The spherules
by
corebreech
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't see what's mysterious about these at all. You have to remember that Mars has much less gravity than Earth, ergo, the amount of force required to displace a pebble is so much less. So while the atmosphere is thinner there than it is over here, it is still sufficiently dense to allow for substantial winds to develop; winds that displace these pebbles and cause them to move over the ground, and over time--millions and millions of years--this repeated displacement causes the tiny stones to become spheroid in shape. The end.
Re:The spherules
by
Kircle
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And NASA is really concerned about martian dust devils and it's impact on future human missions to Mars. They're suppose to be 100 times larger than the dust devils you find on Earth. I believe they have scientists out in Arizon studying the dust devils there and working around that.
--
-- Kircle
Re:The spherules
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From the little I remember from geology, wind blown (aeolian) sand grains are more likely to be angular, while grains move by water are rounded. This is one indicator used to distinguish the provenance of a sedimentary rock at outcrop.
Re:The spherules
by
ahecht
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, not quite, but it's nice to see that someone knows about what we were doing.
There have been at least two expeditions to the Arizona desert by NASA people to study dust devils, both run out of the University of Arizona. I had the opportunity to spend a month in the Arizona desert gathering data on the second trip.
I wouldn't say that NASA is particularly concerned about dust devils -- due to the lower gravity, dust devils on mars would be much weaker than those on earth, even if they are larger. Even on earth, dust devils post little threat. Some of the ones we studied were over 2 miles tall, and you could walk right through them with absolutely no danger. While the original trip was sponsored by the HEDS (Human Exploration and Developement of Space) funded Matador experiment to see if the dust devils posed any danger to human exploration, the primary concerns were over static electricity and dust getting into space suits.
What NASA is really interested in is how dust affect the geology of the planet. In the absense of water or strong winds, dust devils may in fact be the primary erosive force on Mars. During the first half of the 20th century, astronomers noticed that Mars changed color depending on the season, and this led them to beleive that there was rich vegetation on Mars. When the first orbiters and lander arrived, we learned that this wasn't quite true, but we still had no other solution. Now, scientists believe that is was dust devils, which are a seasonal occurance, that were actually reconfiguring the landscape of the planet. We have actually seen pictures of light colored planes that are crisscrossed by dark dust devil trails.
The problem is that very little is known about dust devils on Earth. I only know of one scientific paper published on the subject. While some of the work we did was trying to find out the proerties of dust devils, especially the electrostatic properties, to help create an accurate model for their formation on Mars, this was not really why we were there. The primary goal of the NASA researchers was to study the dust devils on earth in order to learn how to study them on Mars. We were mainly out there to test a set of instruments planned for Matador (including some far out stuff, like using a special UV camera to detect sparks caused by static electricity).
Re:The spherules
by
mikerich
·
· Score: 4, Informative
this repeated displacement causes the tiny stones to become spheroid in shape. The end.
Except the spherules don't look like the sand grains you find in Earth deserts. Those would be rounded (because as you say there is lots of abrasion), but rarely spherical, and they tend to show signs of impact and scratching from their fellow grains. So far the spherules appear to lack these features.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:The spherules
by
corebreech
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Aye, but the scale is different. These spherules are said to be approximately the size of BB's. This causes them to interact with the surrounding terrain in a much different fashion; something as small as a grain has a greater likelihood to get caught by a rock or some other feature of the landscape than something as big as a BB.
Re:The spherules
by
bdeclerc
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Simple : the physics isn't different on Mars, so if the physical basis of the processes is understood (which it is in the case of grain & pebble formation), we can know what to expect (which in this case would be relatively similar things).
Besides : have you looked at the pictures? These spherules are not round because of abrasion or erosion, they are clearly round because they formed that way (either as molten droplets solidifying, or through some sort of deposition process). Rounded pebbles are "rounded", not "perfectly spherical" like these spherules.
Until we get info on their chemical composition, we don't know what caused them, but erosion into "spherules" is one of the least likely explanations.
Most likely, in order of decreasing likelyhood: - Solidified droplets of molten rock (from impact or volcano) - Chemical concretions in standing water (above or below ground) - Chemical concretions of biological origin - Eggs of a Martian Rock-frog - wind/water erosion of angular stones
Re:The spherules
by
bdeclerc
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Please explain to me how a basically random physical phenomenon operating on rock fragments of variable size & shape will result in the formation of perfectly spherical objects which are all very close to each other in size?
Answer : it wouldn't
Shouting "but this is Mars, you can't just compare it to Earth" isn't going to help, we're talking physics here, not some kind of mysticism...
It's not because the planet is a little different from Earth (and let's face it : the differences are relatively minor, with gravity, air pressure, temperature and chemical composition actually being very very close to Earth's):
Gravity: 1/3 of Earth Air Pressure : 1-10% of air pressure in the high mountains (where pebbles form in streams) Temperature : 150-290K on Mars, 250-300K on Earth (again, high up in the mountains) Chemical composition : mainly basaltic rocks, lots of those on Earth too...
Mars is actually the planet which is most like Earth in the whole solar system (not Venus, which is only alike in size, but not in environmental properties).
Re:The spherules
by
corebreech
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First of all, they aren't perfect spheres.
Secondly, it isn't random physical phenomena we're talking about here.
