Flowing Water Discovered on Mars

Dolphy writes "BBC News has the latest big scoop on the Mars phenomenon. Researcher Tahirih Motazedian apparently uncovered proof quite some time ago of flowing water and surface change on Mars."

Comments

First water...

[chill]

How long before they find the first Martian Starbucks? Probably right next to the McDonald's and Walmart.

Re:First water...

[Anonymous Coward]

French fries, or "freedom" fries?

Re:First water...

[pyrote]

let em try and shut you down there...

"well the 12 billion 'golarger.com' messages originated from a McDonalds lobby, only 120,000,000 miles away."

The ping time alone could get you out the door before anyone got the e-mail :) even get your value meal done (possibly though your system last time I had one)

"yes sir, we have him, he's wretching in the bathroom. send in the troops"

Re:First water...

[mestoph]

whats the odds on that. Just logging on to check on mail and news and /. and finding the first thing you read is about starbucks. While sitting in a starbucks, am i on mars atm. Its that early in the morning i'm not quite sure to be honest. Need more coffee i guess :)

Re:First water...

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth (r1) Star
Mars (r2) Earth ?

Starbucks on Earth makes reference to a star, from a planet perspective. If you change the planet, and keep the same relationship, why would you equate is with Earth?

IF you setup a Starbucks on an actual Star, then you could call it Planetbucks.

lookup(Planet, Star).
lookup(Planet, Star).

whatToCallTheBucks(planet_or_star):- lookup(planet_or_star);

If you need further logic augmentations, I suggest the new Wetware prolog module that you can insert into your brain.

it almost works, but all you need to say is:

I dont understand
Where is the tea
and
First Post.

Re:First water...

[machine of god]

How long before they find the first Martian Starbucks

And then sue them.

Re:First water...

[DoraLives]

So now I've got to figure out how to get to Mars and glom on to some of that water. I'm guessing that with all the C02 around, it's pretty fizzy. I'm further guessing that there's more than one monied nitwit out there who would come across with BIG BUCKS to drink "Bottled eau de Ares" and enjoy the wonderful properties of Martian natural spring water to enhance his manly virility and attract the babes. Bring on the snobs, I smell MONEY!

Re:First water...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! My neighbourhood has the W and M, but is missing the starbucks!

But who can afford $5 coffees anymore anyways!

Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[gasgesgos]

they've got water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight...

this whole terraforming thing shouldn't be so hard after all!

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[pyrote]

ya, just release some alge or other brackish tolerant plant and wait a few million/billion years.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[madsenj37]

Im no expert and dont think I am even close but what about temperature? Wont that have an effect on what will grow/survive?

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[ThaReetLad]

The problem is that martian gravity isn't strong enough to keep a thick enough atmosphere for complex animal life. IIRC every martian spring the frozen C02 at the poles vapourises and migrates to the equatorial regions, where it heats enough that some of the gas achieves (a very low) escape velocity. Mars is constantly leaking gases, and oxygen, being lighter than C02 would escape even more easily. You may be able to generate a thick C02 atmosphere for a short time, but once the temperature started to rise you might start loosing gas faster than you could produce it.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Max Romantschuk]

If we presume that we could get the atmosphere right and get a working plant/microbe/insect life going, I still doubt we could manage to balance the ecosystem properly.

We still haven't charted all species on our own planet, and figuring out how they all interact in the ecosystem is a greater effort still.

It's not that I think it's impossible, I just doubt that the first attempt at terraforming would de successful. Using a subset of the possible flora and fauna would help a lot though.

Thoughts?

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

Many plants do not need Animals or Insects to exist. Flora comes always before fauna.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Noodlenose]

Gosh,

don't you kids read Kim Stanley Robinson? Mars terraforming has never been better researched and presented than in K.S.R.'s Mars Trilogy.

Read and learn all about Mars.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[ZigMonty]

Mars is constantly leaking gases, and oxygen, being lighter than C02 would escape even more easily. You may be able to generate a thick C02 atmosphere for a short time, but once the temperature started to rise you might start loosing gas faster than you could produce it.

Define "short time". Are we talking a million years? 10,000?

Even if the atmosphere only lasts a short period on a geological timescale, it would still give us plenty of time for useful colonisation. Maybe even enough time to develop a way to make the teraforming permanent. Remember how old our civilisation is. A couple of thousand years is a very long time.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "short time". Are we talking a million years? 10,000?

Try 2-5 years. Spending a hundred billion dollars to terraform Mars for 2 years isn't worth it. Besides, everyone knows the way to do it is to melt the ice core of Mars releasing oxygen. Haven't you guys seen Total Recall? Only takes about 15 minutes.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[eclectro]

This is a very big fantasy some people have.

There are a couple of reasons Mars has an atmosphere 1/100th of our own.

One reason is because Mars has less mass than the Earth. Hence there is less gravity to "hold" onto a thick atmosphere like what we have on Earth.

Secondly, Mars did have a denser atmosphere at one time, but was probably eroded away by the solar wind. The loss of a strong magnetic field probably didn't help things either.

To prevent the erosion of some future atmosphere, you probably would need to restart the magnetic field. Maybe you could drill down to the core and plant a big bomb to restart it.

So terraforming is still (extremely) hard after all. I didn't get into the astronomical amount of energy required to do it either.

So it looks like that if you wanna live on Mars you're gonna have to strap on some airtanks.

And don't forget the long-johns either, because it's cold there too.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[johnkoer]

Mars is constantly leaking gases

Sounds like my dad after a couple of burritos

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

Who CARES about a breathable atmosphere..

All we have to do is buid facilities that are marginally air-tight. It's so much simpler than building something to survive in a hard vaccuum. Hell, we could take the plans for the biodome and build the exact same structure and have it successfully work on mars. Espically if you beefed it up slightly to handle the sandstorms that make our F4 hurricanes look like a butterfly fart.

Colinization of Mars is trivial, a 3rd year engineering student can easily hash out all details needed to make all the facilities there very sucessful. Getting everything there is the hard part. until we can stop impacting on the planet and actually land something there with the reliability of the shuttle program... it isn't gonna happen.

Come to think of it, it is not going to happen until we get members of congress and the house PLus a president that are not the stupidest and narrowest on the planet... Or the Chinese get there first.. They may be the only hope for mankind to make it off this rock, because the USA is not capable of it.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[morgajel]

ok, thanks for the list-
now we just gorra remember to bring the following with us:

• one of jupiter's moons to add mass and hence gravity
  
• a bunch of magnets
  
• a bigass bomb
  
• longjohns
  

thanks for the info, I'll get back to ya:)

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

this isn't new. they have known about this for easily the last two years.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Havokmon]

I still doubt we could manage to balance the ecosystem properly.

Who said it needs to be managed? IMHO, the end justifies the means. We want the end result to support HUMANS, not Tigers, not butterflies. If they fit into what the ecology becomes, then dandy.

It's not that I think it's impossible, I just doubt that the first attempt at terraforming would de successful. Using a subset of the possible flora and fauna would help a lot though.

IMHO, "Success" means Humans can live there without oxygen backpacks . Just because we know it WON'T turn out as we predict, doesn't mean that it can't be 'successful'.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[mezelf]

I am not an ecelogical expert (by no means), but in my opinion, you will still need to be very careful about what plants you bring there and you will probably need to manage them very closely. When you don't bring animals with you (birds spring to mind), that means that none of the seeds the plants produce get eaten (except for what the people harvest). This means that plants can and eventually will start growing where no people live (yet). If they are the wrong type, they could exhaust the soil, preventing anything else from growing there for quite some time.

This hasn't happened on Earth, since here, the entire planet is covered with all sorts of fauna and flora (OK, it wasn't like that right from the start, but it took a very long time to get it this way. Time that humans simply don't have).

It isn't quite the same thing (plants can't move), but just think about what happened when someone brought a few rabits to Australia, some centuries ago.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[arkane1234]

Somehow, I actually pictured a guy sitting on the martian soil, alone on a dune with a laptop playing quake3, with this HUGE rock behind him with craters all over it, a pile of magnets right beside him, a nuclear detonation device in a briefcase, all while wearing a pair of longjohns.

I fear for colonization after visualizing that :-)

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Doug-less]

Yeah, Who knows what whould happen when a butterfly flaps it wings in Cydonia!

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[operagost]

A good analogy would be the introduction of kudzu to the American south.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Listen Up]

Well, if the US is teh first country to reach Mars, creating huge amounts of CO2 won't be a problem at all. After a few years, there will be enough pickup trucks and SUV's to give us the same lovely greenhouse effect we have here on Earth right now :-)

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[superdan2k]

Balancing the ecosystem may not even be necessary. Emergent complexity and mutations (plenty of UV gets through to the surface of Mars due to minimal/non-existent ozone in the atmosphere) should suffice. Initially, all we should need to do is introduce an initial group of species, and let them fill in the gaps.

As Crichton so elegantly put it, "Life finds a way."

I think the real issue at hand is not whether we can terraform Mars, but how we will.

In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, this very item was debated and you could tell that the author had done his homework -- the two options are the cold-thin-quickly-breathable route, or the thick-CO2 route, using plant life to convert the atmosphere to breathability over a 10,000 year period.

As a colonist, I'd prefer the route to breathability much more than the thick vegetation. But common sense tells me that the planet would be more sustainable and robust if it went CO2 first and a large amount of surface life was allowed to grow...

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[sab39]

One thing I've wondered ever since reading RGB Mars is how much of the science postulated in the trilogy is based on verifiable current knowledge, and how much is speculation?

For example, the books postulate huge underground aquifers - clearly, based on this story, that's something we haven't been able to determine yet. "There might be water" vs "There's enough water to fill several oceans" is a big leap!

How much of the other science that KSR relies on for terraforming to work (eg the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the chemicals that are available from the Martian soil) is based on things we actually know about Mars, rather than just guesses? Anyone have the background to know how likely these guesses are to turn out to be true, based on our current knowledge?

For that matter, does anyone even know the up-to-date status of this story and just how much water is supposedly there?

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to nitpick too much (In a slashdot thread? Nah...), but recent research suggests that the poles are actually frozen water, since the summertime temperatures are well over the freezing point of dry ice. Since the poles seem to stick around for decades at least, they must be made of something other than C02, water being the most likely contender.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[CommieLib]

It is, assuming that you're talking about you and me living there. It's also possibly that we could meet halfway: terraform Mars to move it closer to Earth's biosphere, and then genetically engineer human(?) beings that can live there.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

You mention the basic things a 2nd grader is likely to say but failed to mention the numerous reasons why terraforming Mars is not feasible. A short list can include, gravity is not nearly strong enough to hold a dense atmosphere, tremendous radiation (far beyond that of the radiation exposure of near earth orbit) you thought you'd get sunburns on a beach at home, wait till you are irradiated on a martian beach, other reasons for difficulty, lack of substantial amounts of water (look at earth and then look at mars) to support life and terraform mars as we know it, you need a lot more water than we presume right now to be on mars. technical reasons vary from the time it takes to get to mars to the very challenge of terraforming itself. Logistical challenges vary from attaining raw building materials on site or from earth, as well as economically transporting massive amounts of equipment and other supplies. Terraforming mars will remain science ficiton for a long long time to come, and I can see no reason as to why we should even bother to terraform such a useless piece of rock, it serves no scientifc purpose except to say "we did that"

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

What have RedHat being in North Carolina got to do with Mars?

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[bheerssen]

So, if we drop another large body on it (like Europa) we could make the planet larger and therefore have more gravity.

Shouldn't be too hard, right? It's so simple nothing could possibilie go wrong.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[nasanction]

We don't need to terraform Mars... We can populate Mars as long as there is water... Same with the moon, if we had water there we could have a perminant base there... Isn't terraforming a Star Trek Fantasy? Grab a grip people! We can't transport enough water to stay, IT's TOO HEAVY! so would all the things needed to do a so called terraform... not pratical... at least not yet ;-)

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[bluyonder]

Yes, but it would be a very useful experiment. What we learned we could apply back to Earth.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[flyneye]

still,tis no beer
damned if i come home from a hard day of terraforming and.......
NO BEER!!!!!
HORRORS!
beer is good.
mars has no beer.
therefore mars is not good.
f00 it,lets go have a beer.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[diablobynight]

Star Trek Fantasy? Oh you mean like warp drives, transporters, phasers, and all the other fantasies. I bet two hundred years ago, they would have laughed for a year if you said you could hop in a ship and travel to the moon. Or that a submarine could stay underwater as long as it had enough food, for it's crew, or that we would have nuclear weapons. Were getting smarter, and fast, we'll be there in no time at all. I learned math my parents never learned when I was a freshman in High school. We learn younger and younger as well.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I've wondered ever since reading RGB Mars is how much of the science postulated in the trilogy is based on verifiable current knowledge, and how much is speculation?

There's a reason this is called Science Fiction.

If you want science, read Nature.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Fryed]

There are also some theories that state that Mars lost it's atmosphere from the numerous impacts it has sustained throughout the years. Afterall, being right in the neighborhood of the asteroid belt may lead to problems for future colonists.

So, on top of all that stuff, remember to pack some kind of asteroid early detection system, and a missile defence system to shoot the asteroids down, before getting on the shuttle to head off to Mars.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[sab39]

Well, duh ;)

I hoped it was clear from my comment that I was well aware that much of the science in RGB Mars is fictional. On the other hand, in reading the books it's also clear that the author did a vast amount of research on Mars and used a lot of real, verifiable science as the foundation of the fictional science.

