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

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.

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.

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.

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

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