Third, why do you assume the rock fragments were of variable size and shape? All that is required for my hypothesis to be correct is that the original material was light enough to be displaced by the wind. Those materials of a given size and composition were therefore subject to this effect, those differing in size and composition were not. As we can plainly see, there is an abundance of material on the surface of Mars that is neither similar in size or shape.
The fact that they are the same size is easily explained by the terrain. The size of the stone or particle in question has a great deal to do with how it interacts with the surface as the wind propels it; similarly sized particles are going to behave similarly as the conditions of the surface change, i.e., a depression in the surface will "catch" particles of a certain size, but not particles that are larger, or smaller.
Nobody is shouting anything, and I fail to see how mysticism plays any role here whatsoever (your previous inane reference to Martian rock-frog eggs notwithstanding.)
The differences between the planets is anything but minor. The difference in gravity alone undoubtedly carries with it a tremendous potential to impact geological processes. As does the air pressure, temperature and chemical composition of the various materials being studied. Moreover, your depiction of the processes that take place here on Earth is similarly flawed... pebbles don't form in streams at the kind of altitudes that are remotely comparable to Mars. If you're going to throw stones at the conjectures others have on geological processes on other planets, it would behoove you to have a better grasp on those that take place on your own.
Re:The spherules
by
bdeclerc
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First of all, they aren't perfect spheres.
No, but they are way way more spherical than any pebbles on earth.
Secondly, it isn't random physical phenomena we're talking about here.
Yes it is, rocky object colliding with each other in the wind is about as random as it gets...
Third, why do you assume the rock fragments were of variable size and shape?
Because it is the most logical starting point, I mean, why wouldn't they be variable (By this, I mean "considerably more variable than we see in the spherules", not "rocks smaller than an atom to larger than mount Everest".
As we can plainly see, there is an abundance of material on the surface of Mars that is neither similar in size or shape.
Indeed there are, but these spherules are inside the layered material and are eroding out of it (presumably because they are made out of tougher material than the surrounding stuff), so the other stuff lying around is less relevant (and probably mostly rocks thrown out by the many meteroite impacts in the neighbourhood, or meteorites themselves).
similarly sized particles are going to behave similarly as the conditions of the surface change
I agree, but this only explains (more or less) why they would all be similar in size, it doesn't explain the spherical nature (they may not be perfectly spherical, but they are very close)
Nobody is shouting anything, and I fail to see how mysticism plays any role here whatsoever
I'm sorry, this was just a reaction to your short and pretty "handwavy" answer to my previous post. The frog was a kind of CowboyNealish and feeble attempt at humor.
The differences between the planets is anything but minor.
Here we disagree, while I agree that they are not the same, they are not off by a huge amount, meaning that the physics will act more or less the same, which to me means that if you propose a mechanism that acts fundamentally different then it does on earth, you should be prepared to give some rasoning beyond "well, it ain't exactly the same there".
Moreover, your depiction of the processes that take place here on Earth is similarly flawed... pebbles don't form in streams at the kind of altitudes that are remotely comparable to Mars.
Again, I disagree with the "are not remotely comparable".
If you're going to throw stones at the conjectures others have on geological processes on other planets, it would behoove you to have a better grasp on those that take place on your own.
I'm sorry, are you saying no pebbles are formed in mountain rivers? Or are we again diagreeing on what constitute "comparable surroundings"? I will concede that we cannot rule out that these objects were formed in a way similar to what you describe, I would argue that, excluding the frog joke, my other possible explanations are considerably more likely...
Anyway, the spectrometric data from the rovers should provide good evidence of the actual formation process, so this will all likely be resolved in a couple of months
Re:The spherules
by
Cally
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Someone in the article speculates that the spherules might result from water percolating upwards through the soil and freezing when it gets near the surface. To a layperson this is an appealing interpretation, with only one small drawback - the spherules are clearly eroding out of the rocks. If you've been following the daily raw images (click the non-obvious 'multimedia' link at the top of the marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov site, then 'all raw images' turns up in the LHS navbar. Took me ages to work that out) you'll see that Opportunity sawed a few in half when with the RAT when grinding holes in a rock. They're clearly in the rock, as the surface weathers away, eventually they fall out and roll across the surface to low points where they collect. Quite possibly we'd never have seen these if Opportunity hadn't been lucky enough to land in a crater.
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Title a bit sexual?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"Evidence Mounts, But Scientists Remain Tight-Lipped"
Come on, somebody get that copywriter laid before he sublimates again.
Yep, just like that other NASA falsehood that the Spirit rover dug the first artificial hole in Mars recently, when we know that the European Beagle lander did that late last year.
Jolyon
--
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
I'm asking a perfectly legitimate question. An odd-shaped object embedded in a rock on mars may be a chemical deposit, or it may be an organic product - or it may just be an anomalous rock.
I fail to see what is trollish about my question.
-- I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
There's a bit of a difference between an orbiter and a rover located on the actual planet.
I doubt you this kind of evidence from an orbiter: Other images show the rover tracks clearly are being made in "mud", with water being pressed out of that material, Levin said. "That water promptly freezes and you can see reflecting ice. That's clearly ice. It could be nothing else," he said, "and the source is the water that came out of the mud."
What's so great about water!?
by
anish1411
·
· Score: 5, Informative
OK we all know that water is needed to sustain life on earth, which is why its such a biggie when the possibility of water on extra-terrestial terrains arises.