What I'm curious about is where the line lies between true current science and fictional speculative science in these books. Especially with regard to information about Mars itself.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[tmortn]

Recent info from the surveyor is indicating in the northern climes the dirt is ~75% water by volume. in other words its dirty ice not icey dirt. Question is how deep it goes. The surveyors limitation is the first couple of feet.

One thing to remember though is if there is that much on the surface there is likely more deeper.. and the deeper you go the higher the preasure gets and the surface of mars is not far out of waters range for existence so the possibility of underground aquifiers in liquid form is getting stronger and stronger.... IE you might just be able to drill a well on mars much as you would on earth with the added complication of keeping it from boiling off once exposed to surface preassure/temps.

Enough for oceans ? I dunno. imagine if the earths oceans evaporated. For there to be enough underground water to replace them either that water seeped into the ground or there is that much down there already. However the idea of the evaporation that takes place on mars is that it does it and the atoms/molecules reach escape velocity. Dosn't mean there can't be alot of water down there but 'oceans' in terristrial terms I doubt very much. Can still be a honking lot of water though.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

Mars's lower than earth gravity is just one small reason its atmosphere is so thin. The main reason is that there is not much volcano activity on the surface (or in the non-existant oceans) to replenish the atmosphere.

All planets lose atmosphere at a continuous rate, which depends on their mass of the planet, thickness of the atmosphere, and temperature. The determining factor on keeping one's atmosphere is wether or not there is something to bring new gasses to the surface from within the planet. Mars, unlike Earth, has very little of this activity, and therefore, cannot maintain a very thick atmosphere on it's own.

On a side note, one of the reasons there is little volcanic activity is related to its mass. The smaller a planet, the sooner its inner core will cool to the point that the crust is too thick to allow volcanoes, and just the general lower temperatures and less molten rock. The moon is an extreme case of this that once had molten oceans, and now has almost no (if any) molten rock in its inner core. Eventually, the earth will have the same problem.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

well, we could always throw the moon at it:)

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[hey hey hey]

While KSR is a really nice guy, and writes really nice books, he is NOT an engineer, nor does he claim to be one. Almost all the science is cribbed from various journals and research he did for the book. He makes no claims that the science holds up to more than casual scrutiny.

I asked him more or less the same question when Red Mars came out...

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[clarkc3]

look up Roche Limit - it will explain why the gas will escape and why you cant do anything to prevent it

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[uberdave]

Already tried this on Penta. The planet blew up, and now there's this cruddy asteroid belt there. Ruined a perfectly good vacation spot too. Fortunately, I was able to trade my methane yacht for one of those asteroid skimmers, so it wasn't a total loss.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[sab39]

That's great information, thanks!

Your comment about the atoms/molecules reaching escape velocity raises another question about the (pseudo)science in the trilogy. One of the major terraforming activities in the books is using various strategies (massive-scale generation of gases from chemicals in the surface rocks, burning up asteroids in the atmosphere, etc) to increase the volume of gas in Mars's atmosphere, thereby increasing its pressure to something human-breathable.

Is that actually possible, or does Real Science mean that as soon as you have gas at a human-livable temperature on Mars the molecules are all going to shoot off into space, regardless of how much volume of gas you try to add?

(Not that I can think of any way that you could actually generate the sheer amount of gas necessary to do this even if it did work... but it sounds from your comment as if even with an ACME InfiniteGasGenerator(TM) you still couldn't do it...)

Stuart.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[daddymac]

Yes, but it would be a very useful experiment. What we learned we could apply back to Earth.

OK. I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. You want to experiment on another planet, and use what we learned on our own planet?

First off how would this be useful? Why do we need to apply terraforming procedures to earth?

Secondly, what right do we have to terraform another planet? Specifically one that may already support life.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Capt. DrunkenBum]

"Why do we need to apply terraforming procedures to earth?"

Ask this question again in 20 years. Then again I doubt you will need to ask it in 20 years.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[p4k]

This is completely wrong for a whole variety of reasons.

For a start the mechanisms of atmosphere leakage aren't pressure dependent, this means if Mars' atmosphere *was* leaking, it wouldn't stop at the current 6-7mb - there would be next to nothing left at all. Another obvious point is that Titan has a thicker atmosphere than Earth, and a much lower escape velocity than Mars.

In order to lose a molecule from the atmosphere, that molecule has to reach escape velocity, as you say.

Average KE of a gas molecule at 300K (hotter than Mars ever gets), E1 is ~ 4.1E-21J.
Escape velocity of Mars is ~ 5000ms-1
KE of an N2 molecule (the lightest molecule we're interested in) at escape velocity, E2 is ~ 2.9E-19J.
Therefore, according to Boltzmann's distribution the proportion of gas molecules which will reach escape velocity is 1/e(E2/E1), which is ~3.4E-31.
In other words, it is really *really* rare for a gas molecule to get escape velocity thermally. Mars does not lose atmosphere this way.

The other mechanism which deserves looking at is solar wind, if a high-energy particle collides with a molecule in the atmosphere it may impart enough KE for it to reach escape velocity. This is actually the main way atmosphere is lost from Mars, and also from Earth. It's worth noting that Earth actually loses *more* atmosphere this way, being closer to the sun, but in both cases the amount is still utterly negligible.

So, if we can magic up an atmosphere for Mars, ala KSR, it *will* stay there.

The real reason Mars has a much thinner atmosphere than Earth is this. Early in the solar system's history the solar wind flux was many orders of magnitude greater than today - this is known as the Sun's T Tauri phase. At this time the solar wind *could* strip the atmosphere from the inner planets, nothing closer in than Jupiter could hold an atmosphere. Mars being small and light, it cooled relatively rapidly and stopped significant outgassing before the T Tauri phase was over. Earth cooled more slowly, and continued outgassing for longer after the T Tauri phase, leaving us with a thicker atmosphere.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[corleth]

It's not quite as simple as whether or not Martian gravity is strong enough to hold on to the atmosphere. Both the Earth and Mars lose gas particles to space. The question is as to whether you can replenish them or not. Volcanism is the main way of recharging the atmosphere, by bringing water, CO2 and other volatiles to the surface. As far as we can tell, Mars is not volcanically active and so therefore there is a net loss. However, it has never been established that Mars is actually volcanically extinct. It has almost certainly been active within the last billion years, which is not all that long ago geologically speaking. There is some fairly good evidence that the last activity was in the last few millions or tens of millions of years, which is extremely recent. Unfortunately it looks like Martian volcanism is episodic over many millions of years, however, and so we might not actually see anything within many lifetimes, even if Mars isn't volcanically dead.

-Karl

Dr Karl Mitchell
Research Associate
Planetary Science Research Group
Environmental Science Dept.
Lancaster University, U.K.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[tmortn]

Well thats kinda mars climate seasons writ large. As different poles get exposed to sunlight it evaporates the ice be it CO2 or H2O and it drasticly changes the suface temps etc... and then as it gets cold it all settles back down.Whats this series anyway ? I am surprised I havn't heard/read it. I tend to purchase mars sci-fi based on no mare than cover art

With mars gravitational well its escape velocity is such that trying to keep atmospheric gases is a net loss activity for the natural cycle. If we could artificialy accelerate the atmosphere generation we might make it habitable for a limited amount of time but I don't know if that limited time is geologic or truly limited IE we would lose it rapidly in terms of our perception.

I'd suggest seeing if you can find the math ascociated with generating atmosphere, specifically to martian dirt/resources if its out there. You need to find the energy needed to generate enough to raise the atmosphere to the point we would need it and then calculate the retention rate. My guess is your talking pretty mind boggling numbers, ie something on the order of the earths total current energy production ( or more ) dedicated to nothing by generating atmospheric gas for a long time. If you go grab Zurbin's book ( mars direct ) he talks about terraforming and the pitfalls energy levels etc.. don't have my copy handy. Just keep in mind he is a very strong proponent of mars exploration and remeber to go find some naysayers and judge with both sides of the story. If I recall one of zurbin's ideas is centered around a huge orbital solar reflector to cook the water and co2 out of the soil but its pretty fantastic. Theortically withen the bounds of real science but its quite a bit further out than say something like a sustained fusion reaction.

I'd say pass on the terreforming ideas initially and leave it to the dim future and initially focus on finding caverns and mining etc to create truly large subteranean living environments where we could foster significant colinization. Once you get that to self sustaining levels I think terreforming is simply a matter of time be it generations, centuries or mellenia, if we get a toe hold it will happen sooner or later.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[spdycml]

If you really want to terraform ANY planet, all you have to do is plant some kudzoo! BTW if you don't know what kudzoo is, just come to georgia and watch it grow in front of your eyes...I think it grows around an inch or two a week...or a day, i forget!

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[cornjchob]

Who said [the ecosystem] needs to be managed? IMHO, the end justifies the means. We want the end result to support HUMANS, not Tigers, not butterflies. If they fit into what the ecology becomes, then dandy.

So, in other words, youre saying theres no value in creating a habitat that supports animals other than humans? That horribly nearsighted, in my opinion. I also think the ends justify the means, and what would more than bring certain plants and animals? It's a helluva lot easier than creating and trying to rely solely on huge factories 6 months away from home. Plants (and animals to sustain them/keep them in check) are incredibly easy to maintain, engineer, reproduce, and keep for long lengths of time. To not create an ecosystem would be damning to any future colonization to say the least.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Alphtoo]

"... but once the temperature started to rise you might start loosing gas faster than you could produce it." Damn! That explains all of my problems this morning! I've been losing gas faster than I can produce it! I fear that I may implode! (btw, is it hot in here to you?)

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with Mars having too little gravity. But problem lies in Mars having less mass than the Earth. Because of this, there is not enough pressure at the core to keep it molten. Early in the solar system's life, radioactive decay kept mars' core molten, providing a global magnetosphere. however with time it cooled due to lack of critical mass. This loss of the global magnetosphere (which is only spotty at best today) allowed the solar wind to litterally blow the atmosphere away. The temperature doesn't affect co2 like it does helium and hydrogen. The losses are due to the solar wind. You are correct though, if we're ever foolish enough to terraform before we find a way to restore the magnetosphere, we'll be in for a nasty suprise.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[aldousd666]

I would think, again, only think, not claim to know, that since mars is so small, any sort of 'terra-forming' that we might be able to do would be in a bubble. Closed colonies may be possible with the existence of water, etc, but just running up and down the martian landscape next to wild horses and all that may be science fiction. I like to see the math too though.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[aldousd666]

Those are all things that would be last on the list. First you need some way to live on mars, let alone setting up a neighborhood watch program.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[sab39]

The books I'm referring to are Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy: Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. I highly recommend them. One word of warning though, set aside a large chunk of time to read them. It's not that they're slow going - the story feels pretty fast-paced as you read it - but there's simply an awful lot of story crammed into the three books. I think they took me about twice as long to read as Lord of the Rings...

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[ShdwStkr]

The series is Red/Green/Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

So sayeth amazon.

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[tmortn]

Gracias

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... I can envision it alright... Vast oceans covering 80% of the martian surface, a wonderful azure blue sky during the daytime and no magnetic field so you get a literally breathtaking display of aurora borealis during the night, breathtaking because you're too preoccupied to watch because you're coughing blood and little bits of lung tissue due to radiation poisoning. I'm sick and tired of all that terra-forming crap until someone tells me how they are going to get the magnetic field of mars going again...

Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all..

[bluyonder]

Right now we are experimenting on Earths ecosystem. I am for terraforming Mars as a survival tactic, in case the experiment on Earth fails. Yes, I would want to know everything I can about possible life on Mars. Mars life might be even more important to us than colonization.

Any research we do on changing a planets environment would most certainly teach us more about Earths environment.

Of course its there

[gowen]

It even has a name. In Martian the word "Grok" means "to know", "to eat", "body" and, of course "water".

M. V. Smith

PS: Anyone want to join my weird telepathic sex cult?

Re:Of course its there

[Anonymous Coward]

V.M. Smith, no?

Re:Of course its there

[10Ghz]

Anyone want to join my weird telepathic sex cult?

Hmmmm... I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

Re:Of course its there

[KateKarnage]

I thought I already told you about that... :)

Re:Of course its there

[big_gibbon]

PS: Anyone want to join my weird telepathic sex cult?

You already know the answer

P

Re:Of course its there

[VikingBerserker]

Careful, big gibbon. He might take "fuck off" the wrong way.

Re:Of course its there

[johny_qst]

I'm just thinking shouldn't you have signed that V.M.Smith? doesn't it start with valentine? :P

Re:Of course its there

[jeeryg_flashaccess]

No no no. You are mistaking water for weird invisible ghosts that contain all of the knowledge on Mars.

Besides, what is the hurry, we must grok Mars before we take any action.

Water's not the only liquid in universe

[_Eric]

One thing I always wondered is why the hell rivers have to be water on mars.

Mars's surface temperature goes down pretty low at night to some -100 degree Celcius, at which nitrogen (roughly our air) is liquid as well (at earth ground pressures).

Can't all those riverbed come from other liquid that only flow at night time and vaporize during daytime. As we only observe the daytime mars, the "water" is always gone.

Anybody have an idea about that?

