T or E

Of the eighteen or so context images for the T or E feature which can be found on the MSSS website, the two posted here give about as much information as one can hope for, given an average resolution of 245m/p. Of the eighteen, E0300178 gives the best indication that the feature looks like an "E," and R2301060 gives the best indication that the middle arm is comparable in width and depth to the familiar upper arm of the E, (also known as the "T feature" from SP243004), because the shading looks similar. Incidentally the nearby "gullies" from M0303753 that we have been looking at can not be seen in any context image because they are smaller, perhaps 1/4 the size of the T or E with respect to the width of the trench, though we didn't take measurements.

So under the premise that you can squeeze just so much water out of a stone, here they are.

E0300178


R2301060

Neil

Being an engineer, I examine the possible purpose of the "T or E" structure. There are no obvious erosion patterns leading to or away from the structure, so natural erosion is not apparent. To the left, there is a "fall" in the escarpment, where possibly a flow of material could come from. Having already mentioned a catch basin, another possibility is a revetment. Sentient beings and their capital equipment could lay low if surface impacts or near surface detonations were expected. The passages are at right angles to one another, which would give the users a choice of protection in all four directions.

For reasons of economics, risk, etc, it is not reasonable that they used chemicals as a source of energy, especially for propulsion. The next step is what I call "cold fission", in contrast to the commonly believed "cold fusion". This would give enough energy that hovering and vertical landing would not be a problem. Thus landing within the "T or E" would be practical.

Given the arid nature of Mars, capturing a large volume of water would have more value than gold. If the structural is artificial, there has to be a valuable or "profitable" purpose to making the structure. Otherwise, why do it?

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />Having already mentioned a catch basin, another possibility is a revetment. Sentient beings and their capital equipment could lay low if surface impacts or near surface detonations were expected. The passages are at right angles to one another, which would give the users a choice of protection in all four directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Very interesting. I see what you are getting at.

BTW, we calculated the wall slope angle on the stem of the T to be roughly 30 deg (see images on page 1 of this topic, including the "miners view" schematic). What do you think about that? Can you think of any reasons why that would be the "correct" wall angle?

rd

Very interesting. I see what you are getting at.

BTW, we calculated the wall slope angle on the stem of the T to be roughly 30 deg (see images on page 1 of this topic, including the "miners view" schematic). What do you think about that? Can you think of any reasons why that would be the "correct" wall angle?

rd
[/quote]

A slope of 30 degrees might be the maximum stable angle for "loose" material which is expected to experience significant shock waves. I am only guessing and checking with a civil engineer would get you a far better answer.

Us troops were placed in slit trenches within 1-1/2 miles of nuclear detonations. They survived the blast and were invited to walk to ground zero. This was during the manic 1950s of military testing. I don't recommend it.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />BTW, we calculated the wall slope angle on the stem of the T to be roughly 30 deg (see images on page 1 of this topic, including the "miners view" schematic). What do you think about that? Can you think of any reasons why that would be the "correct" wall angle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is known as the <i>angle of repose</i>. It varies for different materials depending on the size, shape, density, and coefficient of friction of the particulates. The density and coefficent of friction factors may allow for different values on Mars due to differences in gravity. The angle of repose for dry sand is around 43 degrees. The fact that the slope angle appears to be uniform is probably not significant for determining artificiality, since any uniform granular material (like volcanic ash, as I propose) would behave in exactly this way. Also, this type of material would tend to smooth out any underlying irregularities in the substrate, making wall and floors appear much more regular. For those of you who have experienced major snowfall, the visual effect of volcanic ash on a landscape is very similar. For those of you who have not experienced either, I think you may be at a disadvantage in interpreting these images.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />This is known as the <i>angle of repose</i>. It varies for different materials. The angle of repose for dry sand is around 43 degrees. The fact that the slope angle appears to be uniform is probably not significant for determining artificiality, since any uniform granular material (like volcanic ash, as I propose)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, that sounds like something to work with, it should be possible to prove that. But there's still the question of the high reflectivity of the area. I don't think volcanic ash would be that reflective, but your point is well taken, at least as far as the angle goes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>


For those of you who have experienced major snowfall<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Grew up in New York.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>

For those of you who have not experienced either, I think you may be at a disadvantage in interpreting these images.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That reminds me of the Star Trek movie "The Voyage Home" when Bones says to Spock, "you mean I have to die to talk about death?"

rd