MARS CORRECT BASIC REPORT - SECTIONS 2.5.3 to 2.7

Home Page + Blog Site Contents 10/5/2016 TV Interview Radio Interview Report Contents &Section Links MSL Ultraviolet MSL Yr 3 Fall Data MSL Year 3 Summer Data MSL Year 3 Spring Data MSL Yr 2-3 Winter Data MSL Yr 2 Fall Data MSL Yr 2 Summer Data MSL Weather Year 2 MSL Weather Year 1 Sol 370, 1160,1161, 1300&1301 pressure anomalies MSL Hi Air & Ground Temps MSL Low Temps Warm winter ground temps & life RUNNING WATER ON MARS Report Abstract to 1.2 Report Sec.2-2.1 Report Sec.2.2-2.4 Report 2.5-2.5.2 Report 2.5.3-2.7 Report 3-4.1.2 Report 5 to 6 Report 7-7.2.1 Report 8-9 Report 10-11 Report 12-12.2 Report 12.3-12.4 Report 13-14 Report 14.1 Report 14.2-14.3 Report 14.4-14.6.2 Report 15-18 Report Afterword Report 20 Annex Links Report figure links Diurnal air temp. variation Oxygen&Trees on Mars? Beagle 2 found Adiabatics Concession by Ashima Old MSL Weather 1 Old MSL Weather 2 High and low pressures normalized Soil 2% water MSL Temp. ∆ Mast to Ground Relative humidity Mars sky color Tavis Sensor Suspicion Vailsala Sensor: Phoenix&MSL Mars Temps Fahrenheit Pathfinder pressures Wind Booms & Disinformation Ingersoll Debate Daylight-math-fix Curiosity Geology Early MSL Weather Reports Landing altitudes Mars Mission History & Sites Nuc on Mars? Aldrin's Phobos monolith Ashima/MIT GCM Critique NASA alters temp. data Viking pressure sensors failed Dust Storm Nonsense JPL Press Conference Critique 1 Navigating Mars Phobos Grunt Failure Moving sand & Mars winds Moving rock Data Fudge Fossil found on Mars? Organic Chem found on Mars MSL Sol 200 Anomaly Gil Levin & Labeled Release - Part 1 Levin & Labeled Release - Pt. 2 - Roswell Link 155-Mile high Mars Plume Brine on Mars Lights on Ceres Yr 1 Table 1 Spherical life on Mars? Full Report Contents Scale heights REMS flaws MSL Daylength &Temp Missing data bluback ExoMars crash Desai & EDL Sea at Utopia Planitia Mars Mars winter vs. summer temps Rebuttal of REMS Report Unrealistic Ground Low Temps Mt. Sharp pressures & scale height

The Ethics of Data Manipulation, Viking Dust Filter, Viking Pressure Reports & Digitization, Consistent Daily Pressure Spikes, MSL Weather Reporting Fiasco (Updated 5/24/2016)

2.5.3. Why is it so wrong to alter data to fit an expected curve? 

       On August 24, 1992 I owned a house in Homestead, Florida. The weather was beautiful the day before and the day after. But on August 24th Hurricane Andrew struck my town, destroying it, my house, and much of Miami. Leveling off the data for that week would have missed what was vital. Likewise, we cannot understand Martian weather (global dust storms, dust devils, moving sand, snow, flowing water, storms over Arsia Mons, etc.) when data there is treated in a way shown by Figures 14A to 14E.

       As for earlier transducers sent, Tavis transducers used on the Vikings both had an upper range of about 18 mbar (actually 17.9 mbar in accordance with NASA report TM X-74020 by Michael Mitchell dated March 1977).29 The issue here too is how fast they might clog while in the initial process of landing. When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, about 22 seconds before the contact light came on Apollo 11 radioed the words “Picking up some dust.”  How much dust was kicked up before the Viking landers?  Professor Chris Mihos (Case Western Reserve University) indicates that for Viking 2 “due to a radar misidentification of a rock or highly reflective surface, the thrusters fired an extra time 0.4 seconds before landing, which cracked the surface and raised dust.” All descriptions of the Viking 1 site indicate that it was also dusty. Figure 5A showed exactly how dusty it was within 25 seconds to 5 minutes after landing.

