Mars Phoenix provides further evidence that Viking may have missed organics on Mars.
Robert Clark
"June 07, 2008 The arm of NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander released a
handful of clumpy Martian soil onto a screened opening of a laboratory
instrument on the spacecraft Friday, but the instrument did not
confirm that any of the sample passed through the screen."
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/news.php
This confirms an argument I've been making for years now. That the
reason the Viking GCMS failed to detect organics in the Martian soil
probably was due to low amounts of sample being delivered to the
instrument. The key point is the "sample full" detector for the GCMS
at BOTH Viking sites failed to give sample full indications. This is
curious because there were similar sample full detectors on the
biology experiments that did properly show full samples were
delivered. I concluded that the sample full detectors for the GCMS
were in fact operating correctly and correctly indicated that only
below registering amounts of sample were delivered.
I copied below a post to sci.astro were I discuss this argument. The
Mars Phoenix scientists have given an explanation in this case that it
might be the clumpiness of the soil that prevents it from passing
through the sieving grid. I considered this as the possible reason
also in the Viking case but another possibility I think should be
investigated using Mars simulant soil is that the extreme low humidity
of Mars creates a great amount of static electricity that causes the
soil to stick to the sieving grid.
The most relevant passage I copied below in all caps.
===========================================
Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary, rec.arts.sf.science,
sci.bio.misc
From: Robert Clark <rgcl>
Date: 2000/02/25
Subject: Odds of Hazard of the Mars Sample Return Mission.
From the MSNBC Space bbs, http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-
space/index.asp :
************************************************** *****
Subject: Re: Odds of Hazard (was: Re: Disagree with...
From: Robert Clark
Host: isp15a-21.pha.adelphia.net
Date: Thu Feb 24 12:38:47
I think the low odds frequently given for the
likelihood of back contamination of Mars organisms is due
to the assumption that the likelihood of life on the
surface of Mars is virtually nonexistent. There are
reasons to doubt this conclusion. The Antaeus report gave
some plausible scenarios where life could still exist on
Mars despite the results of the Viking missions.
Unfortunately this is no longer available on the
Astrobiology Web site in the Planetary Protection
section,
http://www2.astrobiology.com/astro/protection.html
Another paper discussing possibilities for life on Mars
after Viking is by Thomas and Schimel:
D. J. Thomas and J. P. Schimel, 1991. Mars after the
Viking missions: is life still possible? Icarus,
91:199-206,
http://www.lyon.edu/webdata/users/dthomas/publications/Thomas_and_Schimel_91_199-206_1991.pdf
Also discussed in the Antaeus report are some known
situations where organisms taken out of their natural
environment had flourished and out-competed the organisms
already there. Their conclusion essentially was this was
not the usual state of affairs but it was known to occur
on Earth. This was important since I had not seen this
consideration discussed in any detail in any of the other
NASA reports on possible back contamination by Mars
samples. This gave some useful information to address the
claims frequently made that Mars organisms would be
unlikely to thrive outside their natural environment.
It has been also asserted that it is unlikely that Mars
life and Earth life would even be compatible. However,
recent research suggests that Earth and Mars as well as
the other terrestrial planets have been exchanging
material through impact ejecta throughout the life of the
solar system. Experiments suggest that some microbes
would be able to survive the trip through space encased
in the meteorites. Experiments also show that some very
hardy Earth microbes should be able to survive on the
surface of Mars. So it is likely that Earth and Mars have
exchanged some biological material. Since they have
exchanged biological material should we be concerned with
introducing new material? An analogous question to ask is
since they have exchanged biological material should we
be concerned with introducing new material with our
spacecraft we send to Mars? I think most scientists would
say yes. If we arbitrarily introduced new material to
Mars we could not determine the extent of naturally
occurring life we found there at some later time when
extensive, perhaps human, exploration takes place. Also,
over millennia the Earth life transferred there may have
evolved to their new environment to be as well adapted to
Mars as has life that evolved there independently. In the
case of possible life already transferred to Earth from
Mars via meteorites, it is impossible to tell how much
this life has been damaging to the life present in the
area in which it arrived. It may be that over time the
Mars life and Earth life accommodated each other with
some adaptations to each. Arguing that we need not be
concerned with introducing new Mars life since it has
happened before is a little like saying since we have
introduced new life from one region on Earth to another
region without deletious effects, we need not be
concerned with introducing ANY new life from one region
to another, clearly not a legitimate argument.