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Crossplatform]

If the liquid nitrogen is evaporating during the day what is the ambiant light source for the pictures? Just a thought but good point.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Apps]

Wouldn't the fact that there is only a very thin atmosphere on Mars and therefore very low pressure change the temperatures at which substances change to liquid?

perhaps at -100C at these low pressures water is a liquid.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[umofomia]

Mars's surface temperature goes down pretty low at night to some -100 degree Celcius, at which nitrogen (roughly our air) is liquid as well (at earth ground pressures).

Um... the temperature at which nitrogen turns liquid is -195.8 degrees Celcius. With Mars' lower air pressure, I'm sure it's even less.

Meanwhile, even at the poles, Mars does not go below -150 degrees, so there is no place on Mars at which nitrogen will turn into a liquid.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[panurge]

First, the boiling point of nitrogen is much lower than -100C. And the atmospheric pressure of nitrogen you would need to get a river to flow when the temperature dropped would mean a planet much bigger than Mars.

Second, the remarkable thing about water is that based on simple chemical rules it should not be a liquid at ordinary temperatures: ammonia, with a similar MW, is a gas. It is the strong hydrogen bonding between water molecules that gives it the high melting and boiling points, and the very wide range between them. The ideal liquid to sustain life has a wide range between MP and BP, dissolves a wide range of substances, is itself mostly unreactive, is made from elements common in planets, does not react with oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or sulphur in the liquid state at ordinary pressures, and is easily formed in chemical reactions (which implies a small molecule). Water fits the bill extremely well. Another liquid which is quite good is ethyl alcohol. The other small molecules (ammonia, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, methane, methyl alcohol, hydrogen cyanide) all fall down badly or one or more of the criteria.

Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[_Eric]

OK one step further: Martian Atmosphere

Surface pressure: 6.36 mb at mean radius (variable from 4.0 to 8.7 mb depending on season)
[6.9 mb to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)]
Surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3
Scale height: 11.1 km
Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 1016 kg
Average temperature: ~210 K (-63 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 184 K to 242 K (-89 to -31 C) (Viking 1 Lander site)
Wind speeds: 2-7 m/s (summer), 5-10 m/s (fall), 17-30 m/s (dust storm) (Viking Lander sites)
Mean molecular weight: 43.34 g/mole
Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) - 2.7%
Argon (Ar) - 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) - 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 0.08%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) - 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) - 100; Neon (Ne) - 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) - 0.85; Krypton (Kr) - 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) - 0.08

So we're talking carbon dioxide. Pressure is 7mb or 7hPa or 0.7kPa (earth pressure beeing around 1000hPa or 100kPa)

Here's a phase diagram of CO2

So at such low pressures, CO2 is vapor at diurnal temperature ranges. My theory seems not to hold. Please go back to sleep.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Max Romantschuk]

Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

With the life we know, this indeed holds true. But I'm sure there could be life based on any number of weird building blocks, we just don't have them here. If you ask me, DNA/RNA aren't even required for life, life is a different concept altogether, very hard to define though.

But seriously, water has lot's of great advantages, but I would presume the (hopefully) random nature of the universe could easily have come up with other working combinations which could be called life, even if they didn't involve water, or even DNA/RNA.

Before I start to look like an anal hair-splitter (did I just write that?), I'd like to say that your comment was very convincing. I just like to question everyting, and then some!

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Bruce Perens]

Well said. Remember why they call it "dry ice". And that's at terrestrial atmospheric pressure.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Xilman]

Second, the remarkable thing about water is that based on simple chemical rules it should not be a liquid at ordinary temperatures: ammonia, with a similar MW, is a gas. It is the strong hydrogen bonding between water molecules that gives it the high melting and boiling points, and the very wide range between them.

While that is true about water, it's also true about ammonia! There's quite strong hydrogen bonding in ammonia, which is why its boiling point and freezing point is so much higher than methane which genuinely doesn't have any hydrogen bonding. Methane has molecular weight of 16, ammonia of 17 and water of 18, so all these hydrides are quite similar in that respect. Their boiling points at atmospheric pressure are -161.6C, -33.4C and 100C respectively.

... does not react with oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or sulphur in the liquid state at ordinary pressures, and is easily formed in chemical reactions (which implies a small molecule).

I fail to see why a life-sustaining fluid must not react with oxygen at ordinary pressures. (I fail to see why it need not react with the others noted for that matter, but oxygen is the odd one out.) Oxygen is such a viciously reactive gas that it reacts with almost anything that isn't already heavily oxygenated. There is only free oxygen in the Earth's atmostphere because it has been generated by living organisms which have reacted water with CO_2 to produce useful stuff and a nasty toxic byproduct. Organisms capable of withstanding the corrosive atmosphere came much later and those which actually require free O_2 even later.

A biology that didn't use a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't produce a oxygenated atmosphere and ammonia would very probably serve well as a working fluid. An ammonia-water mixture would possibly be even more suitable.

Paul

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Dua]

This possible evidence for water was presented fairly recently too. Some people think that, instead of being water, it could just be flows of rocks etc (basically landslides) causing these gullies, rather than water. This new data look far more convincing to me though. The prospect of it being nitrogen is further limited by the fact that it's a pretty light molecule which would have mostly escaped from Mars's weaker gravitational field.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Anonymous Coward]

"Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.
"

The Guiness folks would disagree.. And alcohol seems to have adequately sustained most of the politicians well beyond their normal life expectancy. or does it just seem that way.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[fusiongyro]

With the life we know, this indeed holds true. But I'm sure there could be life based on any number of weird building blocks, we just don't have them here.

With a little application of the anthropic principle, why should we expect other life-bearing planets to be wildly different? I agree with your point that we shouldn't be looking just for what we have here, but we have two reasons to do that: 1. we know our data is good, and 2. we really don't know what else to look for.

In fact, it reinforces my total agreement with you that [D|R]NA is not necessary for life. I believe that a good minimum for definining life is just adaptive behavior, i.e. evolution. Of course we aren't inclined to say things like evolutionary algorithms or simple adaptive chemical processes "are" life... but perhaps part of the problem with that is that we simply haven't let these things go on long enough to recognize them as life.

In a universe this vast, it seems impossible to me that we could be the only life. One thing which I expect we'll find if we explore the universe in greater detail is that it's full of weird things. The weirdness of life doesn't come across when we sit at home in ultra-introspective mode, categorizing the minute differences between insects as though they're legendary incredible differences. The weirdness will come across when we're confronted by complex interrelated chemical and physical processes on other worlds, and our biologists won't want to call it life, while the rest of us will (or vice versa).

For once a little manifest destiny would have been just fine. Instead, we're peering through expensive telescopes, while our ancestors are pointing at the leaning tower and asking us why we aren't dropping things from the top of it.

--
Daniel

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[ojQj]

I read an excellent science fiction novel in which humans discovered a set of lifeforms on an oceanic planet which I found rather unique. (unfortunately, I can't remember which novel or which author).

They found huge floating chemical islands that steadily expanded as they came into contact with free floating molecules in the oceans. After further analysis they discovered that the boundaries of the islands contained patterns which interacted with eachother.

Essentially, the chemical islands were a computational host for a one-dimensional round universe. Time in that universe moved forward when chemicals accreted along the chemical island's boundary in this universe.

Of course whether or not finding a lifeform in another universe "counts" (even if that universe is hosted in our own) I don't know. Accepting the idea of other universes with different physical laws does make for some even more interesting difficulties in defining life though.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[tigersha]

There is a large difference between D/RNA and water. Water is an extremel simple molecule and acts as the carrier for the processes in life. Nucleic acids are
extremely complicated molecules that are used to store information (used to encode proteins)

Now, it is quite possible to envision an organism which uses some non-nucleic acid information storage system. However, for the trivial carrier molecule there is not really that much choice.

There are only so many simple molecules out there.

In the medium-complexity range, whould there we any other chemical structures which could replace proteins? I am not a biochemist...

I agree that we should not look for life just as ourselves. Alien life would probably not have DNA and might not have proteins. So we should not look for those.

However, they would probably be water based and therefore that is a good starting point.

AFAIK there is not many reasons to replace Carbon either, so they would probably be organic too. Another thing to look at.

Anyways, I am not an biochemist, again. Soany comments from the experts are welcome.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[W32.Klez.A]

Obviously, Hubble has a flash.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[micromoog]

Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

Well, I know a few people that have been sustaining such "experiments" for many years now . . .

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[roe1352]

I dont know, I think that things can survive in alcohol enviroments. Just ask my liver!

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[kinnell]

Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

But it's fun trying!

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[jefftp]

Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

Well, here in Texas there are a variety of human lifeforms that live off of alcohol instead of water.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Pharmboy]

In a universe this vast, it seems impossible to me that we could be the only life. One thing which I expect we'll find if we explore the universe in greater detail is that it's full of weird things. The weirdness of life doesn't come across when we sit at home in ultra-introspective mode, categorizing the minute differences between insects as though they're legendary incredible differences. The weirdness will come across when we're confronted by complex interrelated chemical and physical processes on other worlds, and our biologists won't want to call it life, while the rest of us will (or vice versa).

Purely as a layman: It seems the more I look at human biology, and the potential alternative lifeforms, I begin to conclude that while there MAY BE lifeforms based on something besides carbon, or that are carbon based but look very different than us, I would image most lifeforms in a similar state of intellegence (or lack thereof)DO look similar to us in many ways. I have to image that two eyes (stereoscopic vision) bipedal, and two of most everything is universally desirable. While 3 or more may be better, the benefits are not worth the evolutionary cost.

Paraphrasing Carl Sagan, maybe things look this way because if they were any other way, we wouldnt be here to look at them. Maybe most intellegent life will only form on planet that are .75 to 1.5x the size of earth to maintain the proper atmosphere, with a temperature that is within 30C of earth, etc. Maybe our kind of life only happen in non-binary systems, on planets that have an axis that is offset to the plane of their rotation, creating regular seasons (or maybe not). Not that Earth IS the standard, it just falls WITHIN the standard, so we are here to ask. Maybe life MUST be carbon based, maybe. Maybe we are not quite so unique, and its that all or most intellegent life looks disctictly similar to us in many ways outlined herein.

The irony is, if we found 12 different 'species' that were more or less at the same intellegence level (10000BC to 10000AD our perspective) they may actually look similar to the races on Star Trek. Biped, different features enhanced (Ferrangi with big ears, Vulcans with a logic based society, Klingon's with a warrior based society, etc). I don't mean LITERALLY we meet Klingons, but real species may be as similar simply because evolution works toward a similar model anywhere: Biped, two of everything, about 60 to 100KG in size, internal skeleton, and the variations are due to the variations of that planet. We would probably be just in the middle of this evolution. Maybe Grays are more toward completion of this evolution, if they exist.

Another case of life imitating art. However, unlike Star Trek, I am pretty sure they won't all speak American English. ;-)

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Rushuru]

I am pretty sure they won't all speak American English. ;-)

I'm working on a Universal Translator so that the american TV audience is not shocked when we make first contact

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[operagost]

Water fits the bill extremely well. Another liquid which is quite good is ethyl alcohol.

A planet with oceans of booze pretty much fills my criteria for a dream planet.
Mmmm... beer. *dives in*

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Sdrawcab]

Sounds like Greag Egan in the Diaspora

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Xandu]

Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

Mmmmmmm, Beer.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[psychofox]

Actually, a lower pressure means a higher boiling point.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[edxwelch]

I think the origonal poster's point wasn't about the life supporting capablities of water versus other liquids, just that this liquid causing these stains may not be water.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Captain Nitpick]

Actually, a lower pressure means a higher boiling point.

I'm sorry, thanks for playing. Lower pressure means lower boiling point. The popular example is that on top of Mt. Everest, where atmospheric pressure is low, water boils at roughly 75C. You can barely boil an egg on top of Mt. Everest, but when it's done, you can reach in and grab it with your bare hand.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[forkboy]

What, are you educated in public schools or something? Take a dish of water and put it under vacuum. See how it boils? That's lower pressure causing boiling at lower tempurature, son.

The reason a liquid boils is due to the molecules of the liquid being able to escape from the surface of the liquid mass due to a lack of air molecules banging against it. The fewer the air molecules and the weaker the intramolecular bonds between the liquid molecules, the more easily the liquid molecules can escape to a vapor state, hence the lower the boiling point.

Is that enough of a chemistry lesson or shall I demonstrate with equations and stuff?

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a dish of water and put it under vacuum. See how it boils? That's lower pressure causing boiling at lower tempurature, son.

Hmmm, mine's not boiling. Do I have to plug the vacuum in first? Hmmm, no change.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[EvilBudMan]

Jack Daniels might work.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Lord_Slepnir]

Wow, someone one slashdot who admits when they're wrong. I think we may be at the start of a new era!

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[laertes]

You forgot two steps:

1. Stand in dish.
2. Plug in vacuum.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's OIL!! Someone tell Bush so we can go bomb mars.

Them thar's oil in dem planets.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[ocie]

Another good thing about water is that it expands as it freezes. If it didn't, then the ice would sink to the bottom of the ocean, leaving the water on top to freeze into ice... Not that this is absolutely necessary, but I'm, sure it helps.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[crashfrog]

Protiens are probably required to have life in any circumstances; their utility comes not from their specific chemical composition but from their shape. Since we've discovered amino acids in meteors from deep space I think it's reasonable to assume that any life in the universe that is physical in nature will have protiens. Will they be just like ours? Of course not; they don't have to be. But they'll probably be shaped a lot like terrestrial protiens.

Of course, I'm not a biochemist either.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[2names]

Hmm... I don't know about you, pahdnah, but I don't want no fish fucking in my beer...