       It is also argued that rocks kicked up on MSL’s landing broke one of the two REMS meteorology booms (Boom 1). They were shown on Figure 5B. The first color picture sent from MSL with a lens cover on also showed much dust between the lens and the atmosphere. The color of the atmosphere (See Figure 15B and later Figure 42I) became bluer when the cover was removed; again raising questions about how effective the dust filter would be for the pressure transducer. Although it was initially reported that MSL’s relative humidity sensor was working properly on landing, it too had a dust filter and there was no relative humidity data reported on daily REMS Team or Ashima Research reports for Sols 19 (August 25, 2012) through at least Sol 1,344 (May 18, 2016). See Section 13.

       Why didn’t MSL’s pressure sensor peg out faster? Why did it take until Sol 370? My initial answer was that air intake tubes clogged on landing for all landers, MSL included, but after a year of roaming around Mars, the dust clot was either knocked loose when the lander moved over a rock, or was degraded enough to let air rush in to max out the transducer.

       What about the next day? There was likely to be a panic at the REMS Team/JPL. If the published figure for Sol pressure had only risen to 11 mbar, they might look for an answer in some weather system. But by maxing out they really can’t say what the actual maximum pressure was for the day. It’s like what would happen when a 120 kg man tries to determine his mass on a scale that can only measure up to 50 kilograms. The needle may indicate 50 kg, but that in no way indicates his real 120 kg mass.

       As for the 11.54, 11.77 and 12 mbar pressures initially published I’m not sure why they were put out. They don’t appear to be typographic errors. The 11.77 mbar (1177 Pa) pressure for Sol 1160 was actually a revision of an 897 Pa pressure that was right on the expected curve, and consistent with the 897 Pa pressure published for sol 1162.

       It’s likely that the answer here lies not with science or error, but with a human personality. One name stands out above all others – the designer of the pressure sensor - Henriq Kahanpää at the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI). If not Kahanpää then one of his colleagues in the REMS Team in Spain might be taking deliberate action not in line with NASA wishes. We record IP addresses of all NASA, REMS Team, FMI and Kremlin visitors to our marscorrect.com and davidaroffman.com websites each day. The last visit from the FMI was from IP address 193.166.223.5 on 12/21/2015. Kahanpää and his cohorts know well what I’m writing about their data. I also think I understand the pressure that they’re under to back the (NASA) party line. He demonstrated some courage in questioning NASA, admitting that something stinks there in conjunction with not being given all info needed to build proper transducers, but I don’t know how far he’s willing to go in challenging his bosses. At first I thought REMS Team’s numerous mistakes were due to human error. But it’s possible that weather data published by them that’s far off the expected curve is a signal to scientists that they are being forced to invent or corrupt their data. A sample from our Annex P of how we track REMS data and color-highlight problems follows:

TABLE 4A - SAMPLE OF HOW THE MARS CORRECT TEAM TRACKS WEATHER DATA PUBLISHED BY THE REMS TEAM/JPL

 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

 S

Sol

Ls

Pressure (Pa)

Earth Date

Hi Air Temp °C

Low Air Temp  °C

Δ Air Temp °C

Δ Air Temp C/40

Hi Ground Temp °C

Low Ground Temp °C

Daylight change in Temp °C Air to Ground

Nighttime change in Temp °C Air to Ground

Pressure Year 1 same Ls 

Δ Pressure Yr 1 to 2 (yellow =

 > 7 Pa)

~Ls Year

1

Pressure Yr 1 before revision

 UV Yr 1

UV Yr 2

Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Yellow = -59°C or warmer)

  Green = <1.5 

Red =   > 0°C

PURPLE = >=90°C or colder 

Blue = >10°C

PURPLE = >10°C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1159

66

       898 

11/9/

2015 

-28

-82 

 -54 

  1.35 

    -14

   -84

       14 

     -2

        903

         5

66

        N/A  

M 

M 

 

1160

66

1177

11/10/

2015

-28 

-80

 -52

1.3

    -15

   -88

       13

     -8

         903

      274

66 

        N/A  

M  

M 

Pressures here & Sol 1161 are above the ability of the MSL Pressure sensor to measure.

1160

Revised

66

    899

11/12/

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         903

4 revised from 274

 

 

 

 

Bingo! Revision for this sol predicted above.

1161

66

1200

11/12/

2015

-26

-83

 -57

1.425 

    -13

   -84

       13 

     -1 

         902

      298

67

        N/A  

M  

M 

Watch for JPL to alter pressures for sol 1160 and 1161.

1161

Revised

66

   898

11/13/

2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

902

4 revised from 298

 

 

 

 

Revision for this sol predicted above.