Now in my opinion there are also other reasons to doubt
the prevailing opinion that the Viking missions detected
no life on Mars. All three life experiments detected life
signs on Mars and two of them the Labeled Release and
Pyrolytic Release experiments also satisfied the
criterion of getting no life signs after sterilization by
heating. The third the Gas Exchange experiment is
frequently said to be incompatible with life since some
gas was still released after heating to 145 degrees C.
However, it is usually not mentioned that the amount of
gas relesed was reduced to 45% after heating and as
discussed again in the Antaeus report as many as 10%
of some organisms will survive heating even to 160
degrees C.
The primary reason for the conclusion of no life on
Mars were the results of the Viking GCMS which could
detect no organics on the surface of Mars. Back in 1976
this might have seemed a reasonable conclusion to accept.
However, I believe it no longer is so. Astronomical
observations show organics to be ubiquitous in the
universe. They've been found on the Moon, comets,
meteorites, asteroids, interstellar clouds,
interplanetary dust grains that fall to Earth (and
presumably other planets), Titan, Pluto and Charon, and
the moons of Jupiter, Ganymede and Callisto. These last
two are important because it shows organics are able to
survive the intense radiation environment in the vicinity
of Jupiter. This has relevance to the situation on Mars
since the UV flux on Mars had been argued to limit the
possibility of organics on the surface. However, a recent
paper by Chris Chyba in Nature has argued that radiation
itself may create organics on the Jovian moon Europa:
Jovian Radiation Could Heat Up Europan Soup
http://www.spacedaily.com/spacecast/news/life-00e.html
It is possible the same mechanism occurs on Mars to
create organics.
Since the prevalence of organics in the universe makes
it quite likely they also occur on Mars, it is my opinion
that an important fact was left out of the papers
describing the results of the Viking GCMS. In the first
report from the GCMS team in Science it is mentioned that
the sample indicator didn't get a full indication for
Viking Lander 1,
"Search for organic and volatile inorganic compounds
in two surface samples from the Chryse Planitia region of
Mars", Science, vol. 194, Oct. 1, 1976, p. 72-76.
This is also discussed in the online history of the
Viking missions:
ON MARS
Exploration of the Red Planet 1958-1978
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/on-mars.html
In Chapter 11 of ON MARS, in the section "Sampling
the Martian Surface", it states that the Viking 1
GCMS never got the signal that a sample was actually
delivered:
"The first soil samples were acquired on sol 8, 28
July. Four samples were dug, with the first being
deposited into the biology instrument distributor
assembly, the next two into the GCMS processor, and
the fourth into the funnel of the x-ray fluorescence
spectrometer. All the commands were successfully
executed, but there was no positive indication that the
gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer processor
had been properly filled. A second acquisition attempt
still did not provide a "sample level detector `full'
indication". The sampler system, having completed its
programmed sequences in a normal manner, parked the boom
as planned. On Earth, the lander performance specialists
began to analyze the possible causes of the anomaly: (1)
insufficient sample acquired in the collector head
because the same sample collection
site had also been used for the biology sample; (2)
insufficient time allowed for the sample to pass from the
funnel through the sample grinding section and then
through the fine (300-micrometer) sieve into the metering
cavity of the instrument; (3) grinder stirring spring not
contacting the sieve; or (4) sample-level-detector
circuit faulty. Since the "level-full" detector
consisted of a very fine wire stretched across the cavity
to which the sample material was
delivered, it was also possible that it had broken when
the soil was dropped into the funnel."
Ch. 11-5 SCIENCE ON MARS
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/ch11-5.html
It is therefore puzzling to read in the Journal of
Geophysical Research paper on the GCMS results from
Viking Lander 2 that there was no sample full sensor:
"The are two positions to which any of the ovens
can be moved in any sequence. The load position is
directly under the sampling system, which delivers about
1-2 cm^3 of surface material that after having been
ground is passed through a 0.3 mm sieve. A mechanical
poker pushes the material through a funnel into the oven.
