

MARS new
      #5473640 - 10/16/12 05:18 PM

We need this thread.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html

what are the bright particles, metal, silicates, salt crystals?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5474051 - 10/16/12 09:13 PM

The photo caption calls them "light-toned" as well as "bright" particles. That seems to me the better description.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a guess...

Hydrated silica, or "opal".

There are a lot of other possibilities, so I'm not going to stand on it. But looking at the fact that some of these lighter particles have a nodular structure, some kind of fluid-based concretion seems plausible to me.

Edited by llanitedave (10/16/12 09:16 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: MARS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5474389 - 10/17/12 02:05 AM

Quote:

The photo caption calls them "light-toned" as well as "bright" particles. That seems to me the better description.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a guess...

Hydrated silica, or "opal".

There are a lot of other possibilities, so I'm not going to stand on it. But looking at the fact that some of these lighter particles have a nodular structure, some kind of fluid-based concretion seems plausible to me.




That's a pretty sturdy limb you're on; I know I've read an article fairly recently about opal fields being discovered on Mars from orbit. I can't find it in my stuff, though.

In any case, I like the title of this thread.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5475162 - 10/17/12 01:59 PM

Doesn't the sand in the trench look a bit 'hydrated'? it makes clums, like if it was possible to make a sand castle.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FeynmanFan
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 02/18/11

Loc: N Colo front range
Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5475372 - 10/17/12 04:07 PM

Opals? Cool, maybe Mars is going to be the next Coober Pedy.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS new [Re: FeynmanFan]
      #5478439 - 10/19/12 09:27 AM

A better view of a bright particle, very pretty and indeed it has like an opalescent luster.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16233.html


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay_Bird
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/04/06

Loc: USA
Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5478618 - 10/19/12 11:16 AM

I recall that a lot of previous indications from Spirit and Opportunity, either the 'blueberries' & gypsum veins, or just the salt content at many locations based on x-ray spectrum, were interpreted to indicate acidic groundwater conditions in Mar's past.

Isn't silica soluble at high pH, so opal would indicate more basic groundwater chemistry? If that's the case, this is an interesting finding that adds more to the Mars water story, aside from the future jewelry potential.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: MARS new [Re: Jay_Bird]
      #5478724 - 10/19/12 12:16 PM

I could be wrong, but my impression was that the solubility of silica minerals is influenced much more strongly by temperature than pH in most conditions. It's a complex area that I'm not completely comfortable with, but the presence of other minerals also seems to influence it.

So I don't think acidic conditions, at least mild ones, are an impediment to opal deposition, but it's not going to be a simple determination.

Then again, I'm still not completely convinced it's opal we're looking at.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
scopethis
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: MARS new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5479042 - 10/19/12 03:35 PM

tis some kind of seed pod...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS new [Re: scopethis]
      #5480088 - 10/20/12 09:39 AM

Low iron content spherules from Opportunity at Gusev. Those are not hematites.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/news/mer20120914.html


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5482269 - 10/21/12 04:46 PM

Regarding acidity of early Mars, from the abstract of "Early geochemical environment of Mars as determined from thermodynamics of phyllosilicates.
Chevrier V, Poulet F, Bibring JP", it was not always acidic:

"...we investigate the geochemical conditions prevailing on the surface of Mars during the Noachian period using calculations of the aqueous equilibria of phyllosilicates. Our results show that Fe3+-rich phyllosilicates probably precipitated under weakly acidic to alkaline pH, an environment different from that of the following period, which was dominated by strongly acid weathering that led to the sulphate deposits identified on Mars..."

"...We suggest that the possible absence of Noachian carbonates more probably resulted from low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rather than primary acidic conditions. Other greenhouse gases may therefore have played a part in sustaining a warm and wet climate on the early Mars."

Other gases, maybe Methane, or what else?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5521441 - 11/15/12 03:32 PM

Curiosity web site updated.
They have plotted the measured radiations against the pressure and found out radiations are weaker at night when pressure is higher because of the shielded effect of a thicker atmosphere. Makes sense.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16479b.html

However they say:"...At each of the pressure maximums, the radiation level drops between 3 to 5 percent..."
But if the pressure maximum is reached at night, the solar radiations are completely shielded and cannot reach the ground, by definition, so i would have expected a more important daily variation than just 5%, that is, unless the solar radiation is a minor component of the total radiations reaching Mars (for example cosmic rays), which i don't think is the case.
Any idea why it's only a 5% variation?

Edited by dickbill (11/15/12 05:11 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5522521 - 11/16/12 09:43 AM

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16479b.html

Hmmm, not many bite on the question.
Again, I am very surprised because i expected that at night,( on the dark side of the planet), no solar radiation reach the surface and therefore the radiations fall to zero or near that, irrespective of the shielding effect of the atmosphere.
Against the naysayers who say Mars is too irradiated, one answer was that human on Mars could work at night safely.
The rest of radiative background that come from cosmic rays and that can hit the planet in any orientation, should be much less than solar particles.
Instead of that, Curiosity's measurement show a small decrease at night, from 210 to 195 the first day, for example (no units are given).
So, where do the radiations come from, at night?

Edited by dickbill (11/16/12 12:39 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay_Bird
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/04/06

Loc: USA
Re: MARS new [Re: dickbill]
      #5522768 - 11/16/12 11:51 AM

The band of radiation that is being measured and plotted must not include solar UV or other solar components that have diurnal change independent of air density. I think the main point is that cooler night air is denser and offers more shielding. The radiation band measured and plotted may be only a small portion of the total radiation reaching Curiousity from sun, cosmic rays and maybe even low level emission from Mars rocks at landing site.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: MARS [Re: Jay_Bird]
      #5522835 - 11/16/12 12:38 PM

Quote:

The band of radiation that is being measured and plotted must not include solar UV or other solar components that have diurnal change independent of air density. I think the main point is that cooler night air is denser and offers more shielding. The radiation band measured and plotted may be only a small portion of the total radiation reaching Curiousity from sun, cosmic rays and maybe even low level emission from Mars rocks at landing site.




So, not even mentioning UV, all solar wind, alpha, protons, electrons are excluded at daytime? I understand the point of doing that if they wanted to see the effect of the atmospheric pressure only, but that's misleading.
That would mean the real radiation in daytime couldbe hundreds of times higher than plotted in the graph.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


Extra information
3 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 988

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics