[X] My Assistant

[dburt]

Relevant to Emily's boulder observation, the "Gullies and layers" HiRISE image was not the first to show layers with abundant boulders, indicating poor sediment sorting in layered slopes. Previous images included, e.g., PSP_001691_1320 "Gullied trough in Noachis Terra, released on 28 Feb., and PSP_001942_2310 "Signs of fluids and ice in Acidalia Planitia" released on 9 May. That these bouldery layers might represent ancient ballistic impact ejecta seems a reasonable suggestion, because much of the present martian surface is littered with boulders presumed to be ballistic impact ejecta. Other possibilities for boulder deposits might include, e.g., ancient talus or landslide deposits at the foot of slopes, stream boulders in channels, volcanic ejecta near vents, glacial moraines, or iceberg dropstones.

As an aside, the related suggestion that at least some of the fine-grained layers above or below any boulder deposits (or elsewhere on Mars) could likewise represent ancient impact deposits (non-ballistic fine-grained sand and dust distributed over vast areas by fast-moving, turbulent, erosive gaseous density currents - a.k.a. impact surge clouds - or by the winds as later fallout) already seems to have aroused considerable controversy on this forum, but again that's peripheral to Emily's boulder comment.

--Don

[MOD EDIT: "Brine Splat Burt" discussion moved here -> http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ic=4308&hl= -EGD]

[centsworth_II]

As an aside, the related suggestion that at least some of the fine-grained layers above or below any boulder
deposits (or elsewhere on Mars) could likewise represent ancient impact deposits (non-ballistic fine-grained
sand and dust distributed over vast areas by fast-moving, turbulent, erosive gaseous density currents - a.k.a.
impact surge clouds - or by the winds as later fallout) already seems to have aroused considerable controversy
on this forum, but again that's peripheral to Emily's boulder comment.

So you're the dburt of Basal Surge fame?

"ASU geologists L. Paul Knauth and Donald Burt, who along with Kenneth Wohletz of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, say that base surges resulting from massive explosions caused by meteorite strikes offer a simpler
and more consistent explanation for the rock formations and sediment layers found at the Opportunity site."
http://www.asu.edu/news/stories/200512/200..._meteorites.htm

I haven't followed the situation closely enough to ask any good questions, but I wonder if anyone else here
would like to ask about your current views.

for reference, the basal surge thread is here:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...surge&st=30

[dvandorn]

In discussion of the blueberries, I fail to see how they could be accretionary lapilli (or anything similar) from within a surge cloud and also exhibit the dimple/stalk morphology that we see in many/most of them. I can see stalks forming if they are concretions that built up from small voids in the salty rocks, not in lapilli.

And we don't see them *ever* deforming the layers in which they appear, as you would imagine they would if they fell onto newly-formed layers in the salty rocks. They are embedded in a fashion which screams (to my eye) "concretions formed in place" and not "lapilli that fell onto these layers." They are not organized along specific layers, they are scattered like shotgun-shot all throughout the layered rocks. If they were lapilli that were just dropped onto the still-fragmented salt dust that was being deposited by a surge, you would also expect a *lot* of signs of turbulence in the layer deposition "downwind" (or "downsurge") of the blueberries, and we don't. We see them perfectly embedded in layers that are otherwise laid down quite flat. And if we also buy the theory that each millimeter-thick layer was laid down by a separate impact surge event (which I still have a hard time believing, since the layers are so uniform in thickness), and we know that the blueberries are significantly larger in diameter than the layers in which they are embedded, where is the turbulence we should see "downsurge" from blueberries emplaced by the last surge? I would expect fillets along the upsurge side of the berries, and hollows on the downsurge side, even if the surge flow was relatively slow and non-violent. We see absolutely no sign of this.

I wonder a bit, too, about the lack of shales being definitive proof against a watery environment. The Meridiani light-toned unit is very thick -- if there were simply not enough silicates (especially phyllosilicates) to form a significant amount of the depositional surface, we'd be looking at a large substrate which simply doesn't contain the constructional materials necessary to form impermeable floors (i.e., shales) for standing water. In which case, you'd be looking at standing water *only* when the water table exceeded the level of the surface. As the water table receded downward, it would simply flow through a unit of permeable salty rock all the way down to the base of the aquifer, which (in my thinking) would consist of clays or shales formed at the top of the unit that lies below the light-toned unit. Since *none* of that unit is exhumed anywhere that Oppy has visited, we can't judge on the lack of such materials on the top of the present surface.

Just because Mars may once have had liquid water doesn't mean it would necessarily have formed the same features such water might have created on Earth (like pervasive shales), especially if there are compositional differences in the materials that held the water. Conditions on a hypothetical "wet, warm" Mars would have been very different from conditions on a wet, warm (and teeming-with-life) Earth -- we always need to appreciate that the same water conditions on the two planets could result in some significantly different results when it comes to how rocks were created and altered.

Just my $.02...

-the other Doug