This operation is timed in such a manner that the filling
of the oven is complete with any of the terrestrial test
soils (including finely ground basalt, commonly referred
to as 'lunar nominal'). However, there is no sensor
measuring the final level or completeness of the fulling
operation. Thus one has to assume that the oven is filled
to capacity, i.e., approximately 60 mm^3 of surface
material is being analyzed."
The Search for Organic Substances and Inorganic Volatile
Compounds in the Surface of Mars, Jour. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 82, no. 28, September 30, 1977, p. 4642.
THIS PAPER DISCUSSES THE GCMS RESULTS FROM BOTH VIKING
LANDERS. THE CONCLUSION I DRAW FROM THIS PASSAGE IS THAT
IN FACT THE VIKING LANDER 2 GCMS ALSO NEVER GOT A SAMPLE
FULL INDICATION. I DISCUSSED THIS VIA EMAIL WITH TWO
RESEARCHERS WHO WORKED ON THE VIKING MISSIONS AND THEIR
VIEW WAS THAT SINCE THE GCMS DID DETECT WATER EVOLVED
DURING HEATING THIS WAS PROOF THAT A SAMPLE WAS
DELIVERED. HOWEVER, ONE DOES NOTE THE JGR PAPER ADMITS IT
CAN'T BE DETERMINED THE SIZE OF THIS SAMPLE. IN MY
OPINION IF WAS INDEED THE CASE THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER
GOT A SAMPLE FULL INDICATION AT EITHER OF THE VIKING
SITES FOR ANY OF THE SAMPLES DRAWN BY THE ROBOT ARM, THEN
THIS FACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAPERS
DESCRIBING THE GCMS RESULTS. THIS GAINS EVEN MORE
SIGNIFICANCE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SAMPLE FULL
INDICATOR FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS WAS VIRTUALLY
IDENTICAL, YET DID RECEIVE SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS. ONE
COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAMPLE
FULL INDICATORS FAILED AT BOTH VIKING SITES FOR THE GCMS
YET WORKED FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS OR ONE COULD
CONCLUDE THAT IN FACT THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS WERE IN
FACT GIVING A CORRECT READING FOR THE GCMS. IN THAT CASE
ONE WOULD BE LED TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS FOR THE GCMS AND THE
BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS. IT TURNS OUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS
THAT THE GCMS HAD A MUCH SMALLER SIEVING GRID THAN DID
THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE IT NEEDED SMALLER
SAMPLES. THE EXAMINATION OF THE VIKING SOIL LED TO NEW
(AND UNEXPECTED) INFORMATION ON THE SIZE OF SOIL
PARTICLES, THE MAGNETISM OF THE PARTICLES, THE
COHESIVENESS (STICKINESS) OF THE PARTICLES, AND, ONE
COULD CONCLUDE, THE STATIC ELECTRICITY OF THE PARTICLES
IN THE DRY MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE. IN MY OPINION, KNOWING
THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER GOT SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS
WHILE THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS DID, COULD HAVE LED TO
EXPERIMENTS TO REPRODUCE THE MARTIAN SOIL USING THE NEW
DATA RETURNED BY VIKING TO SEE IF IN SUCH CONDITIONS IT
WAS POSSIBLE THAT ONLY MINUTE SAMPLES WOULD BE DELIVERED
TO THE GCMS.
Given these facts it is my opinion that more likely than
not, the Viking missions did indeed discover life on
Mars. So I would put the probability of life at the
surface at above 50%. I would also put the likelihood
that the hardy Martian organisms could survive in the
Earth environment at above 50%. Following the Antaeus
report the cases where new introduced organisms
out-compete native organisms are rare, but do occur. I
would say the probability of this for Earth organisms is
certainly greater than one in a million. As a guess I
would put it at one in 1,000. So the probability that a
Mars organism introduced could out-compete Earth
organisms in a region might be one in 4,000. Note that
this may only result in a change in the dominant
organisms in an area. It may not be a death of the native
organisms. Nevertheless, this is not a situation we would
like to occur inadvertently.
Bob Clark
===========================================
Uncle Al
>
> NASA'S Phoenix Mars Lander Checking Soil Properties.
