MARS CORRECT BASIC REPORT - SECTION 15

HOME PAGE Web Site Contents Mars Report Contents Mars Report Abstract CV for Dr. David Roffman Diplomas PhD Thesis PhD Thesis Powerpoint Mars PowerPoint MSL Weather Reports Seasonal Pressure Altitude Calculations MSL Year 4 Spring Weather MSL Yr 3-4 Winter Weather MSL Fall Yr 3 Weather MSL Yr. 3 Summer Weather MSL Yr. 3 Spring Weather Martian plume March 25 2017 MSL Ultraviolet 3 YEARS OF MSL UV Desai, EDL, Parachutes & ExoMars Mars winter vs. summer temps Helo to Mars Sea at Utopia Planitia, Mars Tree Stump at MSL? Spherical life on Mars? Mars Report Abstract, 1-1.2 Mars Report Sec.2-2.1 Report 2.2-2.4 Report 2.5-2.5.2 Report 2.5.3-2.7 Report 3-4 Report 4.1-4.1.2 Report 5 to 6 Report  7-7.2.1 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10-11 Report  12-12.2 Report 12.3-12.5 Report 12.6 Report 13-14 Report 14.1 Report 14.2-14.3 Report 14.4-14.6.2 Report 14.6.3-14.7 Report 15 Report 16-19 Report References Report Afterword Rebuttal of REMS Report Running water on Mars MSL Year 0 Weather MSL Yr 2 Winter-Spring Weather MSL Yr 2 Summer Weather MSL Yr 2 Fall Weather MSL Yr 2-3 Winter Weather Adiabatics MSL Hi Temps MSL Low Temps Organic Chem found by MSL Oxygen in Mars Air MSL Day length & Temp Warm winter ground temps 155-Mile High Mars Plume Radiation Diurnal Air Temp Variation Mars Temps Fahrenheit Beagle found JPL/NASA Pressure Mistakes Enter MarsCorrect Sol 370, 1160 & 1161 Histories Mars-Radio-Show JPL Fudges Pressure Curves MSL Temp. ∆ Mast to Ground High & Low Pressures Normalized Mars soil 2% water Moving rock Mars MAVEN MSL Relative Humidity Claim Ashima Concedes Original MSL Weather Record Old MSL Weather Record MSL Summer Weather Pressure Estimate REMS Wind MSL Pressures REMS Reports Curiosity Geology CERN-2013-pics Daylight Math MSL Errors P1 MSL Errors P2 MSL-Chute-Flap MSL daylight Ashima Sols 15 to 111 Ashima Sol 112 to 226 Ashima Sol 227 on New Ashima Sols 270+ MSL Summer to Sol 316 Updated Secrets of Mars Weather Forecast Wind Booms MSL Credibility MSL Temp. Swings MSL Temperatures Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) VL2 - MSL Ls Comparson Ashima MIT Mars GCM Dust Storm Nonsense Mars Slideshow Moving Sand & Martian Wind 3 DEC12 Press Conf. MSL Press Conf. 15NOV2012 Sol Numbering MSL Pressure Graph to Ls 218.8 MSL Sky Color Mars Sky Color DATA DEBATE! Zubrin's Letter Phoenix Vaisala Vaisala Pressure Sensors Phoenix &MSL Flawed MSL REMS Viking pressure sensors failed MSL landing site Mars Landings Phobos Grunt Martian Air Supersaturation Mars & CH4 Mars and MSL Time Viking Pressure Audit Links Mars Society 2008 Quant Finance Frontiers Home Front. Preface Frontiers Ch. 1 Frontiers Ch. 2 Antimatter Lightning Frontiers Ch. 3 Frontiers Ch. 4 Frontiers Ch. 5 Frontiers Ch. 6 Frontiers Ch. 7 Frontiers Ch. 8 Frontiers Ch. 9 Frontiers Ch 10 Frontiers Ch 11 Frontiers Ch 12 Frontiers Ch 13 Frontiers Ch 14 Frontiers Ch 15 Frontiers Ch 16 Frontiers Ch 17 Frontiers Ch 18 Frontiers Ch 19 Frontiers Ch 20 Frontiers Ch 21 Frontiers Ch 22 World Tour Spring-Break -13 Other Travels Asteroid Impact? ExoMars data Unit Issues Viking Pressures Tavis CADs Landing Long Scale Heights LS of Max/Min Pressures Tavis Report Tavis Failures Lander Altitude Martian Trees? Code Experiment Gedanken Report Mars Nuke? Martian Flares Mach Numbers MOLA (altitude) Original Mars Report Mariner 9 & Pressure Mars  Temps MSL Time MPF Pressure Blog Debates Spring Pendulum Plasma Model Reporting Errors Orbital Parameters Anderson Localization P. 1 Anderson Localization P. 2 Moving rock old Navigating Mars Mars Report Section Links Mars Report Figure Link Gillespie Lake rock outcrop MSL Sol 200 Anomaly Sol 1300&1301 Anomalies Gilbert Levin & Labeled Release Brine on Mars Ceres Lights Yr 1 Table 1 Missing data Mitchell Report Old Mars Report All MPF Temps ExoMars fails Did Spirit find past life? MSL ground temps go haywire OPACITY AT MSL Luminescence on Mars Photo 4

