NASA'S MARTIAN ACHILLES HEEL: MSL YEAR 1 WEATHER DATA

OVERVIEW. Martian weather and blue sky color seen simply do not match the low (near vacuum) Martian air pressure advocated by NASA (6.1 millbars/610 Hectopascals) at areoid, the Martian equivalent of sea level. There are abundant dust devils, even on a mountain named Arsia Mons to altitudes of 17 km above areoid, spiral storms with 10 km eye-walls above Arsia Mons. Dust storm opacity can cause darkness at noon. We have seen snow fall at the Phoenix lander, excessive aerobraking, stratus clouds 13 km above areoid, and nighttime temperature drops that are comparible to what is seen in Montana. Massive sand dunes are moving and rover tracks are filling in with sand, without adequate winds seen to explain the sand movement with such low air pressure and density. Vikings 1 and 2 plus Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) showed consistent timing of daily pressure spikes. A close analysis of the MSL Year 1 meteorological data shown on Table 1 backs our assertion that NASA is seriously understating Martian air pressure. This could be due to pressure transducer design flaws like tiny unchangeable dust filters in the Tavis sensors used for Viking 1, Viking 2 and Mars Pathfinder and again in the Vaisala sensors for Phoenix and MSL. These filters likely clog on landing.  The decision to send sensors with inadequate pressure ranges like the 11.5 millibar/1150 Hectopascal limit on MSL was also unwise for reasons we discuss below in conjunction with a mean pressure of 11.49 mbar first reported for Sol 370.

THE PEOPLE FACTOR - UNDERSTANDING MARS DATA OFTEN REQUIRES KNOWING THE PEOPLE BEHIND IT. We have interviewed many of them. Some are mentioned in this article, more are discussed in our Basic Report. While human error (we are being polite here) may explain the ludicrous pressures reported, there is also a possibility of deliberate disinformation. An example of such disinformation would be keeping the designer of the Vaisala sensor, Henriq Kahanpää of the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), from being told about nearby heat sources and even the number of air access tubes and dust filters used in conjunction with his sensor. NASA used International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) as an excuse but if they didn't want to give design critical information to a foreigner they should have hired an American to build the sensor.  That, of course, assumes that they were interested in learning the truth. The overall problems are discussed in Sections 2.2 to 2.4 of our report and in our PowerPoints.

UNDERSTANDING TABLE 1 AND IMPLICATIONS OF ITS DATA. Table 1 below shows how the weather at MSL varied for a Martian year between landing on August 6, 2012 (Sol 1) and Sol 669 on June 24, 2014.  In several cases the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS) Team and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) as well as Ashima Research (who worked for JPL) altered their published data after directly hearing from our Mars Correct Team. This is documented in this article with printscreens captured before and after our objections to their data. Alterations included the deletion of all wind data on May 11, 2013, a day after JPL Public Relations Representative Guy Webster admitted to us that all wind speeds were wrong due to damage suffered to Weather Boom 1 on landing.  Initially sunrise/sunset times for Gale Crater, Mars were only listed on reports by Ashima Research, and they were all wrong because they all showed a never changing sunrise at 6 am and sunset at 5 pm. The Martian day is never that short so close to the equator (4.59° South). Approximate day length times were first calculated by Barry Roffman in our Mars Correct Team and then precisely calculated by David A. Roffman. Relative humidity is always listed on REMS reports as N/A. We believe that relative humidity is at least in part listed as N/A because it would be affected by air pressure and NASA has that wrong, however we discuss it in detail elsewhere on this site. On Table 1 column subjects and color codings are as follows:

Column A (Sol). The Martian day is about 39 minutes longer than the terrestrial day. Occasionally (at MSL Sols 34, 106, 179, 215, 252, 267, 288, 328, etc.) the REMS reports indicated 2 days forward but only 1 sol forward.

Columns B is solar longitude (Ls). MSL is in the Southern Hemisphere on Mars. The landing was at Ls 150 in winter. Ls 180 begins the spring there.  Ls 270 starts summer, Ls 0 starts the fall. Ls 90 starts the winter.

Column C shows the date on Earth.

