Written by Andy Lloyd, 7-10th September 2015

References:

An educated guess as to the content of this press release was correct made by NASA watcher Keith Cowling (2), based upon positive developments in circulation regarding the origins of the observed "recurring slope lineae", the name given to these dark, streaky features observed on some steep Martian crater rims.  Spectroscopic analysis has failed to show clear water on the surface.  Instead, water appears to be penetrating into salt soils, forming dark brines.  The seasonal variation suggests that the effect occurs when the Martian surface is at its warmest, and the dark colours retreat during the harsher seasons. 

However, there are a number of factors which remain unknown, not least because these effects are observed in some craters, but not others.  The source of the water is also unknown.  There is speculation that the water is absorbed directly from the atmosphere by the salty soils in a chemical process known as deliquescence (3), a process enabled by perchlorates as I have discussed on the Dark Star blog previously (4).  The NASA press release provides more details:

"Ojha and his co-authors interpret the spectral signatures as caused by hydrated minerals called perchlorates. The hydrated salts most consistent with the chemical signatures are likely a mixture of magnesium perchlorate, magnesium chlorate and sodium perchlorate. Some perchlorates have been shown to keep liquids from freezing even when conditions are as cold as minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 70 Celsius). On Earth, naturally produced perchlorates are concentrated in deserts, and some types of perchlorates can be used as rocket propellant." (1)

Rocket propellant freely available on the Martian surface?  That's handy...   Let's jump into the realm of Zecharia Sitchin's theories for a moment.  He proposed that aliens (known as the Anunnaki in the ancient Mesopotamian texts which recorded their mythical endeavours), not unlike us in appearance (there's a reason for this...) visited the inner solar system in the past, colonising Earth (to mine for gold), but also Mars (5). 

I've often wondered why the Anunnaki might have gone to Mars; a harsh, inhospitable world of seeming little strategic importance.  They wanted gold here on Earth, says Sitchin (something to do with repairing the atmosphere of their world, Nibiru, which may be synonymous with Planet X).  Maybe they were harvesting something else on Mars?  Maybe Mars was their refuelling depot for the long journey back home?

"Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant is typically used in aerospace propulsion applications, where simplicity and reliability are desired and specific impulses (depending on the composition and operating pressure) of 180–260 seconds are adequate. Because of these performance attributes, APCP is regularly implemented in booster applications such as in the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, aircraft ejection seats, and specialty space exploration applications such as NASA's Mars Exploration Rover descent stage retrorockets. In addition, the high-power rocketry community regularly uses APCP in the form of commercially available propellant "reloads", as well as single-use motors. Experienced experimental and amateur rocketeers also often work with APCP, processing the APCP themselves." (6)

It's one thing to travel to planets; quite another to get off them again, and an even bigger leap to fuel up for the long journey into the outer solar system.  

I can quite imagine that the Anunnaki were capable of synthesizing rocket fuels (Sitchin always talked about rockets, of course, never anti-grav UFOs) but why synthesize it when you can just harvest the stuff out of the ground?  If amateur rocketeers can knock this stuff up fairly readily, then the Anunnaki should have had little trouble.  Such a possibility has been considered before:

"While manufactured perchlorate for rocket propellant or fireworks is relatively commonplace, naturally occurring perchlorate is extremely rare on our planet. It is only known to exist in a few very dry places such as Death Valley, California and in fairly high concentration in the Atacama Desert in Chile, the driest place on Earth. Mars is much drier than even the driest place on Earth, so it is not surprising that perchlorate is present there.  Scientists hypothesize that perchlorate forms naturally when volcanic activity releases a chlorine compound that undergoes chemical changes in the atmosphere and then falls back to the surface. It only stays put in the soil if it doesn’t get washed away. Scientists think that this process might be the same on both Earth and Mars.  So, future Mars colonists listen up: you can’t eat the dirt on Mars, but you might be able to turn it into rocket fuel." (7)

Perchlorates are fairly toxic (just to add more complexity to any missions to Mars, either by us or by 'them') and extracting clean water from these brines could be a problem.  However, some microorganisms are known to live on these compounds on Earth, which elevates the possibility of that same kind of life thriving on Mars.  