Ultraviolet Radiation and the Global Dust Storm of 2018. This page updated on 7/12/2018.

15. ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION AND CLOUD COVER AT MSL.

      On February 20, 2016 it appeared that for the 1,256 sols accounted for the (µv values recorded (or missing) indicated the following:

 

Table 23 - UV FOR THE FIRST 1,256 MSL SOLS

UV INDEX

NUMBER OF SOLS

% of SOLS

EXTREMELY HIGH (µv value 5)

0

0%

VERY HIGH (µv value 4)

192 (only 17 in Year 2)

15.3866%

HIGH (µv value 3)

490

39.0127%

MEDIUM (µv value 2)

464

36.9427%

LOW (µv value 1)

19

1.5127%

N/A

91

7.2452%

Average µv value = 2.733906 for 1,167 sols; 91 had no data

 

 

Table 23 – Initial ultraviolet radiation reported through 1,256 sols at MSL.

       However we were aware that our exact count of medium and high µv values might have been slightly off because the REMS reports relied primarily on a color code to denote µv level, and the colors they chose for medium and high values were almost identical. As a backup, it was possible to put a cursor on the symbol for each sol. Eventually a printed value would appear that would make the level clear, but this was a very time consuming process that I put off until I found on February 22, 2016 that the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) - was on my web site (again) reading a previous version of this report (which included Table 23). The IP address was 193.166.22.5. The FMI invented the problematic pressure sensor used on Phoenix and MSL. They also form part of the REMS Team that is responsible for all the problematic (Non-Malin) weather reports from Gale Crater on Mars. So I decided to check every medium and high µv report. The May 14, 2016 updated results are shown below in Table 24.

TABLE 24

FIGURES BELOW ARE FROM THE REMS TEAM AFTER THEY VISITED OUR SITES AND REVISED THEIR DATA AGAIN. Table 23 shows µv for 1,338 MSL sols.

UV INDEX

NUMBER OF SOLS

% of SOLS

EXTREMELY HIGH          (µv value 5)

0

0%

VERY HIGH   (µv value 4)

192

14.3498

HIGH (µv value 3)

543

 

40.583%

MEDIUM (µv value 2)

495

36.9955%

LOW (µv value 1)

0. However, after REMS/NASA read this Table 12 low µv readings were restored in 2017.

0% altered again to 0.9756%

N/A

108

8.0717%

Average µv value = 2.753659 for 1,230 sols (108 had no data).

 

 

Table 24: µv radiation reported up to Sol 1,338 after the REMS Team dropped all 19 original low µv values and then restored 12 of them.

We noted on 2/22/2016 that after a visit to our sites by the FMI which, working for the REMS Team and NASA bears responsibility for all MSL weather instruments, all 19 low µv values were altered to N/A or medium. All low µv values after 2/22//2016 were also altered.  As we originally wrote this there were new low µv values posted by the REMS Team for Sols 1,610 and 1,611. We noted them on at http://marscorrect.com/photo4_19.html and have a print-screen of Sol 1,610 at http://marscorrect.com/images/sol_1610_error_fixed.png. Within three days of posting the low values JPL again altered them both (to Not Available).

The µv results shown on Tables 23 and 24 were a bit surprising. If we use a number of 5 to represent a µv index of extremely high, 4 for very high, 3 for high, 2 for medium, and 1 for low, then (ignoring 91 sols where there was no data on Table 23, the average µv index was only about 2.7334 – between medium and high. For Table 24 where there was no data for 108 sols, the average µv index was only about 2.753659. 