Columns D shows the original pressure reported by the REMS Team. The first pressure sent back was 705 Pascals which is 7.05 hPa or 7.05 millibars. No pressure this low was ever seen again and the REMS Team/JPL later deleted it and all other weather data for Sol 1. The next pressure given was on Sol 9. At 718 Pa it was also lower than any pressure seen again, and once again all data for that day was changed to Not Available. Of note are pressures for Sol 192 (940 Pa), Sol 200 (937 Pa) which were higher than anything they accepted after their revisions (shown in Column E). Both sol pressures were altered to N/A. Also very noteworthy were the original pressures for Sols 26 to 30 between September 1 and 5, 2012. All were between 742 and 747 hectopascals (hPa) which translates to 74,200 Pa up to 74,700 Pa. These pressures are equivalent to what would be seen on Earth at ski resorts in Colorado. The pressures were revised down by a factor 100 as is shown in Column E. So 747 hPa became 747 Pa, which is like replacing dollars with the same number of cents. While JPL may argue that the Earth-like pressures were due to typographical errors, the weather seen on Mars matches these pressures rather than the pressures given in Column E. As mentioned above Henriq Kahanpää was the designer of the pressure sensor for MSL. We know this guy. In response to an e-mail from us on December 15, 2009 he wrote back "“Your nose smelled also a real issue. The fact that we at FMI did not know how our sensor was mounted in the spacecraft and how many filters there were shows that the exchange of information between NASA and the foreign subcontractors did not work optimally in this mission!” Why mention that here? Because Kahanpää was on the REMS Team. We find it hard to believe that he could for essentially for a week accidentally report to the world pressures that were 100 times too high. Given the dissatisfaction that he expressed about how his sensor was being used by NASA in 2009, we think it's plausible that in protest he deliberately published the higher figure because that is what is there on Mars. However, a transducer with a top measurable pressure of 11.5 mbar could not measure a pressure of 747 mbar. To measure that a substitution would have to have taken place with or without his assistance. While we cannot prove that an alternate sensor was available to fly on MSL, we can prove that the same CAD for Mars Pathfinder included two identical appearing pressure sensors - one with a top measurable pressure of 12 mbar (Tavis Dash Number 2) while the other on the CAD (Tavis Dash Number 1) had a top measurable pressure of 1,034 mbar. See Section 2.2 of our Report.

Further, the original data shown for Sols 369 to 371, and in particular for Sol 370 shows the mindset of JPL.  It also reflects a specific response to a challenge that we phoned into JPL PR man Guy Webster. Sol 369 shows 865 Pa. For Sol 370 the mean pressure was up to 1149 Pa (11.49 mbar) which is higher than any pressure recorded by any lander and not altered for Mars. The following day the pressure was back at 865 Pa, exactly what it was two Martian days earlier. The problem that we brought to JPL's attention was that the pressure measured was constrained by the fact that the sensor could not measure more than 11.5 mbar (1150 Pa), and that amount is likely just a rounded off figure estimate. So to have an average pressure of 1149 Pa means that the pressure had to be higher than the maximum pressure that could be measured by the Vaisala pressures sensor. About 7 months after I bought up this issue the REMS Team and JPL simply eliminating the problem by altering the pressure for Sol 370 back down to 865 Pa to match what was given the day before and after the anomaly. In short, they lied. See Figure 1 for documentation of this allegation. As for the fact that NASA advertised sending a pressure sensor that we believed was inadequate, we specifically personally warned Dr. Ashwin Vasavada (MSL Project Scientist) just before he spoke at the International Mars Society Convention in Dallas, Texas on the night of August 6, 2011. We warned him again about it by phone in October, 2011. He indicated that he understood why we thought the Vaisala sensor was flawed, but it was evident that he was under pressure to launch the mission by December, 2011 lest they be required to wait another 2 years to get Mars back in position again. It was also evident that the mission priority was geology rather than meteorology.

Column E shows revised pressures given. The first pressure listed is for Sol 10 and it was 739 Pa. The highest pressure after revisions was 925 Pa (9.25 mbar) on Sols 170 and 171. This was also exactly the highest pressure recorded in MSL Year 2 (Sol 846 at Ls 257). We noticed a pattern in which after we highlighted in yellow sols for MSL Year 2 that had greater than a 7 Pa variance from Year 1, JPL often altered the pressure for the Year 2 date to under 7 mbar or less. During MSL Year 2 from MSL Sol 670 through 1,065 there were only 34 sols in which the pressure for the same Ls position varied by more than 7 Pa (.07 mbar) from what it was in Year 1. On Table 1 below for Year 1 surviving changes for 10 Pa or more in pressure from one sol to the next or from the original pressure to the revised pressure are highlighted in lavender. There seemed to be a deliberate policy of publishing pressures that were in line with Viking 1 and 2 data (see Figure 5 found below Tables 1 and 2). We believe that what is seen is more likely the result of political rather than actual pressure.

Column F shows the maximum air temperature now given, often after the REMS Team/JPL revised temperatures that were above the freezing point of water (on Earth) to temperatures below freezing on Earth. With respect to the freezing point, from 0° C at 1 atm pressure it will increase up to 0.01° C at 0.006 atm (which is about the average pressure on Mars as given by NASA). This is the triple point of water. At pressures below this, water will never be liquid. It will change directly between solid and gas phase (sublimation). The temperature for this phase change, the sublimation point, will decrease as the pressure is further decreased

Column G shows the revised maximum air temperatures. There seems to be a very disturbing effort was made by the REMS Team and JPL to alter almost all previous air temperatures that were above freezing to now read below freezing. We think this is more evidence of a deliberate effort made to paint Mars in a way that is less likely to procure funding for manned flight there. We used to assume that at least some of the pressure data was faked, but not the temperature data. Now we know that data manipulation, alteration, and manufacture has crept into all areas of MSL data.

Column H shows minimum air temperature.

