Lots of Ice On Mars

Total Recall writes: "The Mars Odyssey spacecraft is finding large amounts of hydrogen in the southern hemisphere of Mars. This strongly indicates the presence of water ice (since H2O is both common and very stable). The data samples about the upper meter or so of the Martian surface. This apparently extends from the south polar cap up to about 60 south latitude. It suggests a permafrost of mixed ice and dirt."

Comments

Now we know where to land

[Soft]

Water is what a colony will need most. If one can get it on-site, it can make huge mass savings on what one must bring in from Earth. That, and the atmosphere (meteor protection, possibility to aerobrake when arriving) might make it easier to have a colony on Mars than on the Moon, even though it's much farther.

Re:Now we know where to land

[Skyshadow]

The major advantage for Mars (aside from its carbon-dioxide atmosphere, and the recently confirmed water) is the gravity.

Whoa, slow down there, cowboy. The availablity of oxygen and hydrogen isn't just something to casually dismiss.

You put some sort of hard-to-break, long-lasting power source on the surface (nuclear battery or somesuch) and you can survive a lot of adversity when you have these sorts of raw materials. You can grow food in inflatible domes (most terrestrial crops would actually like the CO2 atmosphere of Mars better than our own), you can make air to breathe and you have water to drink. You can survive a really long time, even if Earth can't get you a supply ship for a few months (or years). Additionally, you can make rocket propellant, mix concrete and refine metals for your base, all using stuff you have laying around. Bury it all under a few meters of earth (er, mars) and you're safe from radiation thanks to the fact that Mars has an atmosphere running interference for you.

On the moon, if you rupture an air tank, you have to get into your lander and blast back to Earth pronto. The surface of Mars, on the other hand, could pretty easily be converted into the second safest place in the solar system.

Re:Explanation of Asteroid Belt

[GSV NegotiableEthics]

I've always heard that if you put all those asteroids together in the asteroid belt, you still wouldn't have enought mass to make much of a planet (think very small Jovian moon sized). Is this no longer a common theory?

The common theory is that the asteroid belt is a remnant of the creation of the planets-a planet that never formed. A few people are very much out on a limb in suggesting that the belt was a planet. Those ideas appear to owe more to Space Opera than to space science. If a planet did explode, of course most of the material could conveniently be postulated to have left the solar system, never to return. The proponents, mainly the eccentric astronomer Tom van Flandern, could just be right, but there isn't any particular reason to suppose so as yet.

Re:Ok let's stop looking for water for a bit

[vena]

exactly, mars is nearly devoid of nitrogen (2.7%, earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen). the entire planet reached chemical equilibrium some time ago. this is yet another publicity stunt to get money for sending shit to mars. NASA has been doing it since the 60's and the viking missions. back then it was *just* life on mars, now we're easily wowed by the thought of water.

not that learning more isn't fun and all, but cries of "water means life!" are unfounded and dumb.

Re:Explanation of Asteroid Belt

[quantaman]

A piece of advice, Richard Hoagland may or may not be right. But using Art Bell to give him scientific credibility is NOT a good move!

There is no "face" on Mars

[Special Ed]

Please see this great NASA site with pictures showing that it's not a face.

Of course, I fully expect a reply that this is all just a government sponsored cover-up/conspiracy.