Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ice Detected Underneath Mars' North Pole

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the water-water-everywhere dept.

TheSync writes "A Reuters/Yahoo story says University of Arizona and Russian scientists have detected water ice uniformly distributed in the soil of Mars' north polar regions. The amount of hydrogen detected indicates ice of 80% to 90% of soil volume. Data was used from the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey." It's worth noting that their study only detected large amounts of hydrogen; so much hydrogen that ice is figured to be the only form it could be in, although I kind of like the idea of Mars' pole covering a huge pocket of hydrogen gas.

26 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Does it constitute life? Tough call by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I believe that we will find evidence of long dead past life and not presently living organisms in this region of the Martian surface/sub-surface in the near future. Successful life tends to leave behind rather noticable evidence, evidence that we would probably have detected by now.

    Then again, if you were to use life on Earth as an example, you could argue that life can always persevere in the presence of water (from thermal vent-driven ecosystems devoid of energy from the sun, to environments that have been trapped under ice near the artic circle for a hundred years).

    1. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My first thought was pretty similar - if this leads to finding e.g. bacteria fossils, how exciting is that? Is mars far enough from earth that this would indicate life is probably "all over" the universe, or might that mars life have a common source with our own?

    2. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't forget the theories about an ecosystem being present in Lake Vostok, several miles below the surface of Antarctica.

      As cool as it would be to find out (along with the scientific significance of the data), should we really contaminate that ecosystem if it exists? As much as we try not to, any intervention would upset a potentially fragile system.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    3. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by aarondyck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory. While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory. A discover of a developed life form on another planet, however insignificant, would give undisputable proof of the ability of life to develop and adapt to the circumstances it finds. Bacteria found in this region, however, would prove very little, as bacteria can be found everywhere, including meteors that (no doubt) have crashed onto the surface of mars for years (as they have the surface of earth). The proof would be in the fact that this provides a link to the growth of multi-celled organisms that were able to adapt to conditions without any outside forces at work (i.e. man-made laboratories). This would proove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have stemmed from the same methods. Really, the implications are astounding.

      --
      In order to be immortal you must be organize
    4. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by Quothz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's unlikely that evidence of extraterrestrial life will change too many people's minds. I think most folks who are gonna be convinced, have been. As far as fun games like logic and reason go, well, good luck.

      This Wired article points out the fact that, even during the middle ages, Christian scholars found that extraterrestrial life would not seriously challenge their faith. You can bet these guys weren't big advocates of evolution, either.

      I'll also mention that the Pope is an evolutionist, also noted in the article, although he almost certainly believes in creationism, as well.

      Cheers -- Quothz

    5. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by skogs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those darn diehard creationists will also point to the fact that many things are not specifically mentioned in the bible. The bible doesn't exactly mention anything about the americas, the bison there, or the mississippi river...but we can all pretty well believe that it exists. As everything else that exists and not was not specifically mentioned in the bible...life could exist on mars. Life could exist in many many places. Ask yourself this: Did life spontaneously happen out of a completely impossible primordial soup...on different planets...and (later on when we find them) in completely different galaxies...completely by chance each time...Or did some awesome God have a hand in it? Life on mars means absolutely nothing when applied to evolution. Evolutionary 'theory' however, will no doubt contort itself again to be made plausible in light of new 'evidence'. Did you know that evolution is a religion? You must believe in it...it cannot be proven...but the more you believe it the more 'facts' you can find...just like with any other religion.

      --
      Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
    6. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by cmeans · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Doubters won't have a problem continuing to doubt. If life is discovered on Mars, then they'll just say that life is unique to this solar system.

      They've already stuck their heads in the sand, logical arguements aren't the way to convince them of anything.

      --
      Give a hand, not a hand-out.
    7. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by Progman3K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe it does not formally constitue proof of life, but have you thought how we could set up a base there that would burn hydrogen for energy?

      It would give us a toe-hold, so we could then start terraforming that planet to be able to produce oxygen and water, maybe some small agriculture at first until we perfect the organisms we'll be wanting to seed that world with...

      In fact, I'd RATHER it NOT already sustain life; that way I feel we could be much more free to develop it as we wish and not be destroying indiginous life.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    8. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by Golias · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are several instances of rocks that came from Mars having been found on Earth and the reverse is most likely true also, that Earth rocks have traveled to Mars. So if there is life on Mars, there is a chance that it came from Earth - or maybe even life on Earth even originated on Mars.

      I'm not ruling out the possibility of rocks going from Earth to Mars, but isn't it a lot less likely than the other way around? Earth is bigger than Mars, so escape velocity is much higher. Also, unlike Mars, we have an atmosphere that burns up the majority of meteors before they impact our surface, so our surface is impacted less often (and even when impact does happen, air friction would slow down debris that might otherwise fly off into space.) You could make the case that fast meteors which happen to skim along our outer atmosphere could pick up a microbe or two en route to a crash on Mars, however.

      Your suggestion that simple life began on Mars and was carried to Earth by meteorites millions of years ago is certainly interesting. Wouldn't that be a fantastic discovery?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    9. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by Golias · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I think it's unlikely that evidence of extraterrestrial life will change too many people's minds. I think most folks who are gonna be convinced, have been.

      Really? I have not been convinced, but if you were to take me to a city on a planet orbiting another star, I most certainly would be. Even getting a "shut the fuck up already, we hear your damned signal!" message via the SETI project would get my attention.

      Ice on Mars? Meh. Hydrogen and Oxygen are pretty darn common elements, and they form into H20 fairly readily.

      I think it would be more accurate to say that most folks who are going to be convinced, in spite of a total lack of evidence, have been. Some of us are holding out for the facts.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    10. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by Golias · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Maybe computer-building life only arises on one out of every 50 galaxies. However, from the Universe's perspective, that is a lot of smart life, for there are billions of galaxies.

      Fair enough, but are we likely to reach beyond our own galaxy before our extinction? The space between us and Andromeda is quite daunting when the physical speed limit is "c."

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    11. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by HexRei · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You don't know what you are talking about.You have been misinformed.
      Check out this Sci American link:
      http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID= 000D4FE C-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
      Major debunking.

    12. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by Izago909 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. Religion is self supporting, circular logic. It has achieved perfection via its flaws; when circular logic is adopted as dogma, you can't disprove it. Blind faith is just that, blind. I'm comfortable with not having to know the answer to everything, which is why religion turns me off. It is pretensions enough to 'answer' those questions. If we don't understand it... it's gods will. Sorry, that's too easy.

      Historically speaking, if religion were able to keep scientific advancement down (as it did through the middle ages), we'd be at the center of the universe, illness would be fixed only by bleeding/leeches/prayer, and we'd be 'purified' by pain and fire. All this because some people need to feel comfortable with... why they are...

    13. Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call by juhaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we can prove life migrating from one planet to another in same solar system it gives clear credencence of possibility of same happening between solar systems (panspermia) as well. We are talking about billions of years, after all, it's a fscking long time, bacteria drifting on interstellar space could fertilize HUGE amount of space if not the whole damn galaxy in two or three billion years.

      So there could very well be those little green guys few dozen light years from here even if life only started in one place.

  2. This will be great for tavel by confused+philosopher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    However, this hydrogen is something that the next generation will get to use, not mine. We need to figure out if we still have what it takes to get to the Moon, when the Chinese try next year.

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  3. Re:hmmmm. . . by BrainInAJar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You don't need a fuel-cell engine.

    Rockets right now burn hydrogen and oxygen together to create thrust...

    They could use solar power to electrolyze the water, and collect the gasses for fuel. No need to perfect the fuel cell.

  4. Test it. by inertia187 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they want to prove the voracity of their claim that copious amounts of hydrogen must be water, why don't they try this experiment on Earth. NASA did this with the Galileo space probe. It was equipped with some kind of spectrometer that was supposed to detect particular elements. When it was far enough away, they tested it on Earth to see if they'd get the readings they were expecting from other planets.

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    1. Re:Test it. by dcmeserve · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If they want to prove the voracity ...

      Ahem. That's veracity :) :) ...

      ...of their claim that copious amounts of hydrogen must be water, why don't they try this experiment on Earth. NASA did this with the Galileo space probe. It was equipped with some kind of spectrometer that was supposed to detect particular elements.

      We're talking two completely different kinds of instruments here.

      What this article is referring to (though not explicitly) are measurements taken with neutron detectors. As the spacecraft fly (at relatively low altitude) over the planet, they are bombarded by neutrons that can be assumed to come uniformly from the top N meters of the soil (don't know what N is exactly, might be on the order of 10). When the craft detect a significant drop in the number of neutron hits, it can be assumed that the neutrons are being absorbed by something in the soil. As hydrogen is the best neutron absorber among the most likely elements in the soil, the absorber can be assumed to be a bunch of hydrogen -- which can in turn be assumed to be a part of a bunch of water/ice. If there's a big dip in the neutron levels, then there's probably a lot of water down there. The trick is calibrating the measurements just right to get an accurate measure of how much water there is.

      A spectrometer, on the other hand, measures a broad spectrum of light frequencies. When there are spikes or dips at particular frequequencies that correspond to known absorption or emission wavelengths of various elements, then the instrument has detected that element. But it pretty much only works for a gas. Absorption patterns in reflected light from a solid surface can give some info about the minerals on the surface, but it's not as clear-cut a signal as you get from a gas.