> "June 07, 2008 The arm of NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander released a
> handful of clumpy Martian soil onto a screened opening of a laboratory
> instrument on the spacecraft Friday, but the instrument did not
> confirm that any of the sample passed through the screen."
> Bob Clark
I bet you see a lot of yourself in that, Bob - too fucking stooopid to
put dirt through a hole.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
BradGuth
What a pathetic joke, of having that Phoenix sample screen that’s
allowing merely those1 millimeter bits worth of frozen Mars soil to
enter their oven is purely and utterly stupid and simply further proof
positive as to how technically incompetent or rather mission failsafe
our DARPA/NASA actually is, to think that a dry-ice kind of frozen to
death surface of that Mars reddish soil is not going to be of any
frosty tundra like binder, seems to be asking for a whole lot of
trouble in River City (so to speak).
Seems of the under-surface realm of dry-ice as snowy flakes or
whatever icy crystals in that kind of vacuum are likely larger than 1
mm, especially if stuck to that reddish soil. I’d have elected for as
tight as 4 mm screening, although 6 mm seems sufficient unless that’s
allowing in too much individual item mass for the laser oven to
vaporize. The brief daytime of high noon thawing that upper most
reddish soil out to a toasty –22F, seems capable of representing
something other than frozen CO2 as the particle binder. However,
unless there’s an underground aquifer/reservoir as wick like feeding
that icy soil, it’s unlikely of representing common water, but more
than likely of a mineral saturated ice that’s highly acidic (though
still better than nothing).
Obviously their all-knowing expertise failed to take such a common icy
tundra or permafrost kind of frozen terrain into account, especially
of getting further nailed by those extremely cold nighttimes of –115F
(a whole lot worse yet at the poles).
In my direct experience, the wicking or evaporation of moisture
migrating out of terrestrial soil only further drops the surface
temperatures to forming a layer of frost, with the local above surface
ambient atmosphere as high as +40F (it’s also called black ice). In a
near vacuum environment such as Mars, is where that kind of natural
thermal/refrigeration via evaporation pull-down can become fairly
extreme, enough to keep the Mars tundra as packed extensively with dry-
ice crystals.
That otherwise nifty remote digging arm that’s certainly long enough,
and of its way-over-sized shovel capacity is also further proof
positive as to how dumb and dumber, as well as totally dumbfounded
those supposed R&D wizards actually are. Half of that shovel width
should have been overkill. If this mission wasn’t such another
clownish ruse and yet another waste of valuable time and resources to
begin with (not to mention having once again spent those hundreds of
millions of our hard earned loot), you’d certainly be hard pressed to
tell otherwise.
Unless that frozen to death and godforsaken planet has marsquakes,
lets hope that a whole lot of shaking does the trick, and that fresh
delivered pile of all that surplus Mars soil doesn’t foil or degrade
the use of those other sample testing ovens. Other than waiting
around for another good Mars wind storm, what’s the best plan of
action for clearing their side by side multiple oven deck?
Is there a simple broom attachment or forbid any CO2 blowing nozzle
for that spendy robotic arm? (didn’t think so)
How about a gram worth audio feedback technology? (does our half
billion dollar Phoenix got audio?)
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jun 8, 6:47 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> NASA'S PhoenixMarsLander CheckingSoilProperties.
> "June 07, 2008 The arm of NASA's PhoenixMarsLander released a
> handful of clumpy Martiansoilonto a screened opening of a laboratory
> instrument on the spacecraft Friday, but the instrument did not
> confirm that any of the sample passed through the screen."http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/news.php
>
> This confirms an argument I've been making for years now. That the
> reason the Viking GCMS failed to detect organics in the Martiansoil
> probably was due to low amounts of sample being delivered to the
> instrument. The key point is the "sample full" detector for the GCMS
> at BOTH Viking sites failed to give sample full indications. This is
> curious because there were similar sample full detectors on the
> biology experiments that did properly show full samples were
> delivered. I concluded that the sample full detectors for the GCMS
> were in fact operating correctly and correctly indicated that only
> below registering amounts of sample were delivered.