Here's a paper about getting oxygen out of the perchlorates, which also would obviously be very helpful:

"Perchlorate (ClO4 −) is widespread in Martian soils at concentrations between 0.5 and 1%. At such concentrations, perchlorate could be an important source of oxygen, but it could also become a critical chemical hazard to astronauts. In this paper, we review the dual implications of ClO4 − on Mars, and propose a biochemical approach for removal of perchlorate from Martian soil that would be energetically cheap, environmentally friendly and could be used to obtain oxygen both for human consumption and to fuel surface operations." (8)

So these compounds, readily available on the Martian surface, could provide the oxygen needed to survive on Mars as well as the rocket fuel to get back to Planet X/Nibiru.  The low gravitational pull of Mars, combined with its poor atmosphere, make it an ideal world from which to embark upon a long rocket trip.  Mars may not be so useless after all.

References:

According to Berguerand, the large transiting star draws out material from the Sun in a spindle-like way, which is partly stabilized by the two stars' opposing gravitational forces.  There is an additional factor stabilising this emerging 'spindle' of erupted material, and that is the existing cloud of nebular material in place around the Sun mainly since the beginning of the near-collision.  This spindle-shaped globular mass of erupted material continues to rotate around the Sun, tearing as it does so into smaller globules.  These then cool rapidly, coalescing into rotating gaseous balls which then go on to form the planets.  This model then neatly explains the varying sizes of the planets we see in the solar system:

"The formerly spindle-like mass explains why the main large planets, Jupiter and Saturn, emerge from the middle of the spindle.  Because of the important gravitational attraction of the massive transiting star, the spindle is still a little bit large externally, so giving us Neptune and Uranus.  All other planets result from the tearing at both thin extremities of the spindle. Closer to the Sun, in the nebular cloud, are heavy asteroids absorbed by Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Externally are lighter icy materials in the nebular cloud." (2)

The implication of this idea is that planetary formation is not necessarily an automatic process shortly after the birth of a new star, but may be an event that occurs some time later due to a stellar fly-by.  Most likely, the transiting star would have arisen within the same stellar nursery, and would thus have been in reasonably close proximity to the subject star from an early stage.

How would this help us in our understanding of the early solar system?  I suppose the main change would be that for the Sun to have its own planetary system (an a priori position) it had to have experienced a flyby from another large star, rather than having been a solitary star throughout.  That allows for the transmission between the two systems of material; comets, planets, possibly even sub-brown dwarfs.  Thus, there would, I guess, be an expectation of anomalous material and orbital paths in the outer solar system, as the underlying assumptions of how the planetary system forms in the first place are fundamentally different.

Critics would likely argue that this adds a degree of unnecessary complexity to the whole process of planetary systems.  Indeed, young stars are routinely observed to have proto-planetary disks in place that appear regular and coherent within the standard accretion model for planetary systems.  Recently, for instance, large dust disks have been found around red dwarfs stars by astronomers working with data from the WISE infra-red sky survey (3) which hare providing fresh insight into the processes thought to be involved in long-lived dwarf stars:

"We also identify two new lithium-rich members of the neighbouring Scorpius–Centaurus OB Association (Sco–Cen). Both exhibit large 12 and 22 μm excesses and strong, variable Hα emission which we attribute to accretion from circumstellar discs.  Such stars are thought to be incredibly rare at the ~16 Myr median age of Sco–Cen and they join only one other confirmed M-type and three higher mass accretors outside of Upper Scorpius.  The serendipitous discovery of two accreting stars hosting large quantities of circumstellar material may be indicative of a sizeable age spread in Sco–Cen, or further evidence that disc dispersal and planet formation time-scales are longer around lower mass stars." (4)

So why drag in the need for a stellar flyby to catalyse the process?  Well, there are problems with the standard accretion model, problems which often call for fundamental migrations of sizeable planets within the system over time for the models to be successful.  What causes those migrations?  Are there not external factors at play in any case?

As far as Sitchin's Celestial Battle scenario goes, one might imagine that the usurper Marduk, a sub-brown dwarf in my Dark Star revision of his theory, rides into the nascent Solar System on the tailcoat of a flyby star, and becomes captured by the Sun during the melee.  The issue would be how well formed is the Sun's planetary system by that point?  How old is the Sun by then in comparison?  What Berguerand brings to the table is the potential for the timings to be radically different from what has been previously considered.  It's worth bearing in mind.

References: