Slashdot Mirror
More on the Mars Ice Cap
bfwebster writes "In a striking example of how a preliminary (but wrong!) scientific conclusion can persist for decades, Space.com has a story about how the south polar ice cap on Mars is mostly water, not mostly carbon dioxide (dry ice), as has been stated since the late 1960s. The new finding is based on analysis of Mars Observer readings that show that the souther polar ice cap is too warm at certain seasons to be dry ice. This finding has negative implications both for those claiming that liquid flow structures on Mars were caused by C02 instead of H20, as well as those who were hoping to use all that CO2 for terraforming."
What?
If we can't Terrorform Mars then....
The Terarrists HAVE WON!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Why are they using this flimsy temerature evidence that the ice is water and not C02? It seems to me that they could use a spectrometer to determine its exact chemical composition...
When are these so called scientists & astronomers going to give up on this whole "planet called Mars" bit?
Scientists discover that the ice cap is cotton candy, not water. The "beer-foam" scientists are devastated. Life continues exactly as before.
Your paranoia is about as subtle as the alien probe in your neck.
"This finding has negative implications both for those claiming that liquid flow structures on Mars were caused by C02 instead of H20, as well as those who were hoping to use all that CO2 for terraforming." "
On the other hand, it has positive implications for those wanting to make slurpees.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Terraforming by CO2 looks like it is no longer immediately feasible. However, since most of the minerals are below the surface anyway, it should be possible to create domed structures using the terrain of mars currently in existence to build habitats. Greenhouses could easily be built on the surface to produce food or grown underground by artificial light. Extracting water from the caps could be done and piped into colonies elsewhere. We hoped it would be easy to drop algae or some other organism on mars, release the CO2, and let nature take its course to heat up the planet. Now we just have to work a little harder. I'd still like to vacation on mars before I die, regardless of whether a spacesuit would be necessary.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Now future Mars astronauts can start out their camps right; they can build a brewery to use that water!
Trolling is a art,
Water vapor holds in heat too. Just not as effectively as CO2.
It's pretty damn good mixed with Bourbon, too.
Maybe someone should explain to the scientists we have to worry about not having our probes CRASH ON LANDING before we can worry about actually terraforming a planet.
I'm guessing the north pole is dry ice still. that means if the planet warms a bit we get club soda. I'll drink to that.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Start the reactorrr!!
Sorry karma, I just couldn't resist.
The Mariner series of spacecraft went to Mars around that time period. I can't find a successful one in 1966, though. Here's the list:
There's plenty of water, so ... when the Martians attack Earth, it's because they want our C02, right?
-kgj
Clearly we should extend the "War on Terror" to the planet Mars - they keep shooting down our probes. Time to implement a "No Orbit" zone around the Communist Red Planet Menace!
I mean, really, think about it - their moons (Phobos and Deimos) - those are clearly suspicious names. (translate them for more info)
Is there anybody on /. who is actually OPPOSED to the idea of terraforming another planet? In the article it says some folks are going on about making our own place more livable, yadda yadda yadda, but I don't really see why anybody would be opposed to the idea of expanding humanity's reach. Please don't mod me flamebait, I'm really interested in knowing why anybody would think it's a bad thing...
*ahem*
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. Therefore... in the old Silurian Period the Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long. Seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Mississippi will only be about a mile and three-quarters long.
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such a wholesome return of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
^^^ Just about says it all about this bit of reasoning, don't you think?
"When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me"
Greenhouses could easily be built on the surface
for sufficiently large values of easy
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
>
> Of course, you'd need to pick an "earth crosser" (well mars crosser), or the energetic considerations would be a bit steep.
Well, they've got it working for space probes. It's just a matter of scaling up. *rimshot*
Ok,
Here is why Terraforming is good. It turns an otherwise dead planet into a living one. Think beyond us mere humans, and thing of life as a whole and what it has done since its beginnings billions of years ago - life expands to fill every available niche. Life has expanded and become the massive and complex biosphere that it is today. Life has also experienced numerous near total extinction on numerous occasions. Life has now finally gained the capability of leaving its womb planet and expanding outwards to other worlds.
Of course we are talking about life expanding onto other worlds as long as there is no pre-existing life, especially complex life there already. As long as Terraforming meets those ethical requirments I have yet to hear a single reason not to terraform. After all we are only talking about the perpetuation of life itself. I almost would be bold enough to say, "that if you are against terraforming, then you are basically against life itself".
Planet P Blog
www.enthea.org
Moon is only about 1/81 the mass of earth (it's surface gravitational force is one sixth of Earth's) and
Mars has (rather stable) seasons (see e.g. Season on Mars )
What are you talking about? The Earth has seasons because our axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic, and thus at different times of the year different hemispheres get either more or less direct sunlight. The moon has absolutely jack to do with this.
Mars has an inclination of about 25 degrees, just slightly more than us. Mars' seasons are actually more extreme than ours. It has a more eliptical orbit than Earth and makes its closest approach to the sun during Souther Summer, contributing greatly the global dust storms I'm sure you've heard about.
No, the main barrier to terraforming is the fact there's no atmosphere to speak of. In the long run, the low gravity and lack of tectonic activity will also be problems. These are major contributors to its current lifeless state.
Mars also contains CO2 in its soil. This is in two forms: (1) CO2 directly adsorbed onto the (porous) rocks and dirt, and (2) CO2 in ice form mixed into the soil, possibly mixed with water ice as well.
Read here to learn more.
The extent of these soil deposits is almost completely unknown and difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, if the surface temperature were raised then some portion of this trapped CO2 would outgas. (This would be akin to obtaining liquid/vapor water by heating a section of Siberian permafrost.) Because CO2 is such a good greenhouse gas, there might therefore exist a temperature threshold beyond which the outgassing of CO2 and subsequent greenhouse heating would push the planet into a self-sustaining "hot" mode.
Or it may be the case that too much of the CO2 on Mars has either been lost to space, or is chemically locked up in carbonate rocks. This is a numerical question that won't get answered until we have the ability to bore into the surface and measure the free CO2 content.
I'm personally doubtful of these "heat it up and it will automatically fix itself" scenarios. If Mars did sustain a liquid water ocean at some point (an amazingly we still don't know the answer to that for sure), then something dramatic must have happened to make it shift into the cold, dry climate that exists today. My likeliest candidate would be the cooling and freezing of the planet's core, and the subsequent cessation of volcanic activity. Without volcanos, CO2 gets locked up in carbonate rocks and it never cycles back into gaseous CO2. The same thing could happen to the Earth someday, but fortunately the Sun will have long since gone supergiant and vaporized us in our tracks.
I have a serious question.
The people in this forum who deny the 'Greenhouse Effect' (and whenever there's an article about the environment, there are plenty saying things like "We don't have enough data..." or "It's a bit arrogant to think that man can have an effect on the environment..." or "It's bad science...") how come they don't they come out and blast the science of terraforming a planet like Mars?
water will "burn off" more quickly in the practically non-existant Martain atmosphere. complex greenhouse gasses like flexocarbomethane (meh?) and wonderful CFC's that don't go into space and can actually withstand the constant hard radiation comign in from the sun without breaking up into smaller lesss useful bits.
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.