      So... uh, er, now that I look at your post again, I see you are probably not actually confusing these two instruments... but then, some of the other respondents to your post are, so I will continue... :)

      Anyways, there'd be little point in running this experiment with Eath, in terms of answering the question of whether the hydrogen is really water. We already *know* that the hydrogen on earth is mostly in water, the fact that we could detect that hydrogen with an orbiting neutron detector really wouldn't tell us much about the likelihood of detected hydrogen on Mars being water.

      Besides, as you can see from my description, there are already a number of assumptions being made in order to get at the "it's hydrogen" result in the first place. For example, a dip in neutron readings could also come from a simple lack of radioactive elements in that portion of the crust, though this is unlikely. Basically, the best probability for an explanation of these results lies with subsurface water. The only real confirmation will come when we go down there and dig it up. :)

      Oh, and a spectrometer won't be able to do the confirmation; it can't see below the surface.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  5. This is not news. by Thaidog · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I heard the same thing about 10 years ago... How is this report any different?

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  6. Could be good.... by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ice = Oxygen/Hydrogen

    Oxygen/Hydrogen = rocket fuel

    Rocket Fuel = launching point for further operations from the Martian surface... Also, it would make it unneccessary to haul water to and from mars (saves a lot of cost if we ever decide to inhabit the planet)

    If we ever decide to go to mars, i hope to see some permanent settlement.. no use in going and coming back in 3 days

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    1. Re:Could be good.... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ice = Oxygen/Hydrogen

      Oxygen/Hydrogen = rocket fuel

      But ice = spent rocket fuel, where are you going to get the energy to:

      a) melt the ice into water
      b) split the water into H2 + O ??

      Don't get too excited about solar power, Mars is a long way from the sun and existing solar panel technology is heavy, bulky and relatively low-powered. You'd need to take tons of them to Mars to make any reasonable amount of water into rocketfuel by the time you were ready to go home.

    2. Re:Could be good.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Spacecraft with nuclear power is far in the future, I believe (General concerns over safety, et cetera)..."

      Actually, the technology is here already. The only problem is an itty bitty piece of paper called the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, and all the other treaties banning nuclear proliferation, all of which specifically prohibit any use of nuclear energy in space (for fear of an event that might justify another movie as bad as Space Cowboys).

  7. Re:Ummm. by cybermace5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well.

    That would only work if, like the Hindenberg, Mars was placed in Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere.

    By the way the whole Hindenberg disaster was caused by the compounds infused into the outer covering: powdered aluminum and iron. Was supposed to eliminate static. Actually caught fire itself in a static discharge and...well, read up on thermite.

    --
    ...
  8. Nope... by davburns · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This would proove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have stemmed from the same methods. Really, the implications are astounding.

    If life simular to that on Earth were found on Mars, it wouldn't prove anything, but would be strong evidence that one of two things happend: 1. Life started somewhere, and moved between planets (metiors or viking spacecraft); or 2. As you suggest, life in both places came to be for the same reason. Either multi-celled organisms "adapted" to life on Mars, or God created multi-celled organisms on Mars -- I don't think your theoretical discovery would favor either of those theories over the other.

    I'm curious why you suppose that a creationist (like myself) would have a problem with creation happening in more than one place? If God created Mars and Earth (and every thing else that is not "formless and void") and God created life on Earth, then why would it be hard for Him to create life on Mars? (or anywhere else?)

    If you begin with the assumption that you can explain the universe without any supernatual intervention, then evolutionary theory fits most of the data pretty well (better than anything else.) If you don't begin with that assumption, and also have "evidence of things unseen" (which, by neccesity, is unscientific) then the origins question becomes a theological question, rather than a scientific one. If you want to know the truth, I think you need to consider both, and that is going to make the question harder.

    1. Re:Nope... by Rand+Race · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The difference is honesty. Science simply does not know what came before the big bang, and they will tell you that. Religion (well, fundie Xtianity at least) does not admit to ignorance in this respect and thusly is open to the charge of infinite regress (turtles all the way down).

      Evolutionary creationism is a perfectly valid position to take IMHO although I personally do not share it. Young Earth creationism OTOH is intellectually bankrupt both scientifically and theologically.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  9. Is terraforming Mars possible? by rockhome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The last I read, one of the reasons Mars is in its present state is because it lacks sufficient mass to retain an atmosphere that will allow greenhouse warming.

    Why then is the idea of terraforming Mars even considered? If we could generate a significant volume of CO2 into the atmosphere, won't alot of it either escape to space, or freeze? Mars is not a balmy place, given that it is about 1.5 times further from the sun than the earth. Given that is also almost half the radius of earth and an order of magnitude less in mass, is it really practical to attempt to terraform the place.

    If a warming atmosphere were created, how warm would it get? There would certainly be far less sunlight than an arctic spring, with the suns energy significantly lessened from the increased distance. Would we not merely have a chilly, mostly lifeless planet? I doubt that a terraformed Mars could support much more than hardy steppe grasses, it would almost certainly be too cold for most animals and aquatic life.

    Someone please educate me.