1162

67

     897

11/13/

2015

-27

-84

 -57 

1.425 

    -12

   -84 

       15

      0

        902 

        5 

67 

        N/A 

M 

M 

 

1163

67

       896

11/14

2015

-29

-86

 -57 

1.425 

    -12 

   -87

       17

     -1 

         900

        4

68

        N/A 

M 

M 

 

1164

68

       896

11/15/

2015

-35

-86 

 -51  

1.275 

    -14

   -88

       21

     -2

         901

        5 

68 

        N/A 

M

M

Record cold high temperature.

MSL Weather data for two Martian years is found in the following Annexes to this Report:

ANNEX M

One Year of MSL Weather Reports http://marscorrect.com/Annex%20M%20JULY%2014%202014.pdf

M-1 to M-38

ANNEX N

Weather Reports for MSL Year 2 Ls 151 to Ls 270 (late winter to end of spring), Sols 670 to 864  http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20N.pdf

N-1 to N-13

ANNEX O

Weather Reports for MSL Year 2 Ls 270 to Ls 0  (summer), Sols 865 to 1,020 http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20O.pdf

O-1 to O-11

ANNEX P

Weather Reports for MSL Year 2 Ls 0 to Ls 90  (autumn), Sols 1019 to 1,213 http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20P.pdf

P-1 to P-15

ANNEX Q

Weather Reports for MSL Year 2 Winter until the End of MSL Year 2 (Ls 90 to Ls 150, Sols 1,213 to 1,338) http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20Q.pdf

Q-1 to Q-14

ANNEX R

Comparison of Ultraviolet Radiation and Pressures at Gale Crater, Mars for MSL Years 1 and 2

http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20R.pdf

R-1 to R-28

ANNEX S

Two Martian Years of MSL High Air and Ground Temperatures

http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20S.pdf

S-1 to S41

ANNEX T

Two Martian Years of MSL Low Air and Ground Temperatures

http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20T%20TO.pdf

T-1 to T-64

2.6 The Dust filter on Viking.

       We asked Professor Tillman about the filter used for the Viking.  In a personal communication on 27 May 2010, he stated, “The sensors were connected to the ambient atmosphere through a ¼ inch (0.635 cm) tube fitted with a dust filter. Blockage of this system by dust would have been readily detectable in a rapid change in sensitivity to diurnal and synoptic pressure variations and a change in the annual cycle of pressure. No such changes were observed.”  

       The final statement above is not true. Diurnal patterns vanished almost completely between sols 639 to 799 on Viking 2 as is fully documented in the data audit in Annex C of this report. However, the main issue is how fast the pressure tubes and filters would clog. If immediately upon landing as the retrorockets kicked up the dust, then the patterns alluded to by Professor Tillman would still be there because they were established up front. Those patterns, however, would not reflect ambient pressures on Mars.

2.6.1. The issue of Viking pressure reports and digitization.

       Professor Tillman sent us a slide that showed that Viking surface pressure measurement and resolution were limited by digitization to 0.088 mbar (0.088 mbar = 1 DN (A-D Converter, 8 bits).  An audit showed 0.09 mbar was the most common change for VL-2 on its sols 1 to 199. Between its landing in the summer on its sol 1 at Ls 118 and the end of the summer at Ls 180, there were 4,476 pressures recorded between a low of 7.38 mbar and a high of 8.96 mbar. About 78.57% were either no pressure at all or one of 19 specific pressures, usually 0.09 mbar apart (see Table 4B). The remaining 27.26% were apparently the result of interpolation and/or the cubic-spline technique. 21.64% were exactly 7.47 mbar.

       Balme and Greeley report diurnal pressure variations observed by Tavis transducers showed the maximum pressures were at midnight and 1000 for Viking and Pathfinder.12 Minimums were at 0400.  Phoenix (with no RTG heater) showed no midnight or night pressure maximum. Its maximum pressures were at 0830 and 1530 local time (Taylor et al.).32 For MSL the initial max pressure was about 0730 and minimum pressure was around 1600. So once the transducer type was altered there was no agreement about diurnal pressure cycles.

2.6.2. The issue of daily pressure spikes at consistent time-bins.

       A large pressure increase rate at the same time every day would be consistent with a limited amount of Martian air trapped behind a clogged dust filter or pressure equalization port. As was shown on Table 2 and Figure 8, there were multiple such hikes found in the Viking Project Group data.  