> I copied below a post to sci.astro were I discuss this argument. TheMarsPhoenix scientists have given an explanation in this case that it
> might be the clumpiness of thesoilthat prevents it from passing
> through the sieving grid. I considered this as the possible reason
> also in the Viking case but another possibility I think should be
> investigated usingMarssimulantsoilis that the extreme low humidity
> ofMarscreates a great amount of static electricity that causes thesoilto stick to the sieving grid.
> The most relevant passage I copied below in all caps.
>
> ===========================================
> Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary, rec.arts.sf.science,
> sci.bio.misc
> From: Robert Clark <rgcl>
> Date: 2000/02/25
> Subject: Odds of Hazard of theMarsSample Return Mission.
>
> From the MSNBC Space bbs,http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-
> space/index.asp :
>
> ************************************************** *****
> Subject: Re: Odds of Hazard (was: Re: Disagree with...
> From: Robert Clark
> Host: isp15a-21.pha.adelphia.net
> Date: Thu Feb 24 12:38:47
>
> I think the low odds frequently given for the
> likelihood of back contamination ofMarsorganisms is due
> to the assumption that the likelihood of life on the
> surface ofMarsis virtually nonexistent. There are
> reasons to doubt this conclusion. The Antaeus report gave
> some plausible scenarios where life could still exist onMarsdespite the results of the Viking missions.
> Unfortunately this is no longer available on the
> Astrobiology Web site in the Planetary Protection
> section,http://www2.astrobiology.com/astro/protection.html
> Another paper discussing possibilities for life onMars
> after Viking is by Thomas and Schimel:
>
> D. J. Thomas and J. P. Schimel, 1991.Marsafter the
> Viking missions: is life still possible? Icarus,
> 91:199-206,http://www.lyon.edu/webdata/users/dthomas/publications/Thomas_and_Sch...
>
> Also discussed in the Antaeus report are some known
> situations where organisms taken out of their natural
> environment had flourished and out-competed the organisms
> already there. Their conclusion essentially was this was
> not the usual state of affairs but it was known to occur
> on Earth. This was important since I had not seen this
> consideration discussed in any detail in any of the other
> NASA reports on possible back contamination byMars
> samples. This gave some useful information to address the
> claims frequently made thatMarsorganisms would be
> unlikely to thrive outside their natural environment.
> It has been also asserted that it is unlikely thatMars
> life and Earth life would even be compatible. However,
> recent research suggests that Earth andMarsas well as
> the other terrestrial planets have been exchanging
> material through impact ejecta throughout the life of the
> solar system. Experiments suggest that some microbes
> would be able to survive the trip through space encased
> in the meteorites. Experiments also show that some very
> hardy Earth microbes should be able to survive on the
> surface ofMars. So it is likely that Earth andMarshave
> exchanged some biological material. Since they have
> exchanged biological material should we be concerned with
> introducing new material? An analogous question to ask is
> since they have exchanged biological material should we
> be concerned with introducing new material with our
> spacecraft we send toMars? I think most scientists would
> say yes. If we arbitrarily introduced new material toMarswe could not determine the extent of naturally
> occurring life we found there at some later time when
> extensive, perhaps human, exploration takes place. Also,
> over millennia the Earth life transferred there may have
> evolved to their new environment to be as well adapted toMarsas has life that evolved there independently. In the
> case of possible life already transferred to Earth fromMarsvia meteorites, it is impossible to tell how much
> this life has been damaging to the life present in the
> area in which it arrived. It may be that over time theMarslife and Earth life accommodated each other with
> some adaptations to each. Arguing that we need not be
> concerned with introducing newMarslife since it has
> happened before is a little like saying since we have
> introduced new life from one region on Earth to another
> region without deletious effects, we need not be
> concerned with introducing ANY new life from one region
> to another, clearly not a legitimate argument.
>
> Now in my opinion there are also other reasons to doubt
> the prevailing opinion that the Viking missions detected
> no life onMars. All three life experiments detected life
> signs onMarsand two of them the Labeled Release and
> Pyrolytic Release experiments also satisfied the
> criterion of getting no life signs after sterilization by
> heating. The third the Gas Exchange experiment is
> frequently said to be incompatible with life since some
> gas was still released after heating to 145 degrees C.
