[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 22 2007, 06:12 PM' post='93253']
...your answer above has tended to skirt the issue of the laminated structure of the Burns Formation as it relates to impacts.
[/quote]
See my discussion of surge deposit textures that was posted after you wrote this. Fine laminations and low angle cross-bedding, presumably caused by shear, characterize many surge deposits, despite their rapid deposition. Early in Mars history, there seems no limit to how many distant impacts could have contributed to the layering, although one big one might have been enough. Unlike with volcanism, impacts can occur anywhere, anywhen, into any available target, from a variety of possible impactor types, and be of any size (up to destroying the planet). A single volcanic surge eruption can result in many meters of section, containing many dozens of layers, varying in character between dune-like and relatively flat-bedded, with some containing disseminated accretionary lapilli and some not. Kilbourne Hole, New Mexico is a famous example of such a deposit, with slopes that resemble Burns Cliff, and dune forms that Gene Shoemaker initially ascribed to wind.
[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 22 2007, 06:12 PM' post='93253']
...
explosive volcanism on Earth could produce laminated, even cross-bedded, sediments of a similar appearance, and I, for one, would agree entirely with such an alternate cause if there were a range of stratovolcanos evident on the margins of the Meridiani Planitia.
[/quote]
I am reduced to citing volcanic analogs because, to be frank, no one has seen a surge formed by an impact (except presumably the dinosaurs and pterosaurs, who didn't live to tell about it), on this planet or any other. Impact deposits on this planet (except the coarse fraction - commonly called suevite if it is glassy) are weathered and eroded virtually immediatedly, unless they settle on the ocean, in which case they are water reworked, resorted, and highly hydrated (the fragmentary record of Chicxulub, the dinosaur-terminating impact, is largely written in gummy clay pseudomorphs). Owing to its dry, cold, near-vacuum conditions for most or all the past 3.8 billion years, Mars may turn out to be the best place in the Solar System to preseve a record of impact processes on a planet with subsurface volatiles and an atmosphere. Volcanoes, on the other hand, on Earth explode almost every week or month somewhere, so surge processes can be observed, and deposits can be fresh and unaltered, plus older deposits are commonly preserved under a capping lava flow, scoria deposit, or ignimbrite (welded ash flow tuff). Stratovolcanoes, as you probably know from your use of the word, would not be expected anywhere on Mars, owing to the lack of plate tectonics (they generally form only above subduction zones), nor would Yellowstone Park caldera-type supervolcanoes, because there is no hydrous granitic crust for a mantle plume to melt. In any case, even if Meridiani were a record of such an eruption, we'd might never know it, because the surge beds would probably be buried beneath a much thicker layer of erosion-resistant ignimbrite (welded tuff).
[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 22 2007, 06:12 PM' post='93253']
...But that is quite apart from the question as to whether
bolide impacts could produce an accumulation of ejecta resembling the Burns Formation. Many of us have a real problem with that. Impacts do form layered ejecta, but generally not more than two or three layers
per impact, and these layers are usually quite distinctive lithologically. I think there are about three detectable in the mid North American continent from the Chicxulub impact. The lowermost from the high velocity jets of ballistic ejecta, the middle from the fallback surge of the collapsing ejecta column, and the third from the slow rain of fine distal fallout re-entering the atmosphere globally.
[/quote]
Your guess is as good as mine - because, like all scientific hypotheses, ours an informed guess with considerable evidence to support it and apparently nothing impossible (like a little boy claiming his grandmother was an ant or an elephant instead of merely dead on a test day) against it. Chicxulub, for which a highly imperfect record is recorded in a few spots fairly close by, impacted into the sea, with a rock target of layered carbonate rocks and anhydrite, on a planet with a strong gravity field and a relatively dense atmosphere, so it may not be representative of Mars processes.
[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 22 2007, 06:12 PM' post='93253']
...We can see scores to hundreds of layers in the lower parts of the Victoria capes. They are remarkably uniform in scale and appearance. Since a rain of meteorites would distribute more or less randomly over Mars, it is hard to credit that some would not land closer to Meridiani and produce much thicker (meter-scale) layers, as can be seen in the Caribbean environs of Chicxulub. It is hard to imagine that the coarser proximal ejecta would not appear anywhere in the series, excepting the Victoria ejecta at the surface.
[/quote]
Congratulations! You have put your finger right on the weakest aspect of the impact surge argument. This group is really as sharp as I'd hoped it would be!
![biggrin.gif](http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
I can answer you in several possible ways, none completely satisfactory. 1) Oppy has imaged only a small portion of the Meridiani layers, those at the very top, which, being the youngest, could have formed when impacting had tailed off, and been distant (its lack of coarse surface material was, after all, what moved it to the top of possible landing site choices - it's possibly a biased sample, in other words). Coarse ejecta or surge layers may lie below the layers exposed, or may even be exposed somewhere deep in Victoria. Such a finding (of coarse pieces) would still be ambiguous, however, because ballistic ejecta could in theory land anywhere on Mars, at any time, on top of any type of sediment (and dust could settle, but it wouldn't stick around, unless the surface were sticky). 2) Coarse surface ejecta has been found at each landing site to date (and at others abandoned from consideration when too many surface boulders were found). Also, coarse layers of boulders in the midst of fine layers have been imaged by HiRISE in various spots - as noted by Emily in the post that inspired me to stop lurking here about a week ago. Finally, in its rush to get to Victoria (and not get stuck again), Oppy by-passed several areas of coarse broken rock imaged at a distance by the Pancam. These appeared to be lag deposits, and could imply wind erosion of a coarse layer stratigraphically just above the layers now exposed. 3) Sand grains carried by the wind whipping across the plain of Meridiani would eventually plane off and erode any coarse ejecta, unless it were buried - look at what has happened to the coarse ejecta blanket of Victoria (I admit that, given the slow rate of erosion on Mars, this is kind of like my arguing to teacher that my third dead grandma had an unusual sexual preference for the time or my grandpa had a sex change operation). 4) Perhaps my best answer is to simply cite William K. Hartmann, in his marvelous 2003 book "A Traveler's Guide to Mars", as noting that impact into sand or soft sandy sediments is going to mainly scatter more sand. (I don't have the book here at home, but I believe he used the phrase "produce a kablooey of sand and dust" which is not a bad description of a turbulent surge cloud.) In other words, by the end of the late heavy bombardment, much of Mars may have been so beat up that many impacts were "beating a dead horse" in terms of producing coarse ejecta.