But what is it exactly about water that makes it so important? Here is a page which shows some of the most important properties of water. It shows, for example, how capillary action works, a property that allows plants up to 20 feet (i think!) tall to absorb water without using any energy whatsoever!
Re:What's so great about water!?
by
mike3411
·
· Score: 4, Informative
well.... clearly yes water has many very important properties, but that page doesnt do a very good job illustrating why it is significant for life. i think one of the reasons we get so excited about water is because it is so relevent to the working of our form of life. h2o is involved in an incredibly wide range of the organic reactions occurring in your body and in other terrestrial forms of life. it's entirely possible that other living organisms could operate with entirely different sets of biochemical reactions, and not need water at all. but if water is available, then something that we are more familiar with might be living there, and we know what to look for.
btw, capillary action is not a unique property of water, it will occur with any liquid that an affinity for the substrate
-- Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:What's so great about water!?
by
anish1411
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The fact that for millions of years on Earth, nothing happened, and then all of a sudden BOOM life arose in the gap of about 10,000 (which is a small gap), might be suggestive that life really might not be able to happen many other way!
If you look at life on Earth, it is based on long chains of carbon and some nitrogen, mixed with various other molecules. Not many other elements have the combining properties of carbon and nitrogen, so nothing too complex could be formed with anything else.
If you take the example of a DNA molecule, this ia an extremely complex and precise little thing. It's double-helix structure is only possible because of the way it has been formed, and its replication has been masterfully engineered by millions of years of evolution.
There are many, many other things about life on Earth that are so complex and specific, that I - and many biologists agree with this - think that life probably could not have happened any other way.
Btw, the reason capillary action happens is because water molecules are polar, with the hydrogen side being slightly positive and the oxygen side being slightly negative. This is not true with most other liquids. And besides mercury, or ethanol wouldnt be very useful to plants, even if they could absorb it by capillary action.
Re:What's so great about water!?
by
Walkiry
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Well, capillary action allows water to flow upwards in small, herbaceous plants. But if you do some numbers you'll find that the capillaries would have to be of an unfeasibly small diameter to allow that water to go up a 30 meter tree for example.
The most important action that allows water to go up in those big trees is negative pressure at the leaves, created by the evaporation of water. Take a look here.
Re:What's so great about water!?
by
Pedrito
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The fact that for millions of years on Earth, nothing happened, and then all of a sudden BOOM life arose in the gap of about 10,000 (which is a small gap), might be suggestive that life really might not be able to happen many other way!
Where did you get this from?
Geologically speaking, life appeared on Earth almost the instant the Earth became hospitable enough for life, about 3.8 billion years ago (or when the Earth was 700-800 million years old. That was only single-celled life, but life nonetheless. The move to multi-celled life took far longer and didn't occur until about 700 million years ago. That's the giant-leap there. If single-celled life appears so quickly and it took so much longer for multi-celled life, then it gives the impression that single-celled life is very opportunistic while multi-celled life isn't necessarily the next step.
Re:What's so great about water!?
by
bdeclerc
·
· Score: 5, Funny
That's jellyfish, humans are about 70% water (and 30% bullshit...)
Re:What's so great about water!?
by
barawn
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
But what is it exactly about water that makes it so important?
Actually, that web site you linked to shows a lot of properties that are generic to all liquids - the unique one being that water expands when it contracts.
However, the question should be "why only water?" and the basic answer to that is pretty simple.
Life, simply put, could be described as nature selecting out certain configurations from a system that contains an almost infinite amount of states. Therefore, you need something that allows for many states and many configurations to form - that is, you want a dipole - subatomic "glue", basically - something that can take ions and join them together in weird ways to get bizarre states. Dipoles also act simultaneously as solvents - that is, they break down objects into dissolved ions.
Well, if you want a dipole for life, then you're probably going to get life based on the simplest dipole available. So you start with hydrogen, the most common element. And the simplest dipole you can form with hydrogen is water.
This, of course, doesn't preclude other elements from being the basic dipole for life if the region isn't compatible with water - though, unlike what the article says, Earth is not at the triple point of water - the blackbody temperature of Earth is ~255K, which is far underneath the freezing point of water (granted, triple points require knowledge of pressure, which eliminates a simple blackbody approach, but...). Earth's atmosphere, however, is at the triple point of water, but that's because it's been tuned to get to that point by the various thermal cycles and biological cycles which keep Earth's temperature near that point. What you really needed was liquid water, because as a solid or as a gas, the dipole properties are really being wasted. So, one can imagine a world where something just slightly more complicated than water (say... ammonia) is liquid, and maybe, just maybe, you'd get a complex chemistry out of that, too.
Life, Water & Power
by
tronicum
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We want to find artifical life forms, not only water.
Another interesting point is probably a possible power source so if some of the nice red rocks contains a substance that is able to generate engergy, that would be better.
Which taxpayer payed this much?
by
Anonymous+Shepard
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"There are lots of geologists out there who are looking at these pictures and they are starting to drool," Haldeman said. "The American taxpayer that spent $800 million on this deserves a thorough analysis," Haldeman said.
Which taxpayer payed this much?
-- I have a life. I really do. I've just chosen to ignore it.