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[uberdave]

I would think that the most likely scenario for extraterrestrial intelligence would be either insectoid or reptillian. After all, it was only dumb luck that our planet got hit with that rock a few million years ago... Wasn't it? The universe should be filled with Gorn.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Pharmboy]

I would think that the most likely scenario for extraterrestrial intelligence would be either insectoid or reptillian. After all, it was only dumb luck that our planet got hit with that rock a few million years ago... Wasn't it?

I see your point, even tho I think you have your tongue in cheek. The question would be, however, would an insect or reptile, even a warm blooded reptile, evolve into a self aware, intellegent species. Our ancestor from that period (a shrew) survived and developed, but was it because it was possible, or probable?

Another thing to consider is the "accident" of being hit with a rock. Once again, the answer could be "if we were not hit with big rocks every now and then, we would not be here" which is true, and perhaps being hit by a big rock periodically is necessary to thin the herd, and for intellegent life to exist. I would imagine, just understanding what little I do about the cosmos (and its billions and billions of stars.....) that the vast majority of planetoids in the vast majority of systems get hit with big rocks on a regular basis, since thats what planets are made of, so it may be moot.

My thoughts, regarding the possibility of insect or reptiles becoming intellegent, is that it is less likely for a few reasons. (not impossible, just not probable):

1. From our experience, the more intellegent species tend to be predators. It appears it requires more thinking than grazing, and requires a high degree of flexibility and evolution. Some insects and reptiles may be preditors, but not to the degree as a warm blooded mammal.

2. Most, but not all, reptiles are cold blooded. This does not lend well to developing intellegence for a multitude of reasons.

3. Mammals tend to take care of their young for longer periods of time. I think there is a valid arguement that the longer the 'childhood' of a species, the higher the probability that the individual is guided more by knowledge and experience rather than instict. One of the differences between man and the animals is his ability to store his knowledge externally, in books, in schools, on CDs. This makes sharing it easier. This is key. Man didn't not jump in relative intellegence until language, writing and this ability to store information externally developed. The longer the childhood, the longer the learning period, the more information that can be passed on before the child assumes the roll of an adult.

And finally, perhaps an animal could start out as a reptile, then become warmblooded (like t-rex), then get smaller, get useful arms, harbor its children longer, develop speech, etc., but by that time, it would almost be a mammal, short of breast milk. Or perhaps it would only be after it developed into a mammal that it gained intellegence. So we get the same result, just a different path to it.

Then again, I am a layman that simply reads too much, so I could be completely wrong, and we could be the only species with intellegence that isnt insect based. but i doubt it:)

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Capt. DrunkenBum]

"Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long."

34 years and counting. :)

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[uberdave]

That's a very interesting point (being able to store information externally). One that I had not considered. My prerequisites for the development of intelligent life (in terms of us being able to detect them, a la SETI) is that they are non-aquatic. In order to generate a radio signal, you're going to need some sort of electricity/electronics setup. This means the ability to smelt metals. In other words, mastery of fire (difficult in an underwater environment). This in turn requires the ability to manipulate tools, fuel, etc, which means some sort of dexterous appendages. More than likely, these would come from a tree dwelling species.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Hercynium]

Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.

Indeed... just ask Ernest Hemmingway, Jack Kerouac, or Edgar Allen Poe!

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[corleth]

I can give a quick answer to that:

First of all, the only (potentially atmosphere forming) volatile elements observed in abundance on Mars are water and carbon dioxide. These are also the main two elements supplied by volcanism to the atmosphere from the mantle.

Secondly, carbon dioxide boils like crazy at all plausible atmospheric pressures and temperatures for Mars. Current Martian atmospheric pressure is about 600 Pa, which is sufficient to boil away a standing body of water at a few millimetres per second, or a standing body of carbon dioxide at a few metres per second. The channels observed on Mars are carved by fairly long lived (hours to years) floods, whereas CO2 would only really be capable of creating small floods before boiling away, and might actually look somewhat more like craters.

So, basically, water is the only viable material. There are many other reasons, but I find that one usually works.

-Karl

Dr Karl Mitchell, Planetary Science Research Group, Environmental Science Dept., Lancaster University, U.K.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[psychofox]

Ooops. That's wrong - how embarassing...

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[barawn]

While that is true about water, it's also true about ammonia! There's quite strong hydrogen bonding in ammonia, which is why its boiling point and freezing point is so much higher than methane which genuinely doesn't have any hydrogen bonding. Methane has molecular weight of 16, ammonia of 17 and water of 18, so all these hydrides are quite similar in that respect. Their boiling points at atmospheric pressure are -161.6C, -33.4C and 100C respectively.

Definitely true (well, I can't argue with facts!) and it has a large dipole moment as well.

However, it should be obvious from the above that ammonia will only work at temperatures below -33.4C (liquid-ammonia based reactions have to be in liquid ammonia, after all). It's unlikely (if not impossible, but I don't discount life's ingenuity) that ammonia life would form and then regulate an atmosphere to be below its albedo temperature (planets cool, not heat, after all) so we would have to expect the planet's average temperature to be well below -33.4C in order to find ammonia-carbon based life.

It's easy enough to think of what life to look for, then: just glance at the temperature in the area. However, I think ammonia-based life is really seriously unlikely : all reactions would proceed significantly slower due to the fact that they're occuring at a temperature lower than that with water-based life. Considering it already took something like a few billion years for life to evolve here, I don't think ammonia-based life is feasible at all near stars like the Sun. Maybe near red dwarves, but even they don't live forever.

Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe

[Xilman]

However, it should be obvious from the above that ammonia will only work at temperatures below -33.4C (liquid-ammonia based reactions have to be in liquid ammonia, after all). It's unlikely (if not impossible, but I don't discount life's ingenuity) that ammonia life would form and then regulate an atmosphere to be below its albedo temperature (planets cool, not heat, after all) so we would have to expect the planet's average temperature to be well below -33.4C in order to find ammonia-carbon based life.

:-)

Who said that the atmospheric pressure on a planet supporting ammonia-based life would have to be close to 1 bar?

Like most liquids, ammonia's boiling point can be raised substantially by increasing the pressure. Don't forget that domestic refrigerators used to use ammonia as a working fluid until safer alternatives were developed. It's quite easy to get ammonia liquid at "room" temperature.

Consider an ammonia-rich planet with a thick atmosphere. It could very easily have ammonia oceans at a temperature we would find comfortable. We could walk around on such a planet clothed only in lightweight gas-tight suits fitted with an oxygen supply in a backpack.

Paul

High res images

[t0qer]

Higher res images

(o) <----put that karma right here :P

Re:High res images

[berian]

From the link:
"The evidence for recent water activity is described in a paper by MGS MOC scientists being published in the June 30, 2000"

Give me my Karma back!!! ;-)

Re:High res images

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read the story again. It's about RECENT water - if you look at the two photos at the top of the page you will realise that they are a before and after of the same area - one of which has gullies, the other does not.

Bob

Re:High res images

[dotgod]

how about i put a space probe there instead?

Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not...

[aerojad]

Until we stop looking at pictures and send some more probes and people over there. It can be done, and we'll finally know for sure.

Re:Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not...

[Crossplatform]

When you say "send a probe" do mean sending a million dollar toy hurttling into the surface of mars. Or did you mean land it this time? However in all seriousness true no volume of pictures will substitute for being there

Re:Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not...

[TopShelf]

Just make sure the next one brings a surf board...

Re:Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not...

[Anonymous Coward]

send some more probes and people over there. It can be done

But getting the people back would be tricky.. They would need something to get of mars, then fall into the sun, then be saved by a just-passing earth, without smashing the earth too hard..

Re:Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not...

[g4dget]

For the amount of money it takes to send people there, we can send hundreds of probes; it really doesn't matter if a few of them fail. The "million dollar toy" you speak of was one attempt to cut costs; it didn't work--no big loss. Robotic exploration is the way to go--human exploration just doesn't make sense at this stage.

Re:Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not...

[g4dget]

Probes, yes. People, no, at least not in the foreseeable future: the amount of money we would spend on sending people would be much more effectively spent on probes. We can send a great number of probes for the cost of a single manned mission. Probes could return samples, for example, and they can be remotely controlled, albeit slowly. Probes also greatly reduce the risk of contamination of Mars with terrestrial organisms. Besides, there are many other interesting bodies in the solar system and probes allow us to explore all of them at least to some degree; human exploration of Mars is putting all our eggs in one basket for the near future.

Once propulsion and other technologies have advanced more, then we can think about sending people again.

It may be water

[CGameProgrammer]

I seriously doubt liquid nitrogen can exist at that low pressure. I figure either BBC is way off (their science stories are always a bit out there) or it really is water. There is certainly ice at the poles and below the surface... we've discovered that.

Things we could do with the water...

[jade42]

1. Beach resort
2. Evaporate it for salt
3. Water fights
4. Endless discussion about life on Mars
5. Experiments to see if fish could live on Mars

Re:Things we could do with the water...

[Anonymous Coward]

> 1. Beach resort
> 2. Evaporate it for salt
> 3. Water fights
> 4. Endless discussion about life on Mars
> 5. Experiments to see if fish could live on Mars

6. "Miss Wet T-Shirt" competitions...?

Re:Things we could do with the water...

[Mr_Dyqik]

7. Freeze It
8. Snowball Fight!

Re:Things we could do with the water...

[JCholewa]

> 6. "Miss Wet T-Shirt" competitions...?

At sixty degrees below freezing, you'd kill all the contestants.

I like my skimpily-dressed women alive, thank you.

-JC

Re:Things we could do with the water...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my skimpily-dressed women alive, thank you.

Well - that's just you.

In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89

I don't want life on Mars

[Matimus]

Although its exciting, It would seriously hinder us from engineering Mars into a livable planet. If we discover life there, people will have a big problem with messing up the eco system. I am all for dumping tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, warming the place up, and planting a bunch of trees. It would still be a long time before the environment would be safe for humans.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[bfinuc]

I disagree for two reasons:

1) Going to Mars would probably suck. For example, I think living in Anarctica sounds a lot better. I predict the population of Mars will never exceed that of Antarctica.

2) Finding life on Mars would be a massive boost to understanding life in general. I bet that if things get better in the next few centuries it will be because mankind improves things on Earth, and that understanding biology is going to be important in that process.

So destroying life, however primitive, on Mars, is probably a bad bet, because colonizing Mars isn't going to help anyone anyway, and studying alien life may very well..

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[gl4ss]

you lack the imagination to think 10 000 years forward, heck, 100 000 years should do it, or just make it a nice round million years. far by that if we don't get nuked to stone age(and even if we do) we can do it for relatively cheap and then we will do it.

colonizing mars is not going to help anyone anymore than colonizing america.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Matimus]

If we colonize Mars, the Native Martians get screwed, and then we will start to feel sorry and let them open up casinos to make up for it.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[sql*kitten]

Going to Mars would probably suck. For example, I think living in Anarctica sounds a lot better. I predict the population of Mars will never exceed that of Antarctica.

You know, the Spanish empire ignored North America because it thought it was just a useless, barren wasteland. I can imagine them saying something similar. The Moon is a like Antarctica, Mars is more like northern Canada - difficult, but liveable.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[StrawberryFrog]

You know, the Spanish empire ignored North America because it thought it was just a useless, barren wasteland

That was useless, barren, inhabited wasteland. I'll think you'll find that Mars on the other hand sucks a lot more as far as quality of life goes.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Trogre]

Don't worry,

I have it on good authority that the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Photon Ghoul]

...and the cost of living there is astronomical not to mention a non-existent techie job market.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Alranor]

Then came the night the first missile approached Earth. It was thought to be an ordinary falling star, but the next day there was a huge crater in the middle of the Common, and Ogilvy came to examine what lay there: a cylinder, thirty yards
across, glowing hot...and with faint sounds of movement coming from within.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Zak3056]

I predict the population of Mars will never exceed that of Antarctica.

And I predict that no one will ever need more than 640k.... oh, wait...

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[SmackCrackandPot]

Before we start terraforming other planets, I'd like to see if it were possible to terraform the large deserts (Sahara) into something useful.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Kallahar]

You need to think bigger, and more long term.

America had a population of a few tens of thousands in the 1400's. Europe had a lot, but not more than in the tens of millions. Now, the US has swelled to 280 million people. Sure, mars may look like an unneeded desert now, but if we put 20,000 settlers there now then in 600 years they'll have had a chance to grow.

Long term.

Travis

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Remeber one thing:

It's all about the money.

There are very few people who would go just to colonize. But, if you find mineral deposits, orfigure out a way to extract anything to make money, people will go.

The question right now is not whether it's doable, it's whether there is anything to do while up there.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Sinical]

1) Going to Mars would probably suck. For example, I think living in Anarctica sounds a lot better. I predict the population of Mars will never exceed that of Antarctica.

I'd go tomorrow if I could.

Try again.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Exedore]

you lack the imagination to think 10 000 years forward

Perhaps he does, but I don't.

I imagine I'll be dead. How's that?

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

So would I (I'd also go to Antarctica)and hundred of other people, but who's going to pay for it? Also if I did go to Mars I'd realistically expect to be dead within a few month.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[kels]

The Moon is a like Antarctica, Mars is more like northern Canada - difficult, but liveable.