But hey, each kid (or hypothesis in this case) is allowed up to two dead grandmothers, isn't he?
![smile.gif](http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
This is only the first that I'm aware of. (Note, we can't allow two per author, because that would give the Athena Science team an unfair advantage, although, IMHO, they might have exceeded their allowance even with that unfair method of counting.)
[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 22 2007, 06:12 PM' post='93253']
...In many ways this argument is analogous to that which you make for blueberries. How can there be so many, so uniform and limited in size range? Actually I have less trouble believing that a broad, uniform plain of well-mixed thin sand layers, as Meridiani may once have been, could, when exposed to brief episodes of uniform wetting with very limited supplies of slow-moving groundwater, produce a crop of very uniform concretions with very limited growth, before the Big Freeze-Dry stopped everything but the wind.
...Furthermore, the berry distribution through the evaporite is
even, as might be expected from a growth process strictly confined by a limited supply of solute, rather than random or aggregated as might be expected for accretionary lapilli being tossed and hurled by the violent currents of an impact surge.
[/quote]
I obviously can't stop you from believing what you want, but I thought I'd already covered this in previous posts, to a certain extent. I've spent much of my life looking for signs of fluid flow (mainly of hydrothermal fluids) and so far none have been imaged at either landing site, IMHO. (White deposits in surface cracks don't count because, like white desert caliche in cracks, they mainly indicate capillary action of moisture near the surface - an expected finding in the presence of water-attracting, soluble salts.) On the other hand, I can go anywhere in the Navajo (or Page) Sandstones, cited by the MER team and Marjorie Chan as a Mars analog, and see that the distribution of hematitic concretions (all red-brown and never blue-gray, of various sizes and shapes, commonly clumped together in nodular masses) is related to brine mixing and flow - distribution along former water tables, along fractures, both cutting across and along specific bedding planes, sudden lateral terminations, etc.). This distribution bears no resemblance to that at Burns Cliff or elsewhere.
If you put a less dense brine on top of a more dense brine, as the MER team proposes formed hematite from jarosite, it will sit there essentially forever - diffusion is possible over at most a meter or two in a sandy aquifer (water-saturated porous, permeable rock). How thick is Burns Cliff, which appears to be "spheruled" throughout? If you inject a less dense brine into a more dense brine from below, it will simply rise to the top as a plume, and you have the same problem again. How do you uniformly mix such brines across an area the size of the state of Oklahoma? It shouldn't even be possible in one place. (I trust some hydrologists will back me up in this.) Besides which, as mentioned in previous posts, rocks so rich in soluble salts should become impermeable owing to recrystallization within a very short time of being immersed in a saturated brine.
In our 2005 Nature article, Knauth described how presumed layered impact spherules (altered accretionary lapilli, as for Chicxulub, about 5 mm in diameter, as for Meridiani) in Archean (oldest known terrestrial) layered rocks are widely and uniformly distributed across areas of South Africa and Australia comparable to the Meridiani hematite area. Therefore, impact still seems like a far more reasonable process than brine mixing to scatter uniformly tiny hematitic spherules across such a wide area. I would be willing to wager that, no matter where future landers might land, no hematitic spherules or small groups of spherules larger than could be supported in a turbulent surge cloud will be found. (Of course, Oppy may prove me wrong as soon as it enters Victoria, or it may find some shale layers suggesting standing water (or compressed loess, deposits of airborne-dust), but right now I'd be willing to bet against either possibility. Note: some exceptionally big hailstones, such as those in the US national news last week, are large enough to break car windshields. I suspect that the Meridiani "hematite hailstones" (if that's what they really are) may themselves represent an exceptionally coarse deposit, judging from their apparent uniqueness on the martian surface.)
[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 22 2007, 06:12 PM' post='93253']
...I am sure that the MER team model for Meridiani leaves some questions unanswered, but I still think it leaves fewer than the impact or volcanic alternatives. I don't have the chemistry expertise to deal with those issues, but as I drive around the Meridiani Planitia, courtesy of my good friend Opportunity, I get the sense that this has been one of the
quieter, more-peaceful corners of Mars for much of its history. It's been a nice place to sit and ponder.
[/quote]
We weren't there 3.8 billion years ago, and neither was Oppy. Everything since has been pretty calm, perhaps, but no more so than across most of the rest of Mars. (As mentioned above, if it hadn't been a calm spot since then, Oppy wouldn't have landed there. Also, remember what Bill Hartmann said about a kablooey of sand likely obscuring part of the cratering record.)
BTW, please excuse any typos in this and several previous posts. These are proofread by no one, least of all me. I say that because doing these posts is an exercise like taking a very, very long essay exam, and I don't want you taking any points off for my poor proofreading.
![smile.gif](http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
(Writing essays is something I haven't had to do for 40 years or so, and back then it was all in longhand.) Lots of role reversal going on here, and this group has some potentially great professors!
--Don