> However, it is usually not mentioned that the amount of
> gas relesed was reduced to 45% after heating and as
> discussed again in the Antaeus report as many as 10%
> of some organisms will survive heating even to 160
> degrees C.
> The primary reason for the conclusion of no life onMarswere the results of the Viking GCMS which could
> detect no organics on the surface ofMars. Back in 1976
> this might have seemed a reasonable conclusion to accept.
> However, I believe it no longer is so. Astronomical
> observations show organics to be ubiquitous in the
> universe. They've been found on the Moon, comets,
> meteorites, asteroids, interstellar clouds,
> interplanetary dust grains that fall to Earth (and
> presumably other planets), Titan, Pluto and Charon, and
> the moons of Jupiter, Ganymede and Callisto. These last
> two are important because it shows organics are able to
> survive the intense radiation environment in the vicinity
> of Jupiter. This has relevance to the situation onMars
> since the UV flux onMarshad been argued to limit the
> possibility of organics on the surface. However, a recent
> paper by Chris Chyba in Nature has argued that radiation
> itself may create organics on the Jovian moon Europa:
>
> Jovian Radiation Could Heat Up Europan Souphttp://www.spacedaily.com/spacecast/news/life-00e.html
>
> It is possible the same mechanism occurs onMarsto
> create organics.
> Since the prevalence of organics in the universe makes
> it quite likely they also occur onMars, it is my opinion
> that an important fact was left out of the papers
> describing the results of the Viking GCMS. In the first
> report from the GCMS team in Science it is mentioned that
> the sample indicator didn't get a full indication for
> Viking Lander 1,
> "Search for organic and volatile inorganic compounds
> in two surface samples from the Chryse Planitia region ofMars", Science, vol. 194, Oct. 1, 1976, p. 72-76.
> This is also discussed in the online history of the
> Viking missions:
>
> ONMARS
> Exploration of the Red Planet 1958-1978http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/on-mars.html
>
> In Chapter 11 of ONMARS, in the section "Sampling
> the Martian Surface", it states that the Viking 1
> GCMS never got the signal that a sample was actually
> delivered:
>
> "The firstsoilsamples were acquired on sol 8, 28
> thesoilwas dropped into the funnel."
> Ch. 11-5 SCIENCE ONMARShttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/ch11-5.html
>
> It is therefore puzzling to read in the Journal of
> Geophysical Research paper on the GCMS results from
> Viking Lander 2 that there was no sample full sensor:
>
> "The are two positions to which any of the ovens
> can be moved in any sequence. The load position is
> directly under the sampling system, which delivers about
> 1-2 cm^3 of surface material that after having been
> ground ...
>
> read more »
Robert Clark
Here's one report on research on static electricity that might occur
in Martian soil:
======================================
Title: Electrical Properties of Martian Regolith Simulant Particles.
Authors: Calle, C. I.; Kim, H. S.
Affiliation: AA(Sweet Briar College), AB(NASA/Kennedy Space Center)
Journal: American Astronomical Society Meeting #193, #96.07
Publication Date: 12/1998
Origin: AAS
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1998: American Astronomical Society
Bibliographic Code: 1998AAS...193.9607C
Abstract
Hubble Space Telescope observations of Mars from Earth as well as
spacecraft
measurements from orbit around Mars and from the Martian surface
itself have
shown that suspended dust is a significant component of the Martian
atmosphere.
Dust clouds have been observed extending over areas as large as a few
million
square kilometers. Hubble has also photographed planet-wide dust
storms lasting
for over one month. These conditions, coupled with the absence of any
significant amounts of water in the Martian atmosphere, may create
electrostatic
potentials that could be hazardous for astronauts and equipment in
future
missions. The electrical properties of the Martian soil have been
determined
directly only by radio occultation from spacecraft in orbit about
Mars, by
earth-based radar, and by microwave radiometry. For the present work,
experiments were designed to determine the electrical properties of a
Martian
regolith simulant prepared from Andesitic rocks by NASA Johnson Space
Center
that has been shown to be a good spectral analog to the soil in the
bright
regions of Mars. The volume electrical conductivity of the simulant
was measured
to be intermediate between that of a good conductor and that of a
good
insulator. Thus, the simulant particles were expected to exhibit
fairly high
surface electrostatic charging and polarizability. Experiments to
determine
polarization and electrostatic charging of the simulant particles
under several
conditions were conducted.