For the third year of MSL on Mars there were no surviving low µv findings. The new summary of µv findings for the first three Martian years (2,007 sols) of operations is given on Table 25.

 

TABLE 25 - µv FOR 2,007 SOLS

+

 

NUMBER OF SOLS

% of SOLS

EXTREMELY HIGH (µv value 5)

0

 0%

VERY HIGH (µv value 4)

250 (only 17 in Year 2)

13.18565%

HIGH (µv value 3)

1,095

 57.753%

MEDIUM (µv value 2)

539

 28.428%

LOW (µv value 1)

12 (none of these were in Year 3)

 0.6329%

N/A

111

 

 

Average µv value = 2.8349 for 1,886 sols; 111 had no data

 

 

Table 1D Initial ultraviolet radiation reported through 2,007 sols at MSL. 

The µv results shown on Table 25 were a bit surprising. If we use a number of 5 to represent a µv index of extremely high, 4 for very high, 3 for high, 2 for medium, and 1 for low, then (ignoring 111 sols where there was no data on Table 25, the average µv index was only about 2.8349 – between medium and high. This is surprisingly low because NASA often cites what sounds like extremely high radiation (due to its allegedly thin atmosphere, lack of an atmospheric ozone layer and lack of a magnetic field) as reason why it is so difficult for life to survive on the surface of Mars, however there are other types of radiation - not included on the REMS weather reports - that are supposedly measured by MSL Curiosity. In addition to identifying neutrons, gamma rays, protons, and alpha particles (subatomic fragments consisting of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, identical to helium nuclei, the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) RAD identifies heavy ions up to iron on the periodic table. You can view all of the µv data for the first three Martian years of MSL Year 3 in Annex U at http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20U.pdf.

15.1 Solar Longitude for sols at MSL with very high and low ultraviolet radiation

While Viking 1, Viking 2 and MSL high pressure air measurements were close to perihelion (closest approach to the sun) as shown on Figure 75 the relationship of perihelion to UV was far less certain. The few low µv values that survived NASA editing are spread out around the Martian orbit of the sun but the very high µv values were largely limited to the time between the start of spring and the start of fall in southern hemisphere where MSL sits. The average Ls of very high Ls readings was 234.5 whereas the Ls of perihelion when Mars is closest to the sun is 251.          

Figure 75 above Ls of Mars when MSL was experiencing low v (top half) or very high v (bottom half). All low v values were removed by the REMS Team or JPL in 2016, but those shown above were reinserted by them in 2017.

Figure 76 above – Initial low µv values reported by the REMS Team and how the reports were altered. All low µv values between Sol 608 (April 22, 2014) and Sol 1200 on December 22, 2015 were obliterated by February 22, 2016. We caught this on the day that FMI visited the MarCorrect.com website. There was some elimination of low µv values before this (after we highlighted them) and FMI, the REMS Team and multiple NASA IP addresses were caught reviewing our µv data before the low µv values were eliminated. By October, 2017 JPL added back 12 low µv values.

      When I did a data check on 2/22/2016 I wasn’t surprised to find that I had made the wrong color judgment for about 10 sols, and the corrections were immediately made on my website spreadsheet for µv reports at http://marscorrect.com/photo2_17.html. However, I was shocked to find that after I went to a great deal of trouble to graphically illustrate exactly where Mars was in its orbit around the sun when low µv was reported, all 19 incidents had been removed by the REMS Team and NASA. We believe that this action is another response to critiques seen throughout our websites.

       Figure 75 shows print-screen records of several low µv values before they were tossed out of what was presented to the public after all such data was massacred. But while we thought we had summed up in the µv situation with Figure 76, again REMS shocked us reading our Report and restored at least 12 low µv values by October, 2017. The restored data is captured on Figures 76A and 76B.

       Why are low µv values problematic for NASA? One might think that with the ultra-thin atmosphere espoused by them, and no ozone layer, ultraviolet radiation on Mars would be extremely high on at least some days. But at least up to Sol 2060 on May 23, 2018 it never was, even though the REMS Team alleged that every single day at MSL so far has been “sunny.” However, this claim by the REMS Team is easily refuted with data provided by the Malin Space Science Systems.