       Data was divided into 25 bins per sol, each about 59 minutes.  The 0.26 to 0.30 time-bin should be an appropriate time to make RTG heat available and to turn on equipment. If air were trapped between the dust filter and the transducer, it would be expected that pressure would increase rapidly at this time. Figures 16A to 16L and Annex A show that this happened for VL-1 starting around its Sol 108 Ls 149 (late summer) until the last data posted at Sol 350 in winter (Ls 297). Likewise for VL-2, there was almost always a pressure increase in the .26 to .3 time-bin after the summer.

       For VL-1 in the 333 days examined, pressure only decreased 5 times in this time bin (4 of these in the early summer before Sol 108, with none then more than 0.02 mbar, and the 5th case was just 0.03 mbar on sol 240, Ls 227.084). All of these 5 exceptions were for amounts less than the 0.08 to 0.09 accuracies allowed by digitization of pressure data described above.

 

SPECIFIC REPORTED VL2 PRESSURE BETWEEN LANDING AT LS 118 and LS 180 (START OF FALL)

NUMBER OF TIMES REPORTED OUT OF 4,476 PRESSURES RECORDED

0

246

7.38

305

7.47

969

7.56

542

7.64

378

7.73

263

7.82

101

7.91

59

7.99

39

8.08

74

8.17

79

8.26

84

8.35

48

8.43

59

8.52

38

8.61

37

8.7

133

8.79

0

8.88

38

8.96

25

TOTAL TIMES REPORTED

3,517

% OF 4,476 PRESSURES

78.57%

INTERPOLATED VALUES

959

% INTERPOLATED

27.26%

Table 4B – Digitization limitations and the specific pressures reported by VL-2 for its first summer on Mars.

Figure 15A above: MSL REMS Block Diagram. Boom 1 broke on landing. Adapted from http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-012-9921-1/fulltext.html. Figure 15B above - Real color of the sky as seen from MSL on its Sol 1099.

 

TABLE 5 - VIKING 1 (Latitude 22.8º North) PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE CHANGES
TIME-BINS 0.26 TO .3 AND .3 TO .34  SOLS 1 TO 116 AND 134 TO 350

SEASON

SOLS

Ls   0 to 89.99 = Spring; 90 to 179.99 = Summer; 180 to 269.99 =Fall;        270 to 360 (0) = Winter

Average ΔP Time-bin 0.26 to 0.3

(mbar)

Average  ΔP Time-bin 0.3 to 0.34(mbar)

Average Temperature °C for both 0.26 to 0.3 and 0.3 to 0.34 time-bins

Average ΔT Time-bin 0.26 to 0.3

(mbar)

Average  ΔT Time-bin 0.3 to 0.34(mbar)

Summer

1-116

97.288-153.675

+0.0232

+0.0104

-70.3115

+13.7217

+12.7851

Summer

117-133

153.676-163.58

Data Missing from  Viking Project

 

 

 

Summer-Fall

134-199

163.359-201.294

+0.1224

+0.0459

-71.3448

+11.4991

+11.454

Fall

200-219

201.859-213.736

+0.2560

+0.0300

-75.64

+6.897

+8.16

Fall

220-304

214.316-268.687

+0.1362

+0.0231

-85.57

+2.1648

+5.8447

Later Fall to Winter

305-334

269.292-287.862

+0.3257

+0.0297

-86.56

+0.5386

+1.731

  Winter

 335-350

 288.441-297.84

 +0.3486

 +0.1144

-88.225

+0.4119

+0.4569

Table 5 – For Viking 1 Year 1, there was a larger pressure increase in the 0.26 to 0.3 time-bin than in the 0.3 to 0.34 time bins. From Sols 134 on, the magnitude of pressure increases in the first time bin was much greater than pressure drops associated with Martian dust devils. Both time-bins showed temperature increases. The amount of the temperature increases grew smaller from summer to winter, with slightly larger increases in the early time-bin in the summer and early fall, and slightly greater increases in the second time-bin from Viking 1 sol 200 onward.