=======================================
IF it is static electricity that is causing the stickiness then to
get samples to be delivered to the Mars Phoenix instruments we might
try to take the samples when the moisture in the air is highest.
The Mars MER rovers found there was frost deposited at night that
burned off in early morning. This time would likely be when the
humidity was highest at those sites.
The Mars Phoenix site is in a polar region during Martian northern
summer where the Sun is always above the horizon so strickly speaking
there won't be *night-time* frost deposition. Still there is great air
temperature variation from -30C to -80C so there will likely be a
diurnal time frame when the frost deposition is highest and also an
optimal time frame where this frost will burn off as the temperature
rises. Note also that orbital observations show that atmospheric water
vapor is highest in the Mars polar regions so such frost deposition at
the Phoenix site might be signicantly higher than for the equatorial
MER rovers.
However, it is not certain that static electricity due to low air
moisture is the problem here. Conceivably it might be the exact
opposite where residual *liquid* water in the soil contributes to the
stickiness of the soil. If this is the case then we will actually want
to take the samples when the himidity in the air is lowest. Both
scenarios should be tried.
Still another possibility is the magnetite particles that have been
seen at the other landing sites is the cause of the stickiness. If
this is the case I doubt that humidity variations will have an effect
on the stickiness. I don't have a solution in this case. Perhaps
experiments with Mars similants containing such magnetic particles
would provide a solution about how best to deliver samples to the
lander experiments.
Bob Clark
BradGuth
Most any crystal dry environment should be highly charged, especially
where there's so freaking little if any h2o to behold.
Our trusty moon is charged to several teraVolts, and I tend to believe
there's a good many amps worth of load capacity that our moon could
likely sustain if it were properly rigged.
cryptoguy
1. The ovens they are trying to deliver material to are miniscule -
the
entrances are only 1 mm across. Making the mesh any larger would
allow chunks through which could block the entrance entirely.
2. The grid is equipped with a vibrator to help shake the fine
material
through. They are working on finding the best frequency to use.
3. There are a lot of options - this is just the first of 8 ovens they
can
use - they'll try dribbling just a little soil on the next one,
instead of
dumping on it. Also on the table is using the back of the scoop to
crush some of the soil before delivering it. Or even using the scoop
to pat the soil on top of the grid.
Before you go off half-cocked, listen to this afternoon's press
conference:
http://cboh.org/~jmk/nasatelecon060908.mp3
pt
Robert Clark
On the possibility that problem of the stickiness of the soil might be
due to the magnetic particles, the Phoenix team has done some
experiments with Mars soil simulants that contain some proportion of
magnetic particles so you would think this problem would have already
been seen in these simulations if that were the reason. Perhaps though
there was a higher proportion of magnetic particles than expected in
the actual Mars soil.
I did a web search on how you can demagnetize a permanent magnet and
found this:
Magnet.
5 Magnetization and demagnetization.
"Permanent magnets can be demagnetized in the following ways:
Heating a magnet past its Curie point will destroy the long range
ordering.
Contact through stroking one magnet with another in random fashion
will demagnetize the magnet being stroked, in some cases; some
materials have a very high coercive field and cannot be demagnetized
with other permanent magnets.
Hammering or jarring will destroy the long range ordering within the
magnet.
A magnet being placed in a solenoid which has an alternating current
being passed through it will have its long range ordering disrupted,
in much the same way that direct current can cause ordering."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Magnetization_and_demagnetization
The TEGA instrument will heat the sample to high temperature, but of
course this can't be used to remove the magnetization if you can't get
the sample to the instrument in the first place.
The second method of demagnetizing could conceivably work, but I
doubt the Phoenix lander has a magnet that could be passed over a soil
sample. A variation on this might be to rub and mix around the sample
on itself, then the different magnetic orientations on the particles
might tend to cancel each other out.
The third possibility might also be feasible by striking hard on the
sample to demagnetize it. The scoop might be used for this purpose. My
guess though is that you would have to place the sample on a hard
surface to do this. A flat metal surface on the lander would work but
there might be a worry that this could jar the landers internal
electronics by doing this. Perhaps the sample could be placed on top
of a hard rock that the robot arm could reach.