Well, no. Mars is like Antarctica, but harsher. Take an Antarctic dry valley, subtract 99% of the atmospheric pressure, all of the oxygen, and bombard it with radiation (no magnetic field or ozone layer, remember), and take away any traces of surface water (at least). That's getting close. Sort of makes northern Canada look like paradise.

Living on Mars would be a lot more like living on the Moon than it would be like living in Antarctica. No going outside without a pressure suit. Bring your own oxygen and water, or manufacture it somehow. Protect yourself from radiation. But Mars is months away from rescue or supplies from Earth, unlike the Moon.

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[Tingler]

Could you take Michael Jackson with you?

Re:I don't want life on Mars

[bfinuc]

Actually the Spanish cam to America with short term goals - getting gold was the main one. They never intended anything long term. the colonists who didn't want to export tabacco or something at least were dreaming of a better life for their children. They were mostly self financed. Forget manned space flight, send robots to keep the dream alive. In 200 years we'll have the technology to start terraforming, in case anyone really wants to.

Oil :P

[Anonymous Coward]

That black stuff looks more like oil to me... Maybe mr. Bush will rush to Mars next.

Re:Oil :P

[mattite]

Notice the "Coward" part of Anonymous Coward. Only a communist liberal bashes this way....

I don't like some of the stuff Bush has done either, but at least I'm man enough to stick my name under it.

Re:Oil :P

[stephenb]

We cannot go to war with the oil-rich Martians, even though their dictator may have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Won't someone think of the poor Martian children?

Re:Oil :P

[Bandman]

you jest, but I think that would be outstanding. Nothing would change the administration's mind like the thought that crude oil is so abundant there that it flows freely on the ground. Talk about getting something done. Then you run the risk turning mars into something that looks like a boomtown with oil derricks everywhere. /sigh

The point is moot, of course, owing to the fact that crude oil is biological in origin. Maybe millions of years ago, there were rainforests, martiansaurs, etc, and they became crude oil, but I'm not holding my breath betting on it :-(

Re:Oil :P

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like oil of snakes to me

Re:Oil :P

[PhxBlue]

Damn tootin'! Mars is a dangerous rogue state with a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. We have intelligence which proves Mars has worked with Al Qaeda to terrorize our world (but we can't share our information--it's classified). It is imperative that Mars dismantle its weapons of mass destruction; if they do not (or, heck, even if they do), we must disarm the Martians by force.

War is our last option (wink wink nudge nudge), but sanctions and inspections have proven ineffective. Mars' continued defiance of UN resolutions (and their rich, untapped oil fields) forces our hand in this matter.

Re:Oil :P

[Aetrix]

Haven't you watched the X-Files?!? It's the BLACK OIL PLAGUE! We know the black oil plague came from space... It's going to infect us all and turn us into part-human-part-aliens.

Now THAT's justification for going to war.

Re:Oil :P

[amorsen]

What about the hydrogen economy? Maybe someone should tell W that Jupiter is pretty much all hydrogen...

Re:Oil :P

[Bandman]

then he'll just go bomb it as a threat to our national interests, and by national interests, I mean his oil investments.

Send Some People Already!

[ThresholdRPG]

All of this speculation really gets us no closer to any valuable knowledge than any probes, robots, or analysis from the past.

We really need to get some actual PEOPLE there to gather some real data. This photo interpretation is only a little bit better than Rorschach Ink blot for crying out loud.

The only real good that comes out of this is hopefully it will generate interest in the nimrods who don't see the value in getting some people on the planet.

To quote Arnold: "Get your butt to Mars!"

Re:Send Some People Already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, monsters, don cheadle, and three-tittied alien women are just waiting to be discovered!

Re:Send Some People Already!

[dubstop]

The more likely it is that there is life on Mars, the more circumspect we should be about sending people there. I can't see how it would be possible to send people to the surface for any duration, without running a significant risk of the mars biosphere becoming contamined.

Just by being there, we could destroy a biological system that has evolved in isolation for billions of years.

Re:Send Some People Already!

[Lynn Benfield]

Actually, he says "Get your ass to Mars!". Quite the potty mouth.

Re:Send Some People Already!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think it would be a smarter move to send some probes to mars with some tasks like monitoring the planets weathersystem for few years.. put up a net of probes and try to build some models from the data obtained so we really know what is waiting for us.. when we send some homo sapiens there to stir things up...

Re:Send Some People Already!

[6hill]

Just by being there, we could destroy a biological system that has evolved in isolation for billions of years.

And vice versa -- if there's a carbon-based ecosystem on Mars that's in some way compatible with us, the chances are there could also be something that could kill us effectively. Uber-Ebola that's 1000% more contagious, or perhaps an exponentially growing omnivorous organism that devours everything on its path. Cue in on $BAD_SCIFI/DISASTER_BLOCKBUSTER come true.

Re:Send Some People Already!

[mclearn]

To quote Arnold: "Get your butt to Mars!" Only on the TBS Superstation version...

Re:Send Some People Already!

[eglamkowski]

Yeah, but the astronauts would probably die on the way back. You'd have to assume either the lifeforms have a long incubation period or else they can hibernate for long periods of time without a host (spores?).

But then, killing off the humans wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen to this planet :-p
(worst for us humans, but not for the planet)

At what temprature does water freeze on mars?

[rf0]

I was just thinking at what temprature does water freeze on mars? Surely if there is running water it raises hope that there might some microbes living in it, however I would think that it might depend on the temprature water. Anyone got any ideas? Or am I just talking rubbish?

Rus

Re:At what temprature does water freeze on mars?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already hard enough to observe cells with a microscope. To be able to see a microbe, with a telescope over millions of miles is impossible with our current technology.

To be able to tell whether there's any life, someone would either have to check it out on site, or wait until the supposed life on Mars gets big or numerous enough to be distinguishable from, say, a streak of water.

Re:At what temprature does water freeze on mars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eheheheh, I always thought water froze at 0 Celsius =)

Re:At what temprature does water freeze on mars?

[dreamchaser]

No, it varies depending on the atmospheric pressure. It only freezes at 0C at Earth normal sea level pressure.

Re:At what temprature does water freeze on mars?

[Dr.Enormous]

Well, Mars is cold enough that the water should--by all rights--be frozen, except that they're claiming it becomes a "super-saline" solutions. Salt lowers the freezing point of water (actually, anything that dissolves in a liquid depresses the freezing point), so it might stay liquid at very very cold temperatures.

Current Data: Inconclusive

[MegaFur]

It's a nice idea, but, as usual, the details don't seem to reinforce the headline much. I can't blame Slashdot (much) for being sensational this time--the story submitter copied the headline from the BBC article. Although the submitter did manage to make it just that tiny bit more sensationist by removing the quotes from the word flows.

The article says how the observed phenomena do all these various things that water should do. As Eric points out, water is not the only liquid. More generally, the question of importance is: what are the other possible causes for the observed phenonena? All we've really got are Dark Streaks and possible Dynamic Fluid Flow. That's not really so much to go on. Sure something's definitely happening down there, and it could be water or some other fluid--but that's all we know right now.

Re:Current Data: Inconclusive

[ColmanReilly]

Well, yes, but we are also pretty sure that there is water on Mars, and if it was heavily contaminated with mineral salts it wouldn't evaporate immediately, so the theory isn't all that far-fetched. It's a nice simple interpretation of the data. Now, can we send some probes to check it out please.

Of course, it could be little green aliens urinating from space, but that theory seems a little silly.

Re:Current Data: Inconclusive

[pclminion]

It doesn't mention it in the article, but the streaks almost always flow away from the poles (i.e., they flow south in the north hemisphere, north in the southern hemisphere). This seems to imply that temperature gradients have something to do with enabling the flow. It helps narrow down the range of possible substances. This is why astrogeologists like the idea that it could be water.

These dark streaks have been known for actually quite some years. It has been constant debate over what they are. This scientist isn't the first to propose it's liquid water. She doesn't seem to put forth any fantastic new ideas, though. Basically, she did a lot of observation, more than most other scientists have bothered to do, and has actually witnessed new streaks forming.

But it definitely isn't conclusive at all.

Re:Current Data: Inconclusive

[nyssa]

Maybe it's blood, and that's why Mars is red. What would you expect from the god of war? ;)

Re:Current Data: Inconclusive

[corleth]

I agree. This headline is definitely jumping the gun, which is beneath what I usually expect of the BBC. Clearly that there is change on the surface is interesting. However, there are alternative explanations to water, such as a debris flow, due to slope collapse, exposing materials in a different oxidation state, which need further investigation.

This is also research that has, to my knowledge, not been peer-reviewed. Tahirih Motazedian is a planetary scientist that I have never met or heard of before. I think she is a student or a junior RA, not that that means anything in itself. It certainly must have taken some degree of dedication to sift through all of the overlapping images to look for such change, and that should be applauded.

This work is being presented at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston next week (click here for an abstract), and so we'll soon see if it bears up to scrutiny (I'll be there). At a first glance, the abstract seems to make perfect sense, but it would need some sort of supporting evidence (possibly using multi-spectral THEMIS data) before convincing me. -Karl

Dr Karl Mitchell, Planetary Scientist, Lancaster University, U.K.

Again???

[Lord Prox]

Is it just me or what? But it seems like every time I turn around someone is finding water on mars again for the first time.

Right, wrong, irrelevent. What is, is. Lord Prox

and at the same time

[lingqi]

radiation on mars is killer

darn, eh?

Re:and at the same time

[NBarnes]

I would suspect that the long-term effects of low and zero-g environments that humans on a Mars mission would be exposed to for the three-odd years such a mission would require would actually be somewhat more dangerous than the radiation involved. It's possible to shield against radiation, after all....

Re:and at the same time

[hurtta]

low and zero-g environments that humans on a Mars mission

Perhaps spaceship can be put to scroll.

(I did not think about Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey)

Re:and at the same time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in orbit. Not on the surface (duh!)

You have a little atmosphere. You have lots of snow/dust composite blocks with which to build igloos over your habitats.

And there are regions where the remnant magnetic fields do indeed shield against radiation sufficiently to be useful.

Re:and at the same time

[Physics Dude]

Offtopic I know, but... While 2.5x the radiation at LEO is a lot more than the average background here, it's debatable whether this is 'killer'. Radiation in ammounts roughly 5x background are known to be beneficial.

The effects of radiation are known to conflict with the linear-no-threshold hypothesis and are definitely non-linear. A study of roughly 60,000 Naval shipyard workers (half in the nulcear program and half not) showed that the nuclear shipyard workers (who received roughly 5x normal background) had death rates 24% lower. (That's 16 standard deviations!) The deaths due to cancer rate were 4 standard deviations lower. For the study's population size this is extremely significant because all other demographic factors were virtually identical except for the high levels of radiation.

Current thinking is that these levels of radiation actually stimulate the body's immune system. For further info, search google for "Nuclear Shipyard Worker" and "Radiation" or on "Radiation Hormesis". Here's a start

Re:and at the same time

[Physics Dude]

Oops! Ok... I knew I should have looked up the comparison between surface radiation levels and orbital radiation levels. :)

While I couldn't find any info on mars surface radiation levels, orbital radiation is quite a bit higher in general. Dose rates aboard the ISS apparently are a hundred times average background radiation according to one website. I don't have any decent reference with me.

No way

[_Spirit]

I ain't sticking nothing there, no sir

Wrong link

[henben]

Don't link to the science index page - link directly to the story, silly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2846897.stm

I want life on Mars...

[FFtrDale]

Ours! Most of us old farts were sure when we were children that there would be colonies on Mars before 2003.

Maybe Mars will be a great place to try our hand at terraforming, but whether there's life there or not, we'll see outrageous political battles over the attempt. Let's go anyway! Perhaps it'll have to be some far-off planet that gives us the chance to really engineer the place without massive protests by people on Earth who aren't doing anything themselves. That's no reason not to go to Mars and see what we can find out about the place with actual people there on the ground.

And sure, [i]t would still be a long time before the environment would be safe for humans." Hey, this planet isn't all that safe for humans in the first place. Let's go.

Uhm.

[skrotnisse]

Why the rush in making Mars an inhabitable planet when we are doing just the opposite on Earth?

Shouldn't we at least try to fix THIS eco-system before we go screw another one?

Re:Uhm.

[Anonymous Coward]

This planet is doing just fine.

Until you show me that the important organisims like plants are dying, just wilting and no longer seeding because of changes in our environment then bugger off.

Animal life is not the important organisim. insect and plant life is what makes it habitable for our brand of animal life.

if we are all to die, the planet will do just fine without us.

hell, the only thing we could really do to DESTROY the ecosystem here is a full blown nuclear war that splits the planet in 1/2 and boils off the atmosphere..

anything less and life will simply start rebuilding again.

Re:Uhm.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The two are not mutually exclusive choices, and either implies more knowledge with which to perform the other. Oh, and Mars has no ecosystem, so its pretty safe to screw around there.
2. Who is this "we" you speak of? I don't see any "we".

Re:Uhm.

[nicodaemos]

You would have made a good captain on the Titanic. I can see you now, "We're not going to start lowering lifeboats until I see water on the bridge. This ship is damn well unsinkable. Otherwise, bugger off with your concern about this little leak!"

Oh, and uhm, life did and does still persist on the Titanic .... it's just not of the human kind.

Re:I want life on Mars...