 

TABLE 6: VIKING 2 (latitude 47.97º North PRESSURE AND TEMERATURE CHANGES
TIME-BINS 0.26 TO .3 AND .3 TO .34, SOLS 156 TO 361

SEASON

SOLS

Ls                                 0 to 89.99 = Spring;     90 to 179.99 = Summer; 180 to 269.99 =Fall;  270 to 360 (0) = Winter

 Average ΔP Time-bin 0.26 to 0.3

(mbar)

Average ΔP    Time-bin            0.3 to 0.34     (mbar)

Average Temperature °C for both 0.26 to 0.3 and 0.3 to 0.34 time-bins

Average ΔT °C Time-bin 0.26 to 0.3

(mbar)

Average ΔT °C Time-bin 0.3 to 0.34 (mbar)

Early Fall

156-175

202.161-214.046

+0.1260

-0.0605

-94.9583

+1.705

+4.689

Fall

176-199

214.626-229.357

+0.1382

-0.0504

-101.112

+1.0942

+3.05

Later Fall           (No Pressure data on sol 200)

201-260

230.596-269.005

+0.0698

+0.0265

-108.66

+0.3897

+1.3195

Late Fall to Winter

261-290

269.599-288.171

+0.2773

+0.0737

-109.153

+0.931

+0.6193

Winter

291-305

288.750-297.526

+0.2040

+0.1567

-111.0824

+0.1667

+0.2573

Winter

306-328

298.094-311.493

+0.1161

+0.0874

 

 

 

Winter

329-361

312.041-330.637

+0.0491

      +0.1282         (First larger pressure  increase  in this time-bin)

 

 

 

Winter (last 2 rows combined).

306-361

298.094-330.637

+0.0766

+0.1114

-110.275

-0.0884

+0.9902

Table 6 – With the exception of Sols 329 to 361, for all time-bins examined for Viking 2 Year 1, there was a larger pressure increase in the 0.26 to 0.3 time-bin than in the 0.3 to 0.34 time bins. Note: This study includes increased cooling rather than warming in the 0.3 to 0.34 time-bins on 12 sols. As the heater is needed more, pressures increase more during sols 329 to 361 in the later time-bin than in the earlier 0.26 to 0.3 time bin.

2.7. MSL Weather Reporting Fiasco.

       The MSL REMS Team initially put out continually flawed data at http://cab.inta-csic.es/rems/marsweather.html. The REMS Team went from listing the pressure on August 28, 2012 as 7.4 hPA (mbar) and the month as 3 when it was really month6; to a September 1, 2012 pressure of 742 hPa (Earth-like, seen in much of the U.S. West every day) in month 3 to 743 hPa pressure for September 2, 2012 which was correctly listed as month 6. Between September 5 and 6, 2012 reported pressures dropped from 7.47 hPa to 1% of that - 7.47 Pa. See Figure 17A.

 

Figure 17A: REMS data confusion: For the first 2 months the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS) Team at the Centro de Astrobiologia in Spain was confused about Martian month and pressure units. From September 1 to 5, 2012, they reported terrestrial-like pressures of over 740 hPa (mbar); then dropped back to similar numbers but with Pa. All winds were erroneously reported as 2 m/s (7.2 km/h).

 

Figure 17B: At least until April 3, 2013 winds were always stuck at 2 m/s from the east and no relative humidity was reported, however in May, 2013 they and Ashima Research altered all report winds to show wind as not available ever (due to damage suffered to Boom 1 on landing). Sunrise/sunset times were radical altered to line up with calculations done by David Roffman at http://davidaroffman.com/rich_text_15.html.

        Until July 3, 2013 we knew that over the last year the REMS Team and Ashima Research had put out clearly erroneous winds, sunrise and sunset times, pressure units, dates on their reports, months and claims about relative humidity that were not reflected on their reports. We (wrongly) assumed however that at least the temperature reports were reliable. That assumption was demolished on July 3, 2013 when they revised all temperatures back to the landing, wiping out scores of days where they had claimed high air temperatures above freezing. See Table 14 in Section 14.

      The 7.4 hPa pressure seen on Figure 17A for Sol 23 was totally consistent with Viking 1 and 2 pressures shown on Figure 12B. This does not mean we accept the 7.4 to 7.47 hPa pressure range on Figure 17A as being correct. We do not. We expected that the same type sensor, delivered to JPL at the same time as Phoenix, would produce similar results on MSL. One reason that we are suspicious (other than JPL changing some of its pressure data to meet our concerns as was highlighted on Table 3 in Section 2.4) is that as was the case with the Vikings, there was an inverse relationship between daily pressure and temperature. This is shown on Figures 18A to 18D below.

Figures 18A to 18D show that with MSL there was an inverse relationship between claimed ambient temperatures and pressures again.