Ice Detected Underneath Mars' North Pole

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.

Comments

Does it constitute life? Tough call

[mao che minh]

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).

Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call

[timeOday]

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?

Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call

[MadCow42]

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.

Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call

[aarondyck]

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.

Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call

[Quothz]

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

Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call

[cmeans]

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.

Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call

[Golias]

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."

This will be great for tavel

[confused philosopher]

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.

Re:hmmmm. . .

[BrainInAJar]

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.

Test it.

[inertia187]

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.

Re:Test it.

[dcmeserve]

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.

Could be good....

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

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

Re:Could be good....

[NewtonsLaw]

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.

Re:Ummm.

[cybermace5]

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.