       Why is the REMS Team indecisive about the idea of low µv values? Quite simply, 19 sols with low µv does not fit well with an atmosphere <1 % of Earth’s, no ozone layer, and clear sky. That NASA threw out all low µv values after they read our concerns makes their action all the more suspect, especially because they have thrown out all wind reports after our objections, changed their totally wrong sunrise and sunset times to match David Roffman’s calculations, and we document many changes made to their temperature and pressure data after we color- highlighted obvious concerns on our weather spreadsheets for MSL Years 1, 2, and 3 (see http://marscorrect.com/cgi/wp/?page_id=622 for links to all our data). Now again, after we recorded our observation of them removing low µv values, we record them read them reading our critique again and restoring most of these values. Eight years ago (now) Dr. David Roffman set out to understand Martian weather. At my suggestion, he wrote a simple 10-page paper (Case for Higher Than Advertised Martian Air Pressure – see http://davidaroffman.com/rich_text_6.html) for a technical writing course at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. That 10-page paper grew into this 1,000+-page full Report (including our Annexes and Appendices). Indeed, with NASA and foreign space agencies constantly at our web sites reading the latest edition of this Report we can state that this Report is becoming a controlling factor in what NASA tells the world about Mars and in what the world believes about NASA’s credibility on this topic. As such, we never took down our graphics about the original low µv values posted by the REMS Team. We are right. NASA is wrong. They know it, and thus as Figures 77A and 77B show, even on this they caved in to us and restored most of the low µv values.

Figure 77A After the REMS Team (a) dropped all v values and (b) read our concerns about their behavior they changed at least 12 sols back to low v.

 

Figure 77B After the REMS Team (a) dropped all v values and (b) read our concerns about their behavior they changed at least 12 sols back to low v. Figure 77B shows such changes that were not documented on Figure 77A.

 

Figure 78 below Not all changes away from low v were restored. As for October 12, 2017 no such restoration has been made yet for Sol 1006.

The data published by the REMS Team/JPL also mention opacity, but as of June 18, 2018 none of the 2080 reports ever varied from SUNNY. There is reason to question the validity of this data, and in fact it is refuted by photos taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and published by Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS).

Relative humidity is higher than expected in some parts of Gale Crater (see Figures 49 and 50 earlier in Section 13). There is brine underground and JPL has indicated that possible RSL have also been seen on the slopes of Mount Sharp in Gale crater (the location of the Curiosity rover), but that has not been confirmed yet. It is also not yet known if the rover would be able to reach them. But given the possibility of so much water, it seems odd that not one day at MSL has been reported to be cloudy by the REMS Team.

       Clouds can be seen drifting by behind the Telltale wind device on Phoenix on its Sol 103, but Phoenix landed in the Martian arctic. Stratus clouds were seen 16 km above the Mars Pathfinder - see Figure 46. It landed at 19.1 degrees North which like MSL Curiosity is in the tropics).

       Clouds were seen at MER Opportunity (http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/20080324_Opportunity.html). It landed at 1.9462°S 354.4734°E.The MSL curiosity landed at a latitude of 4.59 degrees South. The approximate difference in latitude (4.59-1.95) is only 2.64 degrees. As each one degree difference of latitude in Mars is about 59 km, these clouds, though not at the longitude of MSL, were only 155.76 km (96.7847769 miles) north of Curiosity's latitude.  

       Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS) showed that, as we suspected, the claim up through Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Curiosity Rover Sol 2,080 that all 2,080 sols reported were “sunny” is a false claim. Rather, it appears, NASA/JPL and in particular Malin have permitted the truth to be published, but not on the primary weather reporting site run by the REMS Team. We think the entire REMS Team should immediately be replaced by Malin, with a possible degree of oversight exercised by the Roffman Mars Correct Team in the U.S. and our partners in Europe – Marco de Marco and Matteo Fagone.

       The MSSS images were derived from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mars Color Imager. A selection of weekly image videos for the period of time from MSL's landing on August 6, 2017 up through September 10, 2017 was shown earlier as Table 14 in Section 9 of this report.  The selection was for weeks when MSSS reported weather that seemed to contradict the never-changing sunny reports provided by the REMS Team. All the images were from MARCI (Mars Color Imager) which produces a global weather map of Mars to help characterize daily, seasonal, and year-to-year variations in the red planet's climate. MARCI also observes processes such as dust storms and changes in the polar cap using five visible bands.  In addition, MARCI makes ultraviolet observations at two wavelengths to detect variations in ozone, dust, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. MARCI observes these processes on scales of tens of kilometers. The Principal Investigator is Mike Malin.