Re:Which taxpayer payed this much?
by
Albanach
·
· Score: 3, Funny
That'll just be the sales tax on space.com's bandwidth bill after a couple of mentions on/.
Re:Which taxpayer payed this much?
by
Jugalator
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Haldeman is probably also right in that the taxpayer deserves a thorough analysis.
-- Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
It may have water
by
Sarojin
·
· Score: 5, Informative
but it also has Hydrogen Peroxide in the atmosphere!
Antiseptic and life-killing, the chemical helps explain why the martian atmosphere and surface are void of life.
-- HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
Re:It may have water
by
Bigman
·
· Score: 4, Funny
What? So does that mean Martians are blonde?
-- *--BigMan---
Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
Re:It may have water
by
ColaMan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
That doesn't rule out subsurface life. Which is a likely place for life (if any) to be, considering that there's: - Possibly liquid water / brine there. - Possibly adequate sheilding from the crap atmosphere above ground / radiation from space.
--
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike. There is a lot of hype here.
Re:It may have water
by
SB9876
·
· Score: 4, Informative
IIRC, the interpretation of the anamalous chemical reactions found by the Viking probes was due to extremely high levels of peroxides. Although there is a certain endogenous level of peroxides in all oxygen-using life, the levels are extremely low and there are a large number of enzymatic systems that are used to keep it in very tight control to prevent it from converting to the much more deadly superoxide and hydroxyl radicals. The levels of HOOH found by the Viking probes was predicted to be fatal to any reasonable organic life. It doesn't take too much HOOH to sterilize even resistant organisms - the peroxide you can buy at the drugstore for an antiseptic is only 3% by volume and will go through bacteria that have plenty of peroxidases like a cannonball through wet tissue paper.
There was a Wired article (this month's I think) where they detailed a series of scientific missions to the Atacama desert down in S. America. The conditions closely mimic Mars in the extremely low water levels and high UV exposure. The result was that they were unable to find ANY bacterial life in the soil, even when digging several feet down. (although I have some issues with the subsurface results they got) Even an attempt to seed the soil with extremophiles from another desert failed.
It's possible that there might be something buried under the dirt in the Martian soil but even that's pretty chancy. Without a source for energy generation, those bacteria won't be able to repair damage from natural radioactivity in the soil. In our soil there's plenty of organics that bacteria can use for a power source but that carbon ultimately came from solar-driven photosynthesis which the surface conditions rule out.
These are the only possibilities I can think of for Martian life:
1: underground life that is able to sustain at least some basal metabolic rate from a chemical energy source. That energy source would be either organic deposists from an aearlier period of Martian life where photosynthesis was possible or some sort of geological organic chemical formation pathway or hydrogen gas generated from natural radioactivity.
2: Life in geothermally driven water sources or locked into ice. There is a significant amount of life even in the dry plains of Antarctica which indicates that even solid ice is capable of supporting life.
3: some sort of non-standard biological chemistry which is far beyond my ability to speculate about.
If they have oil, then the Martians are fecked*
by
dwalsh
·
· Score: 4, Funny
*Idiomatic Irish variation on an Anglo Saxon word.
-- ${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Wheres my Giant Shrimp!
by
servoled
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Damn those lazy NASA engineers. The February 29th cut off date has come and gone and they have yet make an official declaration of an ocean on Mars. What the hell have they been doing over there? Moving the rover 10 ft at a time, spending days just to get the damn thing off the landing platform, pathetic. There must be some shady deal going on between them and Long John Silver's to move really slowly to not have to tell the world that they found an ocean so they can share all of the free giant shrimp between themselves. This article just confirms it. Obviously they have enough evidence to proclaim that Mars is a big ocean, yet they don't because it would cut into their giant shrimp profits. Scandal I say!
-- "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
What is this all about?
by
heironymouscoward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I mean, seriously. I'm not trolling, just scratching my head...
We are sitting on a planet that has everything we could possibly want. Water, food, sun, beaches, fresh mangos, carnival once a year, beer, ADSL for peanuts.
And now the hint of the memory of water on Mars is enough to give us sciencegasms of pleasure. "Oooh, water, bacterial lifeforms,"... I know, water = life, life = understanding, etc.
But it seems so perverse. There is such a huge waste of life and resources going on all around us. Nothing we ever find on Mars will be remotely as interesting as - say - a bucket of seawater from any corner of the world's oceans. We'll spend fortunes trying to extract a few nuggets of knowledge from the furthest corners of our domain while ignoring the mountains of knowledge that remain to be unpuzzled all around us.
Are we just a perverse species, or what?
--
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Re:What is this all about?
by
Darkfred
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't think its the thought of the life forms themselves on mars that will give people 'sciencegasms'. It's the implications of what it would mean if we found similar cellular life to our own somewhere else in the universe.
It gives us hope that somewhere else in the universe there would be life as well. After all if two planets in our own system have life it must develop quite easily, Or at least show that interplanet panspermia is possible.
And most important to our motivations, it addresses two very basic interests inherant to our physque. Loneliness and the divine.
-- ----- 70% of all statistics are completely made up.
Re:What is this all about?
by
torpor
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The "Life" question will be pretty significant if its answered in the affirmative.
Remember, Earth is supposed to be a Garden of Eden. Like it or not, but a lot of human policy is driven by Christians who would rather not have to deal with the reality of the universe...
Answering this question will transform culture in big, big ways.
-- ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets.
--
Re:What is this all about?
by
Paulrothrock
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But it seems so perverse. There is such a huge waste of life and resources going on all around us.
Whenever there's anything about space exploration on/. someone posts a 'why are we doing this?' message.
Yes, there are 2.3 billion people without fresh water, but it's not the fault of the space programs. NASA's budget for 2004 is about $16 billion. The Pentagon's budget is $450 billion!!!! This is more than all other military spending by all other nations combined We could cut it in half and still be spending three times as much as our next highest potential enemy (Russia, who spends $70 billion per year, and they're an ally.) The "Axis of Evil" spends only $7.5 billion, so we could easily defend our nation from "evildoers", feed all the hungry children, house the homeless, and provide quality education to anyone who wants it and still have money left over to send humans to Mars and the Moon, and push ourselves into space.
Don't blame NASA for taking money from important programs. Blame the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex who would rather build things that blow up than feed starving children.
-- I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:What is this all about?
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But it seems so perverse. There is such a huge waste of life and resources going on all around us. Nothing we ever find on Mars will be remotely as interesting as - say - a bucket of seawater from any corner of the world's oceans.
Maybe, maybe not. An actual living organism from Mars would be tremendously interesting, simply because it did evolve somewhere else. We'd get to see an evolutionary 'what-if' question answered.
Looking at the differences--and similarities--between terrestrial and Martian organisms could be incredibly illuminating. Looking only at Earth life, and Earth fossils, and Earth biochemistry is like examining in detail one grandmaster chess match. Interesting, challenging, surprising, and complex...but it doesn't explore all the aspects of the game.
Life on other worlds would be an opportunity to examine another game. The rules (physics) are the same for everyone, but the game is different each time you play.
Mind you, I agree that we're not doing a great job of managing the diversity of life we have here on Earth. I am utterly gobsmacked at all the useful compounds extracted so far from extremophilic organisms. Then again, Martian life would be the utimate extremophiles--near vacuum, hard radiation...very impressive.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:What is this all about?
by
jafac
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually, it's my understanding that from a purely scriptural standpoint, the moon, mars, venus, ALL heavenly bodies were put there by God to help us mark the time and the seasons, and also portents and omens, etc.
Which doesn't specifically say anything about what they are or are not, or whether there is or is not life on those bodies. It wasn't specifically mentioned in the Bible whether God created life there or not, or whether that life has souls, or whatever. Spiritually, it's pretty much a non-issue whether life exists there or not.
Even if the life were intelligent life, it wouldn't make any difference. However, given the paranoid nature of the Christian Fundamentalist mind (everything is an evil leftist conspiracy by the devil to persecute and destroy them) - there is a contingent of Christians who are worried that SUPERIOR alien life will someday be discovered, and they will come and impose THEIR religion on us - and since there's no guidance on that at all in scripture, they'll be interpreted as demons bringing false religion from the devil.
One point that is made in scripture, is that the Earth was specifically given to man, to do with as we please. The heavenly bodies were not. So if we were go colonise other planets, and exploit them, we don't specifically have God's permission. I'm sure that's probably not going to be an important point for Fundamentalists heavily invested in mining consortia.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Spherical snowflakes?
by
CrosbieFitch
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Has anyone else noticed the six segment radial spoke pattern on one of the spherules? Six-fold symmetry perhaps related to the same way that snowflakes form? Maybe the beads are snowflakes that gradually accrete into ice-droplets?
Either that, or the spherules are organic...
Re:Spherical snowflakes?
by
art6217
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Several of the photographed spherules seem to have various features close to their tops, i.e.
they seem to be pointed like here. There is
also a photo of a cut of one of the spherules. If you brighten dark colors
in the image
something like a central stem, dendritic structures in, relatively to the
image, upper part of the spherule, and a `glue' to the left of the spherule,
can be seen.
of NASA's aqua-focussed spin on everything Mars related.
The Mars program's stated goal is the detection of water on Mars - therefore every possible shred of evidence for that conclusion is being reported, with no discussion at all of any alternative interpretations.
A couple of very interesting
opinionpieces at spacedaily.com recently sum up some alternative theories.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it to be true. But there's a distinct water-mania in the current NASA press machine...
correct me if I'm wrong, but the space.com article has nothing to do with anyone at NASA. so to critisize NASA in this thread seems a little harsh. I think generally NASA does accentuate data that and theories that support the existence of water, but I wouldnt go so far as to suggest that they are ignoring alternative interpretations, or that they are doing something unethical or improper. although if you have specific examples of NASA distorting or improperly using information, that would be interesting.
-- Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
data and speculation
by
mike3411
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
what a weird / poorly written article. maybe i'm misunderstanding some of their statements, but the author makes certain important conclusions that totally lack support. In particular, the possibiliy of liquid water (as evidenced by mud) is suggested. The article states "Levin points to Opportunity imagery that offers conclusive proof of standing liquid water and running water on a cold Mars." The argument is that freezing areas in the rover's tracks are filled with ice, which is supposedly identified through pictures. This may be valid, but to suggest that such an important conclusion can be made by theorizing on what could make a shiny surface in imagaes... seems excessive. This appears especially absurd to me because the rover has tools specifically designed to answer this question. I mean, why is this guy attempting to conjecture this based on images when we can use IR & GC to find out exactly what is there? I suppose the point in this article is that this data has been collected, and is to be announced soon, but the confidence with which the article makes these assertions and its lack of explication for the possible errors in these theories really frustrated me and seems totally inappropriate in a scientific publication, even one online:\
-- Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:data and speculation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
what a weird / poorly written article. maybe i'm misunderstanding some of their statements, but the author makes certain important conclusions that totally lack support. In particular, the possibiliy of liquid water (as evidenced by mud) is suggested. The article states "Levin points to Opportunity imagery that offers conclusive proof of standing liquid water and running water on a cold Mars."