Column I shows the air temperature range for each sol. On Earth temperatures can vary by 40 °C in deserts. In column I where the range is 58 °C ot 59 °C green background coloring points that out. However , where temperature ranges are 57 °C or less those sols are shown with blue backgrounds and white letters.

• The National Park Service claims that the world record in a diurnal temperature variation is 102 °F (57 °C) (from 46 °F (8 °C) to −56 °F (−49 °C)) in Browning, Montana (elevation 4,377 feet/1,334 meters) on January 23 to 24, 1916.
• However the Montana Department of Environmental Quality claims that Loma, Montana on January 15, 1972 (elevation 2,575 feet/785 meters) had a variation of 103 °F (57 °C) (from −54 °F (−48 °C) to 49 °F (9 °C)) in 1972 (see Andrew H. Horvitz, et al. A National Temperature Record at Loma, Montana, National Weather Service, 2002. Accessed 2008-11-02). So there were two days in the State of Montana where the temperature changed by 57 °C. Column I belows shows that in the 669 sols of MSL being on Mars (MSL Year 1) there were 88 sols in which the temperature dropped by 57 °C or less from day to night. That's 13.15% of the sols. These numbers tend to support Earth-like pressure.
  
• While the two 57 °C diurnal temperature variations in Montana occurred in the winter, of the eighty-eight 57 °C or less diurnal temperature variations at Gale Crate, Mars 32 were in the winter, 2 were in spring, 6 were in summer and 48 were in autumn.

Column J shows temperature range divided by 40. This allows us to compare terrestrial deserts with Gale Crater, Mars. How much cooling occurs at night is related to the density of the atmosphere. Here we see the ratio of cooling on a Mars sol to the typical 40 °C cooling figure for Earth's deserts shown with a green background when that ratio is under 1.5. Obviously if we alter the devisor from 40 °C  to 57 °C then 88 of the ratios will be altered to 1 or less than 1, meaning that Martian air pressure is indeed likely much higher than NASA claims.

Column K shows maximum ground temperature. As with terrestrial deserts, the ground on Mars heats more during the day than the air does, and it cools more at night than the air does. In Column K when the maximum ground temperature is given by REMS is above 0°C it is shown with red background or more.

Column L shows the original minimum ground temperature. When it is -90 °C or colder the background is in blue. Around Sol 443 the REMS Team/JPL elected to warm almost all these temperatures by 4 or 5 °C. The revised temperatures are in Column M. The ground temperatures are not very precise. Ground temperatures were supposed to be recorded with a thermopile on Boom 1 (which suffered some damage on landing). Assuming that Guy Webster (JPL P.R.) was correct when he told me that only the wind sensor was damaged on Boom1, the ground temperature sensor was supposed to view the Martian surface to the side of the rover through a filter with a passband of 8 to 14 microns. The requirement was to measure ground brightness temperature over the range from 150 to 300 K with a resolution of 2 K and an accuracy of 10 K. REMS has made a number of changes to ground temperatures they post since they began doing so in 2013.

Column M shows the revised minimum ground temperature. After what looks close to search/replace efforts for the bulk of the first 443 days and a hiatus in data until Sol 486 with almost all original temperatures dropped by 4 or 5 °C, the remaining temperatures in Column M essentially are the same as those on Column L. 

Column N shows the increase in temperature from the mast 1.5 meters above the ground down to the ground during the daylight hours. In column N anytime there is an increase in temperature of 20 °C or more this in indicated with an orange background. All ground temperatures were left off all the daily weather reports until July, 2013. In the first 669 sols of MSL (revised) weather reports there were 72 sols in which the value of temperature increases in column M was at least 20 °C.

Column O shows the decrease in temperature from the ground to the air at nights. If the data were valid we would expect similar heating or cooling to occur over the set distance from ground to boom. A quick survey of the data immediately shows that this was not found. In column N we see a variation in heating between 0 °C and over 30 °C. For nighttime cooling any variation from 11°C to 19°C is shown with a medium blue background. More than that is shown with a dark blue background. For night time cooling any variation over 10 °C is shown with a blue background.

Column P shows the ultraviolet radiation seen by MSL. All sols in MSL Year 1 have opacity listed as “sunny” which seems dubious. This appears to be true for MSL Year 2 also (at least up to Sol 1,065 on August 5, 2015). The international guidelines for UVI reporting established by the World Health Organization (WHO), has 11 numerical levels while only four levels are seen on the REMS reports (extreme was never seen).  Low means low danger from the sun's UV rays for the average person, Moderate is moderate risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure, High means high risk of harm from unprotected sun exposure. Protection against skin and eye damage is needed, 8 to 10: Very High means that unprotected skin and eyes will be damaged and can burn quickly.  During MSL Year 1 low UV is currently indicated for Sols 609, 619. During MSL Year 2 there was low UV on Sols 838, 839, 840, 841, 843,844, 800. 851, 853, 854, 855, 939, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1026 (1,021 was listed as low initially, then changed to high).

       NOTE: There is much more to this article after the 669 sols of weather data in the Table below. Please scan down the page to see it.