       Figure 79 shows sols that were labelled sunny by the REMS Team, but where dubious when we examined the Malin record.

       From October 29, 2012 to November 4, 2012 rather than describe Gale Crater as being sunny, MSSS indicates that water ice clouds persisted at equatorial latitudes including near the Curiosity Rover site in Gale Crater.

Figure 79 Sunny skies advertised for MSL Sols 82 to 88 were not backed by the MSSS MARCI images.

15.2. The Global Dust Storm of 2018. Figure 80 shows that when the 2018 Global Dust Storm hit MSL that µV levels dropped to low. The figure shows MSL Sols 2082 to 2090. Low µV continued until at least Sol 2097. Although this storm totally blocked out the sun at MER Opportunity as is shown later in Figure 82, enough sunlight had been blocked at MSL to prevents shadows from being formed, and to obscure many geographic features (see Figure 83). When we saw similar dust storm on Earth darken Luke Air Force Base pressure rose by at least 6.6 mbar in an hour. Even if we say that gravity on Mars is only 38% of Earth's, an overhead mass of dust with a similar weight should produce an increase in pressure of a least 38% of 6.6 mbar. That's about 2.598 mbar which is 250.8 Pa.

       Let's look at how our spreadsheets cover the 2018 dust storm at MSL. Table 25 below shows the weather from MSL Sol 2080 (about a day before the storm arrived) up through Sol 2097. The µV dropped from HIGH in Sol 2080 to LOW by Sol 2082 See Column R).  Looking at Column C for the pressure during the storm, and Column Q for the pressure at the same Ls in the previous Martian year, pressures in Year 4 dropped by 13 to 24 Pa from the previous year. The average drop in pressure was about 17.8 Pa which is similar to what we were seeing before the dust arrived. At Sol 2090 MSL Curiosity was at an altitude of about 4193 meters below areoid.  The Sol from the previous Martian year where the Ls was the same was Sol 1422 which was 8/6/2016 on Earth. At that time Curiosity was about 4,400 meters below areoid. So it climbed about 207 meters since then.  Based on a scale height calculation with 610 Pa (6.1 mbar) at areoid, climbing 207 meters from 4,400 meters to 4,193 meters below aeroid pressure should drop 17.4 Pa IF there is no dust storm. The scale height calculation is as follows:

KILOMETERS   10.8 km Scale Height (MARS)  RATIO A/B   =-EXP(C value)   1/D scale height
  
PRESSURE MARS BARS  PRESSURE INMBAR  PRESSURE IN PASCALS  DROP IN PRESSURE
FROM YEAR 3 T0 4
ONLY DUE TO CLIMB
-4.4 10.8 -0.407407407 -0.665373057 -1.50291628 1.50291628 9.167789309 916.7789309  
-4.193 10.8 -0.388240741 -0.678249041 -1.474384686 1.474384686 8.993746585 899.3746585 17.40427243
0 10.8 0 -1 -1 1 6.1 610 AREOID

      What does it mean that the scale height calculation for drop in pressure due to increase in altitude (17.4 Pa) almost exactly matches the drop in pressure supposedly measured by MSL (17.8 Pa - a 97.75% agreement? It means that the NASA data is not credible. While some team player took the time to do the scale height calculation before giving us false data, he (or she) forgot that dust adds weight to the atmosphere. The pressure should have increased - probably by at least 100 Pa - rather than decreased. If it got as dark at MSL as it was at Opportunity due to this storm then the pressure should have gone up by about 233 Pa (the 250.8 Pa calculated above considering Mars gravity minus the 17.8 Pa lost due to altitude increase). We must therefore conclude that again we see the REMS Team caught manufacturing data.

