|
The Planetary Society BlogBy Emily LakdawallaMars rover finds puddles on Mars?Jun. 11, 2007 | 07:22 EDT | 11:22 UTC
UPDATE JUNE 12: New Scientist and Ron Levin have now retracted the original story. Last week, New Scientist Space posted a provocative story titled "Mars rover finds 'puddles' on the planet's surface." The story concerned a presentation made at the 2007 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Aerospace Conference by Lockheed Martin physicist Ron Levin. The article reads in part: A new analysis of pictures taken by the exploration rover Opportunity reveals what appear to be small ponds of liquid water on the surface of Mars....This would be an amazing find, if true! How could the mission's scientists have missed this? And how could liquid water possibly persist in the sub-zero temperature and near-vacuum pressure at Opportunity's landing site? The article goes on to explain the basis for Levin's claim: Along with fellow Lockheed engineer Daniel Lyddy, Levin used images from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's website. The resulting stereoscopic reconstructions, made from paired images from the Opportunity rover's twin cameras, show bluish features that look perfectly flat. The surfaces are so smooth that the computer could not find any surface details within those areas to match up between the two images.Here is the image that accompanied the article, showing smooth bluish areas lying in what appear to be local lows between bumpy rock surfaces:
It's kind of hard to know what's going on in that image without some context. For the rovers, you have to know when an image was taken in order to learn something about where the image was taken. Fortunately, a sharp-eyed observer tracked down the temporal context, saving me some work. It was on sol 290; you can see the image in approximate true color on Daniel Crotty's wonderful website of Mars Exploration Rover Multispectral Color Imagery. (The color is only approximate, because this image was taken using filters 2, 5, and 7 on the rover's left eye, which see infrared, green, and blue-violet, respectively; the color space reaches to both shorter and longer wavelengths than human eyes can actually detect.) Here's Daniel's color version of the image:
It's kind of astonishing to me that anyone could present a paper of this nature without having checked the spatial context. They must have assumed that the surface that the rover was observing was horizontal, like so many surfaces in Meridiani Planum. It may even have been "horizontal" with respect to the rover's deck -- but the rover was sitting on the same slope that it was photographing at the time the images were taken. It shows you how dangerous it can be to attempt to do science from partial data. The images are only one kind of data returned from the rover; along with the images come data from many other instruments, including, for example, tilt sensors that would tell you exactly how much of a slope the rover was sitting on when it took that image. I think this story also serves as a cautionary tale to taking too seriously papers that are presented at conferences. These "papers" are, for the most part, not reviewed by experts in the field before they are presented or published in the conference proceedings. Conferences are a great place to get updates from researchers on the current status of ongoing research, but the papers that scientists present there are just progress reports on work that hasn't yet been submitted to critical and skeptical scrutiny by other experts in the field. This is one claim that will never make it past peer review. I wouldn't have even written about this, except that an uncle of mine -- not a technogeek -- asked me this weekend about these puddles of water that were just discovered on Mars. So this story is clearly getting some play in some kind of mainstream media. I don't think it does any huge amount of harm -- in fact, it had the benefit of causing my uncle to strike up a conversation with me about Mars and what's going on there right now. Still, it's apparently being discussed quite seriously in a lot of places, and I wanted to go on record to point out that this particular "water on Mars" claim is not supported by evidence. Did you like this post? Send it to a friend or share it at:
Slashdot -Digg this - Reddit - Del.icio.us - Newsvine - NowPublic |
||||||