[WindBourne]

Most of us old farts were sure when we were children that there would be colonies on Mars before 2003. There would be except for the horrible politics that occurs here. Just when X-33 was about to yield some results, W. Kills it. We should be through the testing phase of it.
Nixon killed NASA by cutting the budget massivly and leaving us with the shuttle. The original version would have gone to space at a fraction of the price of the current shuttle.
Clinton totally perverted the Space Station from being a possible low-cost factory type assembly into a multi-nation nightmare.
Raygun and Bush were not much better. Suggest ideas and then cut the budget. When projects are underfunded, we have accidents becuase managers up top push for what bit of money you have to go further. Engineers get ignored.
The only thing holding us back is our politicians. I only hope that Zubrin is able to privitize space travel as our current politicians are killing it - literally.

Would you buy Martian bottled water?...

[Wonderkid]

So, fans of the exotic, do you thirst for MarsHydro?. How much would YOU pay for a litre of the purest of the pure?

Postage and Shipping not included. Add $4995.

Re:flowing water found on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got dark streaks on my undies. Does that lead anyone to speculate that there is life near the surface of my panties?

I hope it it not oil.

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

Otherwise the Bush administration might have to bomb those cute little Martians to free them of their oppressive government.

OTOH those who survive would be taught democracy by an American military government. Mabye not so bad after all. And they would get McDonalds!

Re:Water on Mars

[hurtta]

life on mars does exist..

Is there some evidence about life on Mars?

Mars is geologically active? Cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this story and my first thought was "Is mars still volcanically active?" Not by earth standards, but supposedly, it is.

Re:Mars is geologically active? Cool.

[CanSpice]

If by "active" you mean in the last 40 to 100 million years, then yes, Mars is volcanically active.

However, most of us are living in the present, where 40 to 100 million years of volcanic inactivity means that Mars is volcanically inactive.

universal liquid

[djupedal]

The porosity of the bed would be as much a factor as the presumed liquid. Factor in an alternate gravity, etc., and I'd say the odds of neo-water are 50/50.

My $$ is on the theory that if there was an alternate liquid, it wouldn't flow as much as pool, and stay put, meaning we'd see it.

Who cares?

[DeBaas]

Do they have beer? That's the question

Re:I want life on Mars...

[jhines0042]

A trip to mars right now is a one way trip.

How, oh wise one, would you get back? Where would you find someone skilled enough to go to Mars that was willing to go there to die? Much less a whole crew?

Also, our technology for renewable, self sustaining life, ON EARTH, isn't there yet. How would you expect to send up a living module complete enough to allow the group of suicide scientists to survive for any length of time AND still have time to do any exploration?

Give it another 100 years, we'll get there.

But Quayle did save NASA

[tjstork]

Hey, the guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but, during the really big budget deficit days of the late 80's and early 90's, Bush Sr was like, well let's axe NASA. Dan Quayle intervened to get NASA put back into the budget.

Not new!

[Squareball]

Over 2 years ago Richard C. Hoagland was on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell and sad discovered this very thing after looking through images that came back from our mars explorer.
Enterprise Mission
So not only is echelon real, not it's confirmed that RCH was right all along. Starts to make these conspiracy shows a little more credible doesn't it?

Re:Not new!

[Tailhook]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Art Bell occasionally approaches reality, too! My problem with it that you have to filter out the high BS content to learn anything of value. While Art may have had this on some night two years ago, the 730 days since then have been pure brain rot.

Re:Not new!

[Anonymous Coward]

But Hoagland is a certified NUT.

So there goes that theory....

Re:Not new!

[errxn]

I've listened to Coast to Coast for years now, and RCH has consistently been my favorite guest. His theories range from the fairly plausible to the ramblings of a complete wack job, but nonetheless, his intensity and passion have always been highly entertaining.

The one thing that keeps me from writing him off completely is the fact that he was a NASA insider for quite some time in the past. Because of that, one has to wonder if he: A) lost his mind, B) has an axe to grind against NASA, or C) knows something that we don't. When he talks about subjects such as water on Mars, and attempts to downplay that by NASA, that's fairly believable, but when he starts spouting forth about "hyperdimensional physics" and a giant secret society within NASA which is devoted to ancient ritualistic behavior, erm...not so much. Entertaining, though. I'll give the guy that much.

Re:Not new!

[Squareball]

I couldn't have summed it up better. When I first heard RCH I thought he was an awesome guest! Then the more I heard him the more I thought the guy was a complete nutcase. I had written him off since last year when I heard him on C2C begging for money (i mean openly begging.. "please give me money!") but now I think I have to take another look at this guy.

Re:Not new!

[Anonymous Coward]

That probably means he's due, then...

Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 10 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

in my inbox this morning

[greenalbatros]

Anyone want to join my weird telepathic sex cult?


and despite what follows, it wasnt me

Re:If there is water...

[Anonymous Coward]

> all living things are contained in water...

Well.. I'm not... not since I had my morning bath.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Surak]

Yeah, I remember the movie Total Recall with R'Nold...a movie essentially about a colony on Mars. The scariest scene in the movie is when they show Quayle on the screen as President. I just about peed my pants! ;)

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[TopShelf]

Maybe we can get ole Danny Boy to ride along with the next Mars mission. Let's tell him he'll be allowed to play fetch with Red Rover...

Re:Full Text

[jjhplus9]

You also see these exact same patterns in fast flowing landslides and avalanches...

Landslides are probably a far more likely explanation.

We see patterns like this all the time

Just this month I was looking at identicat patterns in valleys in the French Alpes.

Just my £0.02 worth

What next?

[DjMd]

Blue skys on Mars?

Better get your ass to Mars.

Water on Mars - who cares?

[juushin]

I really don't see -- and am hoping to be enlightened by the Slashdot masses -- why it is so interesting if there really is water on Mars. I clearly understand that this may be an indication of simple forms of life, ie. microorganisms, inhabiting the planet, but what does this really do for humanity over the long run?

Does this lead people to think that the herculean effort of trying to terraform a planet like Mars is more feasible?

Does this lead credence to the concept of Mars previously having been inhabited by more complex organisms?

Does this...

Re:Water on Mars - who cares?

[vidarh]

For one it would dramatically simplify colonization of Mars: You wouldn't have to bring huge quantities of your own water, and you'll have hydrogen readily available for fuel (for return flights). Both dramatically reduce the mass you'd need to transport to Mars to set up and maintain a colony.

Re:Water on Mars - who cares?

[dylan_-]

why it is so interesting if there really is water on Mars.

If there is simple life on Mars, there is the possibility that life in this Solar system began on Mars, not Earth. Problems with life beginning on Earth are that it was too hot (around 4 billion years ago when they figure life should have begun) with meteors crashing into it continually so that the surface was basically a sea of lava. Mars was more hospitable at that time.

We've found fragments of Mars, blasted off by impacts, on Earth, so life could have been carried here that way.

If any life on Mars is completely different to Earth life, OTOH, it would be fascinating to see how different approaches could work...also, life developing entirely independently on two planets within our solar system would strongly indicate that life was quite common within the Galaxy.

Re:Water on Mars - who cares?

[gkirkend]

One very nice side effect of the research efforts to put humans on mars will be recycling technology and efficient use of limited resources. With the planets' ever-growing population, I believe this technology would be very useful indeed.

Greg

Re:as far as we know so far...

[op51n]

I reckon it's a bit presumptious to say, well if there's water there's life, and if there's no water there's no life. I mean who knows!? Just because it's not possible, so far, to find life without water here, doesn't mean it necessarily will always be the norm.

Total Recall

[FlynnMP3]

As everyone in hollywood knows, this is very old news. Perhaps the underground ice was melted too fast and it has started to spill onto the martian landscape. Can't rush terrforming you know. Well, that and Quatto has finally gone mad. :)

Re:Total Recall

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just looking forward to them discovering that chick with them three hooters. Woooohweeee!

(And you thought Gee Dubyah didn't read Slashdot..)

Just like a rush to War in Iraq

[bareman]

Why would we wait to fix a current problem before making a new one.

Fixing stuff is hard work. Wrecking things is easy, maybe even... fun.

Some of us knew this more than 2 years ago

[Slashdolt]

"Placitas, NM, 07/19/2000 -- New research by investigators for the Enterprise Mission (www.enterprisemission.com), a private, not-for-profit space science research organization, has revealed strong evidence of present day liquid water on Mars in recent Mars Global surveyor images. Coming on the heels of the June 22nd, 2000 NASA press conference in which Malin Space Science Systems investigators Michael Malin and Kenneth Edgett asserted the possibility that Mars may have had liquid water in the geologically recent past, this new photographic evidence confirms that liquid water is almost certainly existent on Mars today."

The rest is below.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/press-water.htm l

Re:Some of us knew this more than 2 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Researcher Tahirih Motazedian apparently uncovered proof quite some time ago...

well, turns out she's not a confirmed researcher yet, but a student... check out this girl's
photo, she looks pretty young to me...

immagine all the discoveries she has the potential to make once she enters full-time as a researcher...

Re:Some of us knew this more than 2 years ago

[Slashdolt]

immagine all the discoveries she has the potential to make once she enters full-time as a researcher...

Right... I can't say that the sky is blue because I'm not a confirmed researcher. I should rather look in the scientific journals and find where other scientists have already researched the sky and concluded that it is indeed blue or not before I jump to such conclusions.

Sigh...

Stains

[Baavgai]

You got me all excited for stains? I fail to see how this would imply water. Why not different color strata that get disturbed or shift for any number of reasons? As intriguing as Martian rivers would be, imposing the desire on scant evidence is poor science at best.

Life on mars = ???

[Drunken_Jackass]

So I was wondering. If there is, in fact, water on mars. And if because of that, there was life on mars - microbiotic. What would we do?

Aside from all of the theoligical implications, what would our response be? Would we collect it to near extinction ala early biologists (let's kill it, stuff it, and put it under glass) or would we just leave it alone? Would we bring it back here (unlikely) and if so, where would we put it?

I always kind of assumed that if we found life, it would be more simple than science fiction has postured, but i never really thought of the implications of that simplicity.

Re:Life on mars = ???

[Anonymous Coward]

where have you been?
both water and microbiotic organisms exist on Mars. A Martian rock containing Micro-Organisms (fosselized) (IIRC via an asteroid) was found during the Clinton Administration, and water has been known to exist in the form of ice at the poles of Mars. And, honestly beyond the normal hemming and hawwing there hasn't been very much impact of this news on the world. That is to say not much has changed about our own worldviews since these discoveries have been made.

Re:Life on mars = ???

[Kupek]

There was lots of speculation, but there was no confirmation. Earth is still the only place we have seen direct evidence of life.

Re:Life on mars = ???

[Khomar]

Aside from all of the theoligical implications

What theological implications? I find this argument actually rather funny. It is not as if the existence of life on other planets suddenly disproves religion (or Christianity in specifics). The Bible never says that there is not life on other planets, nor does any of its doctrine rely upon this fact -- especially in the case of non-intelligent life which is what we are dealing with here. Discovery of life on Mars would not destroy my faith. Rather, it would merely show more of God's glory in the variety of His creation.

Re:Life on mars = ???

[Anonymous Coward]

What theological implications? If you beleive in G_d, obviously He created the life-forms. If you don't, no problem. If your belief system insists there cannot be life on mars, you'll refuse to accept the evidence. Status quo, yawn.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." ...Governor George W. Bush, 8/11/94

I've also seen this quote attributed to Al Gore...

Answer: Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s. People who First Post are not Waiting to Fullness. They are just an Egg. Waiting is all.

Not to mention radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nasa.gov/HP_news_03102.html

Re:Not to mention radiation

[Abcd1234]

Yes, but guess WHY the radiation levels are so high? No magnetosphere, due to the cold core. After all, how do you think the earth's surface (and to a lesser degree, an astronaut in LEO) is protected from solar and extrasolar radiation?

Even better than flowing water would be....

[AtomicX]

... flowing beer on Mars! - I just wish the scientists would hurry up and find it.

Re:I want life on Mars...

[bgarcia]

Let's go.

Ok!

You first...

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[croddy]

qualye quotes (like gore quotes and bush2 quotes) are more often false. snopes does attribute this one to him though.

Other Alternatives:

[DzugZug]

It could also be that this guy is full of it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: any "science" that is published first in a mainstream media outlet is suspect. My response to all such stories is, "In which peer reviewed journal will they be publishing their findings?" Sorry to troll but this story is most likely bogus.

See my journal for a list of other crapy science stories.

Nonetheless, you do have an interesting point about other liquids on mars.

cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Landscaping 1 square mile of unstable/land-slide: $10 million.

Terraforming 1 square mile of mars: *BANG* (thud)

Proof does not exist in science

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Proof does not exist in science, only evidence. No credible scientist with a command of the english language would claim to have proof of anything. Remeber, there are not any "Truths" in science, only theories which are simply the best current explanation.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Asprin]

Yeah, I remember the movie Total Recall with R'Nold...a movie essentially about a colony on Mars. The scariest scene in the movie is when they show Quayle on the screen as President. I just about peed my pants! ;)

You know what bothered me about TR? What did the martians breathe **WHILE** they building the air oxygen machine?

Yeah, I know, Arnold movie - check your brain at the door. I love his movies, though. (Guilty Pleasure) My least-favorite-consequence -of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics is that I'll never be able to watch Commando for the first time again. (sigh)

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Himring]

Hah! I just googled part of that quote and it's attributed to GWB gov., GWB pres., Quayle, Gore, Reagan, etc.... Now I see why Internet sources in term papers are frowned upon.... Far harder to dispute is the pic of clinton peering over the DMZ between N. and S. Korea with the lens caps still on the binoculars....