Yeah, Levin is a bit nutty here. "Crackpot" may or may not be too strong. He has a history with mentioned Viking experiment. Nearly everyone else has concluded that the results can be explained through normal (but unexpected at the time) chemical properties of the martian soil. Google around for more info, it's also come up on Usenet recently.
All this talk of "mud" and "liquid water" leaves me scratching my head... I can only assume that these people are desperately looking for something to support their preconcieved ideas.
Let's take the "mud" first.
Everyone knows Mars is a very dusty place. It's exceedingly obvious from the pictures. The behavour of the rover tracks (and airbags) is about what you'd expect from a very fine grained material. Go play with some flour in your kitchen if it helps. Also, the "pro-mud" people (shall we call them Elbonians?) also seem to forget that the rovers carry a microscopic imager... The pictures from it seem to clearly indicate that we're looking at sand and dust, not mud.
As for the "shiny" pictures implying brine/ice...
This also seems uninformed to me. There are plenty of things that are shiny that are not ice. I think most of this is a result of not being able to correctly intrepret what the rover sees. The Pancam takes images though a variety of narrow-pass filters, and this can sometimes make things look funky. In fact, you can see that rocks sometimes look "shiny" in one wavelenth, but dull and normal in another.
It's easy to find examples of rocks like this in NASA's "raw image archive" -- eg some of the Sol 14 Pancam pics at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit. html
If Mars really is a "Waterworld", we'll invest vast amounts of money in it but no people will ever go to see it. Oh wait...
-- When I am king, you will be first against
the wall.
Re:Tell news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I doubt you this kind of evidence from an orbiter:
"Other images show the rover tracks clearly are being made in "mud", with water being pressed out of that material, Levin said. "That water promptly freezes and you can see reflecting ice. That's clearly ice. It could be nothing else," he said, "and the source is the water that came out of the mud."
That's not evidence, that's a hypothesis that has yet to be tested.
Moot Point
by
Yonkeltron
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yeah but it doesn't matter if there is water or not because if the supposed "Life Killing Chemical" is really present in the martian atmosphere like this article says it is...
How about the viking landers in '76? They had a little scoop so they could get some soil and perform tests for life.
--
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike. There is a lot of hype here.
Where's the Pasta?
by
torpor
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Anyone know where the images of this 'pasta-like' object are? I'd sure like to see that!!!
-- ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets.
--
Re:Where's the Pasta?
by
Angry+Toad
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
They seem to be keeping the most interesting shots and other data to themselves - and no surprise, the only benefit the scientists get out of their participation in the project is publication rights. I'm quite sure that we'll see the most interesting stuff before too terribly long.
Of course there's always the mysterious "horned" Opportunity object, which simply up and disappeared from one day to the next. I still suspect that it may have been a torn bit of material from the airbags that got blown away, but all the same it's an odd thing.
Re:Where's the Pasta?
by
mmcdouga
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Anyone know where the images of this 'pasta-like' object are?
You can see it here. It's a little above and to the left of the center of the picture.
Other pictures from that day (sol 30 for Opportunity) are here. They drilled the area in the following days and there's a picture of the 'pasta' post-drilling, but finding that image is left as an exercise for the reader.
wow what a stupid post & argument. i dont mean to sound argumentative, but you provide almost no support for your conclusion that "ESA's mission is superior to NASA's mission". First let me say the ESA mission is important and useful. Remote mapping of the surface will help researcers understand martian geography, helping to locate points of interest, understanding weather paterns, and learning more about the geographic changes the planet may have undergone over the past few thousand years.
But the US mission is also very valuable. You ask "But what have they produced so far? A few snapshots and panorama pictures (which are nice, but well...), and some stone probes." which is really just silly. The photos the landers have taken are more than just panoramas of the scenary. While these do tell us more about the martian surface, the really imporant pictures are of the rock formations, close-ups of the surface sand and rock, and micrographs of all the material there at the surface. Seeing exactly what martian rock, pebbles, and sand looks like is very important for understanding the martian atmosphere & weather patterns, as well as geologic makeup and history. to suggest that it's only taken a few is absurd... check out http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit. html for spirit's photos, http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportu nity.html for opportunity's.
the other tools on the rovers (see http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_ surface_instru.html for details) are also very important. these tools will allow accurate analysis of collected samples. while an orbiter can determine chemical content to a degree, the detail pales in comparison to what the rovers are finding.
with all your unfounded critisism and palpable distaste for another country, I almost mistook you for an American! try not to be so prejudiced in the future, mmK?
-- Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
> I wonder on Mars if it can rain upwards," he said.
I wonder if they are smoking some pot in Maryland...:)
--
class he-man extends man!