I don't think the fourth method mentioned of passing an alternating
current over the sample is feasible since I doubt the lander has the
capability of doing this to a sample that is outside the lander.
Bob Clark
cryptoguy
work,
and they now have a full sample in the first oven.
So stop worrying.
pt
Robert Clark
Here's the NASA press release announcing it:
NASA's Phoenix Lander has an Oven Full of Martian Soil.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080611.html
Here's a Space.com article discussing it in more detail:
Mars Soil Sample Finally Delivered to Phoenix Instrument.
By Andrea Thompson
Senior Writer
posted: 11 June 2008
03:21 pm ET
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080611-phoenix-mission-update.html
There is a link to the audio teleconference on Wednesday, June 11th
on the NASA press release page that discussed the successful filling
of the TEGA instrument.
It is mentioned during the teleconference that the soil showed very
fine imprints from the underside of the scoop. They suggested the soil
was like a very fine powder, like flour. But what was confusing was
that if fine powder why did it not fall through the sieving grid. And
why did it stick to the smooth surfaces of the lander?
Later it's mentioned that their experiments with different soil
analogues still haven't duplicated the stickiness as seen at the
Phoenix site. There was "something missing", they said.
That the soil sample was able to pass through the sieve after being
exposed in the Sun on top of the lander for some time led to the
suggestion that water/ice in the sample evaporated/sublimated off.
The temperature and pressure conditions there are within the range of
liquid water brines at least temporarily. Maybe the difficulty in
modeling this problem is the resistance to accepting the presence of
liquid water brines as a legitimate possibility.
If it were small amounts of liquid water even in the form of brines
then that would fit perfectly since the small clumpy particles would
be small amounts of mud.
Note also that mud would also leave fine detail of the imprints from
the scoop while at the same time being sticky, unlike the fine powder
explanation.
Bob Clark
BradGuth
For the extra $500 million, it seems we are not getting our best
science.
Where is the cube of Pu238 for onboard heating and nighttime energy?
So, where exactly is all of that Mars water and salt hiding? (perhaps
at least 100+ meters or even a few km below Phoenix?)
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
BradGuth
> On Jun 11, 3:13 pm, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Today's press conference reports that using the vibrator did in fact
> > work,
> > and they now have a full sample in the first oven.
>
> > So stop worrying.
>
> > pt
>
> Here's the NASA press release announcing it:
>
>
> Here's a Space.com article discussing it in more detail:
>
> Mars Soil Sample Finally Delivered to Phoenix Instrument.
> By Andrea Thompson
> Senior Writer
> posted: 11 June 2008
Millions of electrostatic voltage charge makes all sorts of stuff
stick to itself and most anything else.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Robert Clark
...
Here's a Phoenix microscope image of some soil particles:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/247286main_SoilParticles.jpg
They most resemble particles of moist soil, flecks of mud.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
>...
>
> Here's a Phoenix microscope image of some soil particles:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/247286main_SoilParticles.jpg
>
> They most resemble particles of moist soil, flecks of mud.
>
> Bob Clark
NASA is confirming that ice has been seen at the Phoenix site:
Bright Chunks At Phoenix Lander's Mars Site Must Have Been Ice.
June 19, 2008 -- Dice-size crumbs of bright material have vanished
from inside a trench where they were photographed by NASA's Phoenix
Mars Lander four days ago, convincing scientists that the material was
frozen water that vaporized after digging exposed it.
"It must be ice," said Phoenix Principal Investigator Peter Smith of
the University of Arizona, Tucson. "These little clumps completely
disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence
that it's ice. There had been some question whether the bright
material was salt. Salt can't do that."
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/06_19_pr.php
The ground temperatures at the Phoenix site are well within the range
to permit liquid water brines if water/ice is present.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
> Here's a Phoenix microscope image of some soil particles:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/247286main_SoilParticles.jpg
>
> They most resemble particles of moist soil, flecks of mud.
>
Here are some close up images of the soil still on the scoop.
Soil Scoop Zooms.
http://www.marsroverblog.com/discuss-soil-scoop-zooms.html
They definitely give the impression of dried out soil that had
recently been wet.
Bob Clark