NASA - Mars - whatever....

[Jedi Holocron]

Someone alreadt pointed out www.enterprisemission.com. There is a lot of info on that sight that is rather intesting to this reader. Have an open mind and check it out.

Is is just cooincidence that today NASA announces that the current active mission at Mars proved that radiation is so high that astronaughts, nor any other type of life, could possibly survive there.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:NASA - Mars - whatever....

[jjohnson]

Testimonials from the reverse speech guy immediately close my mind. Sorry, I don't have time to waste on lunatics.

FTR, being on the Art Bell show is not an unequivocal judgement of one's credibility.

Re:Oil :P [OT]

[JCholewa]

> Notice the "Coward" part of Anonymous Coward.
> Only a communist liberal bashes this way....

Be fair. Both Liberals and Conservatives bash. Both Liberals and Conservatives make silly, critical remarks from hidden places. This is a thing that humans do normally. Belonging to any particular political party or idealism does not suddenly mutate you into some angelic being incable of ill will.

-JC

Geothermal heat?

[DigitalSorceress]

In the article, they mention that geothermal heat could be causing the ice to melt... This dredges up some foggy memories: I seem to recall having heard that Mars no longer had any active volcanism, and that mantle may have solidified (a lack a magnetic field being a strong indicator of this)

I'm not a geologist (or exogeologist for that matter) and so I'm not claiming any special knowledge here, but it keeps bugging the back of my mind - Any insights?

Re:Geothermal heat?

[hopemafia]

Even if Mars currently has no active volcanism, there easily could be enough geothermal heat to melt water. It takes a really, really long time for rocks to cool (they are very poor conductors of heat).

Also, a planet's magnetic field is generated by it's liquid outer core. Even Earth's mantle is solidified. But, you are correct in that Mars has no magnetic field, and thus is likely solid all the way through.

I am a geologist (but a hydro... not an exo...), so take that for what you will.

Re:Geothermal heat?

[DigitalSorceress]

Thanks... I knew there would be someone out there on /. to set me straight on the details. After all, IANAG.

*grin*

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Himring]

Wtf? I just checked out what www.snopes.com had to say on this quote, and at the page:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm

It says this, at the top of the previous paragraph, before giving a list of quotes:

"Most of the ones on the following list are actual Quayle quotes" ('most of the ones'?... nice writing there wannabes).

K, so, like, which 'ones' are real 'ones' and which 'ones' are not?!?

Geez. Again, don't use Internet sources in term papers....

Finally kill off religion...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we discovered life on other planets, perhaps it will finally shut up the stupid religious fanatics. But of course it wouldn't. I theorize that if *intelligent* life is ever discovered, the religious nuts would say "Well, God didn't give them souls like he did with us humans!"

Religion blows. It holds back progress.

Anyone fancy...

[EpsCylonB]

Anyone fancy a swim ?

Plagiarism? This is someone else's idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news that has already been reported on 7/19/2000 by Richard Hogland, Michael Bara, Efrain Palermo and Jill England of The Enterprise Mission. There is also a pdf file here.

These people have been at this a LONG time before this new "scientist" came out with this "great discovery". Geeeeshhh

No bombing needed

[Anonymous Coward]

To prevent the erosion of some future atmosphere, you probably would need to restart the magnetic field. Maybe you could drill down to the core [thecoremovie.com] and plant a big bomb to restart it.

Couldn't we just put a web server on the core, and link to it from slashdot?

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[operagost]

I also enjoyed how their eyes bugged out from the lack of oxygen and atmospheric pressure, but the -60 c surface temperature didn't seem to bother them.

It is clear from the taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Evian:

Our water supply has been filtered through unique red sediment, for uncountable millenia, be first to experience the only mineral water that hasn't already previously been drank by several thousand other carbon based lifeforms.

But of course, they reckon life be on mars, so perhaps the whole water has become crazily ferented, and is 40% ABV ;-) yey!!

Piss up on mars dude!! that is what killed the dinosaurs!!

They invented space travel, built the pyramids, hide atlantis, flew to mars, got pissed, and forgot how to culture new livers for themselves, and the dino AA agency became so popular, that they tried to place a large asteroid of telecoms equiptment orbiting the earth to keep connections open.

DinoSoft supplied the software, and the asteroidlanded on Dinux headquarters, killing 99.99999% of geek dinos, and leaving nothing for the other dinos to pick on and eat.

Thus endeth the world. A lesser intelligent lifeform became dominant, and sought to learn from the mistakes of the dinosaurs.

Oh dear, what am I saying.

I like my water martian filtered, 2 litres daily.

Yeah I mean, typical

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds watering down the Coca Cola for profit. I mean, Coca Cola, of all benevolent and fair trade companies.

Damn americans.

McDonalds
WalMart
Coca Cola
Starbucks

No wonder humanity is doomed.

Capitalism = !Humanism

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[br0ck]

Snopes also weighs in on the Bush/Clinton binocular lens cap issue.

What's really important about water

[antares256]

In order to send people, we would need to know that there are in-situ resources the crews could use. It would be far too expensive to send all of their consumables with them. Water provides many useful products: direct consumption, Oxygen to breathe, fuel for return, Power for fuel cells, etc...Same situation for the Hydrogen discovered on the Lunar Poles by Lunar Prospecter

We know from Odyssey that there is hydrogen in the subsurface (at most a couple of meters from the surface), and it has been proposed that there is permafrost on Mars. If there's a brine of liquid water, it makes the job of extraction much easier.

As for radiation...Dirt makes a good radiation shield (a couple of meters piled on structures would do), so does water.

What's really interesting is the question of where did the water come from? If it's in the highlands near Olympus Mons, then it had to be pushed into the surrounding strata somehow (and the most likely scenario was a "warmer, wetter" period early in Mars's history i.e. Large Liquid Ocean).

This will probably be discussed at this year's LPSC.

Besides. . .

[PhxBlue]

. . .those Martians tried to kill my Daddy!

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Himring]

Snopes also weighs in [snopes.com] on the Bush/Clinton binocular lens cap issue.

Saw that. I like how they went to great lengths in justifying/explaining/excusing the clinton barf, and then go to great lengths to string out a possible explanation, conjecturally, of how the graphic was altered.

It's too bad they don't have enough journalistic integrity to do the same for someone of the opposite, political, affiliation. With Quayle, they went to such lengths as to put up a quicktime montage of his public-speaking barfs (not to mention giving a list of stupid quotes with a "most of these are actually from Quayle" explanation). I saw not an equivalent for clinton.

Hey! Let's not discuss the clip where Gore asks who the bust of George Washington is....

Let's be honest fellas, no one's perfect, politicians are hated, and society today that cares more about the look and sound of a leader makes us all drones of that criteria.

-"Bias? Nah, bias only exists with those who don't agree with me...."

I just have one thing to tell you...

[Jace of Fuse!]

I just have one thing to tell you...

It's not water... ...It's Pepsi twist... ...and that's not Mars you're looking at...

The sound of unzipping...

Re:I just have one thing to tell you...

[NeuroManson]

"...and that's not Mars you're looking at...

The sound of unzipping..."

It's the Osmonds! *SCREAM*

pack a bowl

[EvilStein]

Water on Mars? Woah...that might make some really kick ass bong water!

Do you think NASA isn't working on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA will launch two rovers this year, one in May and one in June. They will land on Mars in January.

The Europeans are also launching a cute little lander called Beagle 2. It'll just stay parked in one place, but it's a good first attempt at a Mars lander.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw that. I like how they went to great lengths in justifying/explaining/excusing the clinton barf, and then go to great lengths to string out a possible explanation, conjecturally, of how the graphic was altered.

It's too bad they don't have enough journalistic integrity to do the same for someone of the opposite, political, affiliation.

They do, and they did, for the picture of GWB reading a book upside-down. It was the exact same situation, going to great lengths to prove that it was Photoshopped.

Move along.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Himring]

They do, and they did, for the picture of GWB reading a book upside-down. It was the exact same situation, going to great lengths to prove that it was Photoshopped.

Ah, did not see that one. That's good to know. I guess the bias comes in spurts then. Huh, uh, huh, huh ... he said "spurts...."

-"Everyone is entitled to my opinion...."

first paper mill?

[jessemckinney]

How long before the first paper mill?

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Kallahar]

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

-- George W. Bush, August 11, 1994

http://www.rense.com/general29/lddr.htm

Travis

Dear American moderators!

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

I hope you are pleased to have silenced criticism once more by moderating me down. It was intended to be funny, but I guess if you go to war, humour is only in the way, right?

And now back to News for Nationalistic Nerds, Stuff that matters to the States only.

Maybe Old Europe will havce the chance to save you from your dictators too now?

Re:Dear American moderators!

[marcsiry]

Moritz,

Wildly attaching political criticism of the US to any random discussion is not social commentary- it's tiresome, off-topic blather.

Just because your anxiety about the world's political situation has become the central issue in your life doesn't mean we all want to read your emotional acting out. There are proper venues for experssing your displeasure with the US government- try the Security Council, for one.

That said, someone please mod me Off-Off Topic :-)

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Kallahar]

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, & water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

--Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94

http://rosecity.net/al_gore/gore_isms_too.html

I'm starting to think it's a myth, what with so many people being attributed to saying that...

Travis

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[Himring]

qualye quotes (like gore quotes and bush2 quotes) are more often false. snopes [snopes.com] does attribute this one to him though.

Omg, they just moded that up even though snopes CANNOT be said to attribute that quote to Quayle.... See my other posts -- like anyone wants to....

Liquid water can exist on Mars

[bluyonder]

As I understand it the median atmospheric pressure on Mars is very close to the triple point of water. In my opinion this is not a coincidence. The fact that Mars atmosphere is balanced at a point where liquid water will form indicates to me that water is a controlling factor in Mars' environment. Since the median pressure on Mars is close to the triple point of water that means, at the lowest altitude areas on Mars, liquid water could exist on the surface at temperatures just above freezing. The water would quickly evaporate though because Mars' atmosphere is so dry.

Re:Liquid water can exist on Mars

[MtViewGuy]

It should be noted that the water flows from Olympus Mons is of briny water (e.g., water that has likely a high chemical content). That means that this water will evaporate at a relatively slow rate even with Mars' thinner atmosphere due to its chemical composition as compared to more "pure" water.

As Always ...

[jstockdale]

Salt grain, Slashdot.

Slashdot, Salt grain.

More advanced probes are going there.

[MtViewGuy]

Fortunately, we are sending more advanced Mars probes this year. NASA is launching two surface rovers to study the soil of Mars later this year; the European Space Agency (ESA) is launching Mars Express this summer, which will include a lander to look at Mars on the surface and an orbiter with a stereoscopic-view camera system to look at Mars surface features at resolutions down to almost 1,000 mm per pixel resolution.

In 2005, the very powerful Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will be able to resolve down to less than 400 mm visual and around 1,200 mm UV/IR resolution per pixel; at that resolution (which is not much bettered by our strategic reconnaissance satellites), we'll likely be able to finally settle the issue of anomalies on Mars and prove whether or not they're natural geological formations or something made by an intelligent civilization that once existed there.

Re:More advanced probes are going there.

[Mythias]

Coming next season on Comedy Central: Battlebots on Mars!

Watch as the US and Europe clash in combat as their Martian rovers battle for planetary supremacy!

Galileo Was Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Just no one beleived him

Re:I want life on Mars...

[Tackhead]

>A trip to mars right now is a one way trip.
>
>How, oh wise one, would you get back? Where would you find someone skilled enough to go to Mars that was willing to go there to die? Much less a whole crew?

How would you get back? You probably wouldn't. So what?

Skills 1? Spaceships fly themselves for the most part. Martian colonists on one-way trips are spam in a can until they land.

Skills 2? After spending six months in a can reading geology textbooks, they break out the pickaxe and start digging and taking pictures. Any of us reading this could do more in five minutes on Mars than has been done in the past 30 years.

Volunteers? You ask for them.

"Congratuations. You're going to Mars.

Since there's nothing on Mars to spend your money on, we are going to pay one person of your choosing your "salary" of $100K/year for the rest of your life, or until you come back, whichever comes first.

We will put you on the cheapest spaceship money can buy. Some of you will blow up on the pad. Some of you will have air leaks and suffocate or freeze en route. Some of you will burn up on re-entry. But at $50M per launch, some of you will land on Mars.

Your mission, en route, is to read about rocks and learn how to use a microscope. Once there, your mission is to break big rocks into little rocks and tell us what you found.

Your ship has an RTG (or better yet, a small nuclear reactor) that provides your capsule with electricity to break water into oxygen for you to breathe, alcohol to drink, and hydrogen for you to refuel your engines with. If you manage to find enough water, you will also be able to use that hydroponics lab to grow food for a while.

Some of you will figure out how to get enough food, water, heat and oxygen out of your setup to last for months, maybe years. Some of you will live long enough to make it to the point where we've already landed half a dozen unfueled crew and sample return vehicles.

We will pay you or your beneficiary $100,000 per pound of Mars rock that comes back. The return vehicles can carry 500 pounds. Whether you launch that thing with 500 pounds of rock, or 350 pounds of life support, your 140-pound ass, and 10 pounds of rocks, hey, that's up to you.

I won't lie to you. Many of you will not be coming back, but we will see to it that you have one hell of an adventure."