Waterous questions
by
Ektanoor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The presence of water in Mars has nothing new in it. In fact, for quite long we have had several evidences of its presence. Unfortunately all this messed with a long-standing presumption that Mars is Dry-Dried-Drying-Dead. This presumption was born from the unfortunate fight between Lowell and other scientists on the presence of civilizations in Mars. Each one of us may qualify Lowell's extrapolations from several points of view. But the fact is that many scientists of his time and later decided that the best argument against Lowell was to extrapolate the counterarguments. The fact was that the "scientific" discussion of Lowell's ideas as more as putting counterweights rather than well-weighed scientific arguments. It seems that people were more scared by Lowell's radicalism rather than studying Mars. If Lowell said there was a civilization, his opponents tried to overshow everything to demonstrate that civilizations could not exist in Mars, down to denying the chances for Life in Mars. If Lowell argumented that Mars had channels to carry precious water, almost everyone tried to demonstrate that there is not even a molecule of water in the atmosphere...
The result was that at Viking's time, most circles were standing for the Dry-Dried-Drying-Dead argument, no matter the controversial data from spectroscopy, the first pictures from Mars and several theories about the formation of the Solar System. Most academical circles were not only willing to but forcing the view that Mars was just like the Moon but more colder.
Unfortunately things did not stop only in this. There were people that for some reason falsified Viking's results or manipulated other results. For some reason, these people needed the Dry-Dried-Drying-Dead Mars argument as a weapon for their silly, stupid and overreligious theories. Frankly it is another show on how Mars, since Kepler, has been ground not only for a scientific debate but also for political-religious fistfights... Anyway, the extremism of ideas and the fundamentalism of some slowed down the exploration of Mars.
If you hear a refutation of the new discoveries, be careful. Before coming into conclusions try to find if this is the product of a scientific discussion, how correctly people step up with their arguments, or if this is another mass-media show between Hoagland-alikes and Horowitz-clones.
Isn't it safe to assume,,,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...that on something as large as the PLANET Mars, there would be at least SOME water? I heard in school that water is made of common elements, 'hydrogen' and 'oxygen'. Finding water on Mars is inevitable.
Let me know when they find some sort of bacteria or micro-organism. Water... pffffft.
Re:Tell news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You seem to be rather misinformed. From your blog:
ESA decided to send one orbiter and one lander to mars, NASA decided to play safe and sent out not one but two landers, Spirit and Opportunity. And of course, they have their own orbiter, too.
Orbiter? Try Orbiters -- there are two existing orbiters -- Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey. The MER missions did not orbit.
But when you look at the actual scientific data produced by both the ESA and the NASA mission, you will see that NASA definitely does the better PR work. But what have they produced so far? A few snapshots and panorama pictures (which are nice, but well...)
You don't really have a clue, do you? First, some of those "snapshots" are from the Pancam, which has a variety of narrow-band filters to allow detailed image analysis. Second, the rovers have been collecting a TON of data from the other main science instruments -- MiniTES, Mossbauer, APXS. While these don't produce pretty pictures (just boring spectragraphs), it's a wealth of scientific information.
and some stone probes. But due to their design, they can't drill down further than maybe a few meters (if even that deep).
"Stone probes"? WTF are you talking about? The rovers can essentially spin a wheel in place to carve out a trench in the soil. That can dig in the ballpark of 6 inches. There's also a RAT tool to grind rocks, which only goes a few milimeters -- that's all you need to get past any dust or weathering.
This isn't a sub-surface exploration mission, so complaining about that is like saying Slashdot sucks because there's not enough advice on cosmetics.
but IMHO, it's not really something special: we've seen pictures from mars before, and we've analyzed probes from mars before.
We've never seen pictures like the microscopic imager is taking. And it's naaive to say that just because a couple of previous missions have takes pictures that there's no value in doing anything similar again... For simple example, look at how radically different the Opportunity site is from the other missions (Spirit, Pathfinder, Viking I&II).
So, I'm a lot more impressed by the work done by ESA: although they lost their lander (what a pity...), they concentrated not so much on the PR (no "the best crew in the world!" cheering) but more on actual science
That's an insult to everyone in NASA working on the MERs. Have you ever done any real science? It's obvious you don't know anything about the NASA mission, but to make a blanket statement like that about the science just a couple of weeks into the mission is stupid. It can take months to years to develop all the final results.
Let's look at your other ESA claims:
produced detailled 3D maps of parts of mars which has never done before, and where the big geological structures can be analyzed better than ever before.
Uhm, no. NASA has been making maps since the Mariner and Viking missions in the 60's and 70's. More recently, the MGS and Odyssey orbiters have been producing higher-resolution imagery. MGS has even taken pictures of the rovers on the surface (see http://www.msss.com/mer_mission/index.html).
proved the existence of water on the south pole of mars. NASA asserted that they had detected that in 2001 already, but in fact, they didn't, because they didn't have the right equipment. All they were able to detect at that time was hydrogen, which is a possible indicator for water, but definitely not a prove.
It would be more accurate to say "confirmed," no "proved." ESA's PR is in hyper-overdrive here. Previous results from other missions (especially Odyssey's neutron spectrometer) have led to the forgone conclusion that water/ice is present. ESA's results are an "independant cconfirmation," but are hardly a novel or shocking result.
measured the actual temperature on the mars surface (up to +4 degrees Celsius), which is higher than estimated before.