TABLE 25 - Weather at MSL for Sols 2080 to 2097 during the 2018 Global Dust Storm

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

 K

L M N O P Q R S

T

U

 

SOL

~LS

PRESSURE Pa   

EARTH DATE

MAX AIR TEMP °C   

MIN AIR TEMP °C

AIR TEMP RANGE °C

AIR TEMP RANGE °C/40

MAX GROUND TEMP °C

MIN GROUND

TEMP °C

∆ GROUND TEMP DAY    TO NIGHT

DAYTIME CHANGE IN TEMP °C  AIR TO GROUND

NIGHTTIME CHANGE IN TEMP °C AIR TO GROUND

PRESSURE AT SAME LS IN MSL YEAR 3

∆ PRESSURE YEAR 4 TO YEAR 3 SAME LS 

~LS year 3

PRESSURE YEAR 1 BEFORE REVISION 

UV

YR


UV

YR

3

MSL YEAR 3 SOL FOR THIS LS/

COMMENTS

MSL Altitude meters  below areoid

           

YELLOW IF <60 °C

GREEN IF<1.5

RED IF

> 0 °C

PURPLE = >-90°C OR COLDER

YELLOW NUMBERS = -80 to -89 °C,

red background = -90°C or colder drop

BLUE = >10°C

PURPLE = >10°C

  YELLOW = 
> 7 Pa)
           
2080 192 768 6/13/2018 2 -67 69  1.725  11 -70  -81 9  -3 782  -14 192 N/A  H H  (1412) -4,192 
2081 192  770

6/14/2018

Dust storm

-3 -69  66 1.65  6 -71   -77 9  -2 784  -14  193 N/A   M H  (1413) 

-4,192 

 

2082 193 768 

6/15/201

Dust storm

-15 -64 49 1.225 0 -64  -64 15 0 785 -17 193  N/A   L H  (1414) 

-4,192 

2083 194 769

6/16/2018

Dust storm

-14 -63 49  1.225 -1 -63 -62  13 0   787 -18 194 N/A   L  H  (1415) 

-4,192

2084 194 771

6/17/2018

Dust storm

-21 -65 44 1.1 -14 -58 -44 7 +7 791 -20 194 N/A   L  H  (1416) 

-4,192 

2085 195 772

6/18/2018

Dust storm 

-24 -58  34 0.85 -17 -56 -39 7 +2 791  -19 195  N/A  L  H  (1417) 

-4,192

2086 195  776

6/19/2018

Dust storm

 
-25 -57 32 0.8  -17 -58  -41 8  -1 793 -17 196 N/A  L  H  (1418)  -4,191
2087 196 780

6/20/2018

Dust storm

 
-28 -59 31 0.775 -15 -57 -42 13 +2  793   -13 196 N/A L  H  (1419)  -4,192
2088 196 778

6/21/2018

Dust storm

-24 -58 34  0.85  -16  -58 -42 8 0  793  -15 197 N/A  L  H  (1420)  -4,193
2089 197  779

6/22/2018

Dust storm

 
-26 -59 33 0.825   -15 -59 -44  11 0  797 -18 197 N/A  L  H 

(1421) 

-4,192
2090 198 778

6/23/2018

Dust storm

-23 -61 38 0.95   -14 -61 -47 9 0  800 -22 198  N/A  L H 

(1422)

-4,193 
2091 198 779

6/24/2018

Dust storm

-22 -63 41 1.025  -13 -60 -47  9  +3 800  -21 199  N/A   L  H   (1423)   
2092 199 781

6/25/2018

Dust storm

 
-24 -67 43 1.075  -12 -62 -50 12 +5 803 -22  199  N/A  L  H   (1424)   
2093 199 780

6/26/2018

Dust storm

-24  -63 39 0.975   -14  -60 -46 10 +3 804 -24 200  N/A  L H   (1425)   
2094 200 783

6/27/2018

Dust storm

 
-27 -61 34 0.85 -17 -60 -43 10  +1 803  -20 200  N/A  L H   (1426)   
2095 201 784

6/28/2018

Dust storm

-25 -61  36 0.9 -17 -60  -43 8  +1  807 -23 201  N/A  L VH  (1427)   
2096 201 788

6/29/2018

Dust storm

 
-22 -63 41 1.025 -15 -59 -44 7 +4 808 -20  202 N/A  L VH  (1428)   
2097 202 789

6/30/2018

Dust storm

 
-23 -60 37 0.925 -16  -59 -43  7 +1  810 -21 202 N/A  L  VH (1429)   

 

 

Figure 80 below NASA is likely to leave these Low uV values intact. They were reported for MSL during the Global Dust Storm of 2018.