Every day, people sign up for what is fundamentally the same deal: If you're willing to do something you believe in, even knowing you might die, we will give you the equipment to do it. Soldiers have vastly better odds of survival than my Mars colonists, but keep in mind that they do it for a tenth of the pay.

Believe me, a faster-riskier-cheaper manned space exploration programme would have no shortage of volunteers.

Martian water story

[jon_o_the_fringe]

Latest news for the BBC, maybe. Richard Hoagland discussed this at length two years ago on the Enterprise Mission site: http://www.enterprisemission.com

I know what it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably oil. Guess who we're going to war with next!

conspiracy theorists be damned

[barakn]

Credible scientists as well as the lunatics were claiming the stains were a sign of water quite a while ago. What is new about this most recent observation is that newstains have been found (i.e. we now have photos before and after their formation). This just strengthens an old argument; it isn't a new argument.

Re: Why Mars is so cold

[jdray]

I believe Robert Zubrin summed it up in his book The Case For Mars , "Mars is cold because, well, Mars is cold." This, of course, followed a lengthy explanation of why, some of which is discussed here.

If life is on Mars...

[dtjohnson]

...it would probably exist as single-celled forms such as bacteria, cyanobacteria,
and fungi found on Earth. The most interesting thing, though, is that the
origin of such a Mars life form could probably not be Mars-based. On
Earth, we have mightily strained to hypothesize an origin of life in primordial
ocean soups and atmospheres
in the presence of electric sparks and self-assembling
molecules. These theories have been severely weakened
in recent years with the discovery of fossilized life forms on Earth with
an apparent age of 3.5+ billion years which, given the estimated age of the
Earth, would imply a much more rapid creation of life than the hypothesized
mechanisms would allow. If life is present on Mars, the Earth-origin
theories of life are weakened even further, in the absence of evidence for
the necessary atmospheres and oceans on Mars, and theories for extraterrestrial
origins of life would gain traction.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[tmortn]

You know if you take that absolutely literally its funny as most people take it but few understand that fundamentally the guy is right on.

Relatively speaking compared to other planets mars is in roughly the same orbit as earth.. I belive withen 1-2% difference actually.

The canals are more and more likely turning out to be the result of flowing water or possibly CO2... good chance of both.

With water or CO2 there is OXYGEN. cO2 O is for oxygen, the 2 stating there are 2 oxygen atoms per molecule. H2O has one atom of oxygen per molecule. With the energy to split them there is oxygen to breathe. Combine that fact with Mars 'temperate' climate compared to venus's lead melting surface temps and mercuries sun blasted nature mars is the closet planet with abundant life sustaining resources 'easily' available . Far more so than the moon. if you doubt that compare the energy requirements to to extracting them from moon regolith someday, you will get the point rather fast. Next on the list is probably Titan ( around Saturn I believe ).

The way Quayle said it was funny but damn people, cut the man some slack.

Yet another reason...

[grimsweep]

...a towel is one of the most useful things for a galatic hitchhiker. Trust me: when you're in -63C weather on that planet, the last thing you want to be is wet.

Re:Blue Sky on Mars?

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote is not "save mars"... it's "free mars"...

More details

[Drog]

Another article on this (with a ton of links) can be found here.

We're not ready for Mars

[phatStrat]

Everyone on this thread is talking about colonizing Mars.

Let's learn to live together on the same frickin' planet before we go and screw up the rest of the solar system.

umm..

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't anyone else catch the opening statment in the article, that it was caused by brine flowing downhill...i thinks thats a bit of speculation..

I dare you to google that

[Crag]

matches query
0015 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush -quayle -gore
0321 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" +bush -quayle -gore
0110 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush +quayle -gore
0086 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from" -bush -quayle +gore
1360 "Mars is somewhat the same distance from"


Now, do you really believe any of these people actually said that? I wonder what else has been mis-attributed to them....

whoops

[clarkc3]

ingore that comment, made when i spoke too soon and conused terms - but there is a term I learned about in college for when a planet doesnt have enought mass/gravity to keep gases in the atmosphere.

Natalie Portman

[jabber01]

Mostly naked, and effectively petrified!

Look at japan...

[Anonymous Coward]

they had 2 nukes dropped on them, didn't take them very long to do a 180.

Possible water replacement -- Ammonium

[ciphertext]

I read a chapter in a book, I believe it is entitled "The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" (don't have it handy so I can't be sure of the title), that provided a decent, minimally-technical, discussion on the potential for finding life elsewhere in the cosmos. Essentially, this chapter discussed the topic of possible xenobiological requirements that are based on various lifeform "types". For those lifeform types that rely on a similar set of chemical reactions as we do, the book suggested that a planet where ammonium (liquid form) was in abundance, would provide a suitable environment for that lifeform to develop. At least as far as the medium in which the chemical reactions that occur in the lifeform is concerned (the physical requirments of gravity, temperature, etc... are another discussion). The book stated that nearly all of the chemical reactions that occur in our body could occur equally well in ammonium. Mind you, not all of the reactions that our body requires can occur in ammonium. However, it is reasonable to think that the alien lifeform wouldn't require the exact same reactions. At any rate, it was an interesting read.

Mir's Fungus = Mar's Lifeforms?

[Dukeofshadows]

They had fungus growing on Mir's hull before it crashed into the Pacific, that's gotta be comparable to the atmosphere on Mars

If by "+4 insightful", you mean flamebait.....

[Anonymous Coward]

...then yes

Re:Plagiarism? This is someone else's idea!

[corleth]

That is most certainly not plagiarism of Hoagland. For starters, the images in Hoagland's research were of a completely different area. Secondly, Hoagland's "research" was actually derived directly from work by Mike Malin and others (the people that run the camera system on Mars Global Surveyor) which was published years before Hoagland's report. Thirdly, Hoagland didn't clearly identify sequential images of the same area. His premise, that these were extremely recent water flow, doesn't go much beyond Malin's, except that Hoagland makes the extra jump of saying that they are "extremely recent", which appears to be based upon the old "it looks like this so it is this" argument that was used for the Face on Mars.

Plagiarism is an extremely nasty word to bandy about in a scientific sense, and is probably about the worst insult you could give to a scientist. I would suggest that you restrict its use to when you can prove it.

-Karl

PDF of this research

[corleth]

For anyone that is exterested, there is an extended scientific abstract of this work, here, to be presented as a poster on Thursday evening at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas. This is a serious conference (I'll be there as usual), and so we'll soon see whether this stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Having read the abstract, and work by Mike Malin (PI of the camera on Mars Global Surveyor) and co-authors, who proposed that these features were water some time ago, I think that there still needs to be more work (and more importantly, supporting evidence, e.g. spectral) before there will be a concensus that the streaks are indeed caused by water. However, the fact that there is clearly a change means that, if these are caused by water, then they are certainly VERY recent (i.e. a few years), which has profound implications. The question would then need to be asked, is the water flow due to an active hydrological system caused by climatic and orbital change, or is it related to volcanic/hydrothermal processes? The latter seems unlikely as there is no evidence, to my mind, of an unusual thermal anomaly in the vicinity of Olympus Mons. Also, there are streaks like this in many other areas of Mars. However, it may be possible to set up a hydrothermal system without an easily detectable thermal anomaly - I don't know for sure. I'll try to ask the author what she thinks next week.

-Karl

Dr Karl Mitchell, Planetary Scientist, Lancaster University, U.K.

Re:Computing on Mars

[sinister minister si]

What? -1, Troll? It was supposed to be funny, dumbass.

You know, the constant ubergeeking of Beowulf clusters.. this time done extraplanetary. Friggin christ, what crawled up that moderator's ass?

I'm ready. Too bad about you. (Was: Re:We're not r

[jamesc]

Everyone on this thread is talking about colonizing Mars.

Let's learn to live together on the same frickin' planet before we go and screw up the rest of the solar system.

Hmmm... Your post contains some species self-loathing which a Freudian might say is projected self-loathing. Take a close look at yourself, friend, before you tar us all with one brush.

Disregarding that, the reason I want to go to Mars is simple: I want to get away from the morons, lamers, and losers that infest this planet.

;-)

Re:Plagiarism? This is someone else's idea!

[fragzilla]

http://home.attbi.com/~palermo63/Mars_Anomalies/Se epsPaper.pdf
has the sequential images you were talking about. These were taken 150 days apart. This stuff about water has been on the Enterprise Mission web site for a while. It would've been nice if some credit had been given to this body of work. Instead, the BBC article gave one the impression that this information had just been discovered.

Terraforming for Fun and Profit (Was: Re:Terraform

[jamesc]

Yes, but it would be a very useful experiment. What we learned we could apply back to Earth.

OK. I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. You want to experiment on another planet, and use what we learned on our own planet?

First off how would this be useful? Why do we need to apply terraforming procedures to earth?

That's the general idea. Our biosphere has a zillion interrelated parts. Trying to start one in isolation will doubtless be educational. It's easier to try something with fewer dependent variables than with many, wouldn't you agree?

And, let's admit it -- it's better to make ecological mistakes on some other planet, isn't it?

Secondly, what right do we have to terraform another planet? Specifically one that may already support life.

Step one is to make sure Mars is devoid of Life As We Know it(TM).

Step two is to check for Life Unlike Any We Have Ever Encountered Before, Jim(TM).

Then we can try and terraform Mars. It probably won't work. The reasons why will likely teach us more than centuries of careful experiments on Earth.

Can't war with martians

[Crasoum]

Marvin would so kick your ass. And there is no white rabbit to save you this time neo.

75� Fahrenheit perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

75 Celcius is pretty damn hot.

Wet sand sticks, DRY sand flows

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been sandsurfing sand dunes in the U.S. over the past 20 years, and what I have found from experience is that wet sand sticks, DRY sand flows. Wet sand holds its form in cliff-like structures until it drys out enough to flow. Those pictures of sand flows on Mars are nothing new if you've spent enough endless hours hunting for the best surfable sand runs from Michigan to California in all seasons and all weather.

If NASA sends astronauts to Mars with an expected water content calculated (incorrectly) from those sand flows, they will end up with some very thirsty astronauts.

On the upside though, I am drooling over the thought of sandsurfing the largest sand dunes in the solar system.

Re:I want life on Mars...

[error0x100]

You make some good points. I am reminded of how many people have died trying to make it to the top of Mt Everest, which is just a mountain, not nearly something as 'prestiguous' as another planet in these times. Also, consider how many sailors died crossing the oceans in older times trying to reach new/interesting/different continents. And yet there was no shortage of people who were willing to try.

The difference was in those days people had a higher tolerance for loss of lives. However as you point out, we still culturally have varying tolerance in different fields (e.g. soldiers/wars). Why not exploration? These things are hazardous, and it may turn out that the only way to successfully make worthwhile space exploration achievements is to go back to the 'old' explorer mentality: cheaper, riskier. In other words, it may not be economically feasible to do it the expensive, safe way.

Essentially, you lower the barrier of space exploration so that it is more accessible to more people. "Opening space exploration to the public", in a way. (Although not entirely; but then even the old sailing expeditions had to have decent funding in the old days).

Thinking further into the future (outside the solar system), there are downsides to doing it this way though: you lose some control over regulation of behaviour of the explorers. If the barriers to entry of exploring space become low enough, then many members of the general public will start exploring space, and the culture and ethics of these people will probably revert to 'frontier culture' ethics; far out of the reach of law enforcement, and with nobody watching them, people's morals decline somewhat. It won't be the high-moralled culture you see in the crew of Star Trek; there will probably be many people who will simply exploit any innocent, unsuspecting populations they come across on other planets. But this will probably happen anyway, no matter which pioneering methods we use. Space is probably too large to ever effectively police and regulate.

Pralaya

[Anonymous Coward]

The Theosophists, following ancient Hindu science, say that Mars is in pralaya, which is to say, dormant. If homo stupidus self-destructs (following the lead of binLaden and Dubya), maybe in a billion years or so in the future, we might reincarnate on Mars (as brine shrimp?).

Enby in Waltham

Re:Pralaya

[pyrote]

I like shrimp.

and those little sea monkeys are so cute!

Can't wait

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[TheOrquithVagrant]

Actually, _most_ Quayle quotes are in fact real. However, funnily enough, his quotes tend to get "re-used" and re-attributed to Dubya and sometimes Gore. A lot of false Bush/Gore quotes will turn out to be real Quayle-quotes, if you do some digging.

There was (is?) actually a video sold with actually footage of Quayle delivering many of his most famous goofs.

Volcanic?

[SharpFang]

"She speculates that geothermal activity driven by volcanic heat may be causing the melting of subsurface ice"

What volcanic activity? I've heard Mars is dead cold inside. Only Earth and one of Jupiter's moons (Io?) has any volcanic activity in the Solar System. Could someone explain this?

time to buy a ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

now go there please

we don't need people on mars

[g4dget]

This photo interpretation is only a little bit better than Rorschach Ink blot for crying out loud.

Well, all those photos are taken from orbit. If we had landers, we wouldn't have to guess.

A few dozen robotic landers under remote control could explore more area and yield more results than human explorers, and they'd still be a lot cheaper than sending people.

Re: IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, if I recall clearly, there has been abundant rethinking of the Martial climate in recent months so your previous recollections are very likely out of date.

Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP.

[ahodgson]

Hey I've experienced temperatures almost that low. You can survive them a lot longer than you can survive without air.