Slashdot Mirror
NASA Probes Reveal Vast Stores of Martian Ice
John Faughnan writes: "The BBC reports that a British newspaper has leaked stunning news from the Mars Odyssey spacecraft. Vast amounts of water ice are present on mars, "[if it] were to melt it could cover the planet in an ocean at least 500 metres deep." Researchers thought it would take a year to detect any water ice below the martian surface, but the huge quantity meant that weeks of observation were sufficient. The BBC notes that "The Mars Polar Lander was to touch down in exactly the right spot in 1999 and would have undoubtedly detected the ice had it not malfunctioned on the way down." This discovery will change plans for upcoming probes and may lead to a manned mission within the next two decades. The official announcement was scheduled for this Thursday prior to several publications."
Not just terraforming, but this makes a manned mission truly feasible. With huge stores of water available, we won't need to waste energy on moving as much. This means a manned Mars mission could be much cheaper.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Has anyone actually looked at a Mars map? I'm running the latest version of the Mars Simulation Project, looking at the planet in topography mode.
This planet has altitudes ranging from approximately -8000 meters to +22000 meters, with two very distinctive zones: around -100 W, mostly on the southern hemisphere, there is a huge, +5000 meters continent; the northern hemisphere is between -5000 and 0 meters; and there is a very impressive hole centered at 70 E and 40 S, between -7000 and -5000 meters, sourrounded by a 0 to 5000 meters zone - what happened there? A huge spacial hit?
Anyway, saying Mars would be covered by 500 meters of water is completely meaningless. I guess they took the quantity of water and divided it by the surface of Mars. They mostly want to impress people, I guess, but I for one would be more impressed if someone came with a new Mars map showing the areas where the "sea" would be once the ice was melted. There is an illustration there, but of course it doesn't take into account the "real" quantity of ice/water.
One other thing that should be noted is that if the water is ever leaked to the surface, along with an increase in heat via CO2 being pumped into the atmosphee, then there will probably be a reduction in the amount of dust in the atmosphere, as the iron binds to water droplets. This would modify the atmospheric conditions and probably reduce the number of violent storms. Also, a humid atmosphere would probably also make it more favourable to life, if there isn't any already there.
Without water it would be much more difficult to teraform the planet.
This is unresearched, but I believe that it is a probable scenario, based on the knowledge I have.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
For every person that decides to relocate to Mars, that's one less person putting pressure on Earth.
...until the next baby is born (in less than a second).
Sorry, but it really doesn't seem that colonization is an efficient way to reduce population pressure -- if we've got too many people, it seems far better for everyone if you try to reduce birth rates and eliminate the things associated with high birth rates (poverty, lack of education, lack of women's rights).
That's not to say colonization is worthless -- it probably lets us have a much bigger total population in the long run, it guards against catastrophe, and seems to put everybody in a good mood, what with the whole manifest destiny feeling and all.
Let us, suppose, however, that the Earth is, at a population of 6 billion, overpopulated, that we've stablilized our population growth rates (so that shipping people offworld won't be futile), that we need to get rid of only 1 billion people (a reasonable low-end figure, since many would say that we're already putting a lot of "pressure on Earth," and I doubt 100 million would make much of a difference out of 6 billion), and that there are no inefficiencies introduced by politics (we have an impossibly well-loved, benevolent, and omnipresent dictator).
Can you imagine the amount of resources it would cost to move that many people to Mars and to provide for them there a livable environment? Even if one could mobilize the entire adult population of the Earth to work on this project, one would only have a few people working on it per person you wanted to ship offworld. How many people does it take to get one person into LEO now?
Sure, in a while, maybe it won't be so hard to get into space, but if you're willing to wait that long on a gamble, why not concentrate on reducing birth rates and just wait for the excess population to die off? One might also, in a slightly less macabre vision, want to work on ways to get 6 billion people to have the environmental impact of 5 billion, instead of looking for ways to dispose of 1 billion.
Mars has the highest mountain of the solar system .... and the known extrasolar systems also :-)
:-)
Mons Olympus, 24km.
Mars has the deepest depressions, far deeper than Death Valley or the Death See(Israel). About 3km IIRC.
Mars has the longest and deepest cannyons, about 10km deep and thousend killometers long.
The grand cannyon is a little boy against that.
If the Mars had an atmosphere like earth, on the bottom of the cannyons the pressure would be twice as high, because they are that deep.
If the Mars had an atmosphere, similar/like the Earth, the Mons Olympus would stick out of it.
Its a nice test environment to build a railgun launch facility
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.