Aga
Mars Global Surveyer first
by
tjstork
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The Mars Global Surveyer found traces of hydrogen first, and also returned the first images which seemed like water carving the martian surface.
And, to top it all off, there is a small but steady band of real scientists that believe that Viking did in fact find life on Mars.
-- This is my sig.
What I don't get...
by
Lord+Kano
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We all know that hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe, why is it such a big deal that some of that greatly abundant hydrogen exists in H2O on Mars?
With the countless gallons on earth, it shouldn't be a big deal that just a fraction of that much water ended up on Mars.
LK
-- "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Tell news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is there anything in this world that people can work together without turning it into a pissing contest?
The Mother of all pissing contest, the Cold War, has already ended.
So take example and start aiming to the toilet. This place is already too smelly.
-For Cleaner Environment
Water coming from comets
by
Glorat
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I remember watching a documentary on UK television describing one of the theories as to how water came to be on Earth. It was proposed that much of the ocean's water came from comets that pelted the Earth before there was an atmosphere and with the Earth being the right distance from the sun, we got oceans (instead of steam on venus and ice(?) on Mars). It has also been suggested that the building blocks of life (amino acids etc.) may also have come from extraterrestrial debris.
Could it be that without an atmosphere on Mars, comets and the like could be falling on the planet and depositing their contents on the surface in the same way as has happened on earth? I mean, heck, we've even got our rover planted in the midst of a crater created by extra-martian debris and since there is little or no erosion on this planet we could be partly examining the contents of extra-planetary material. Personally, I think this would make the examination even more interesting than it already is!
Re:What is BB ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
A BB is a ball bearing.
Specifically, when someone says "a BB" in the US, it means a small ball bearing used in a "BB gun", which is an air powered gun that fires BBs.
These BBs are around 2 millimeters wide. So you have your answer.
Be careful what you wish for
by
tverbeek
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Discovering evidence suggesting that there is life on Mars could be a serious stumbling block to further exploration, and definitely to exploitation.
Remember when Chekov was scanning Ceti Alpha 5 for life before testing the Genesis device there, and his captain said that even a microbe meant the test would be a no-go? Remember what happened to the invading Martians at Grover's Mill NJ: they're highly vulnerable to Terran bacteria.
But seriously, a dead, sterile Mars is one we could start sending people to, and eventually set up a permanent settlement (with waste products and all). But one with actual life would - for scientific, and arguably for moral reasons - have to be quarantined.
-- http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Tell news
by
jabberjaw
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I was going to mod yet feel that I must post. Why can we not just take our nationlism, stow it and accept the fact that both NASA's mission and the ESA's mission are providing valueable contributions to mankind. Spirit and Opportunity provide a prespective that Mars Express cannot. Mars Express provides a prespective that Spirit and Opportunity cannnot. Both missions are good science!
Re:Wouldn't it be funny...
by
Perdition
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Of course, if they find nothing, the scientific community will graciously bow to all things religious and happily confirm that there is no life beyond Earth. Yeah, fair play for all from the scientific community...
More likely, they'll concoct some weird story about dust on some solar panels, admit a setback, find some last minute "evidence", shut off the rovers, ask for some money, and try it again.
-- Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Sorry, but the ESA orbiter showed this more than a month ago. NASA is just too late
It is obvious that you didn't read the article. The editor's post of the story was a little misleading because we've known about water on Mars for some time.
Having said that, the article states that they think they are actually SEEING liquid water freeze as it's being pressed upward out of the soil by the rover's wheels. That's much different than detecting it with an orbitor. Also, if I'm not mistaken the ESA orbitor suggested that water vapor exists in the atmosphere, not the soil. The missions are complimentary (ESA and NASA have been assisting one another by relaying commands through both of their orbitors and NASA has been trying to actually find Beagle visually using their orbitor). No one is taking credit for anything they haven't done. No need to get defensive.
a conversation somewhere near Alpha Centauri...
by
argStyopa
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"...and I say that we should wipe them out before they cause any more trouble. Their incessant broadcasting in practically every frequency gives me headaches every time we pass that system. I tell you, they are galactic trailer trash."
"OK, tell you what. We'll let them develop without interference. We'll take that dead world nearest them, and sprinkle it around with some single-celled organisms. Once they start exploring, they'll find the organisms, and THEN - when confronted with an entirely defenseless foreign life form - we'll see their true moral character."
"Deal."
-- -Styopa
Do the numbers? Indeed!
by
jmichaelg
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The most important action that allows water to go up in those big trees is negative pressure at the leaves, created by the evaporation of water.
Hmmm, you should have paid attention in your freshman physics class. No such thing as "negative pressure." What you meant to say was "lower relative pressure" and even then you're still wrong. Even if the leaves managed to lower the air pressure above their surface to zero psi, which of course they can't, the highest you can lift water via air pressure differential is 10.3 meters. A water column 10.3 meters high weighs as much as a column of air reaching from sea level to the top of the atmosphere.
If you want to move water to the top of a sequoia, you've got to use some mechanism other than air pressure differentials. In fact, had you carefully read the page you linked to, you would have noticed that transpiration peters out at around 32 feet.
Re:What is BB ?
by
Detritus
·
· Score: 3, Informative
BB is actually a reference to the American system of measuring the size of lead/steel shot in shotgun shells. Here is a convenient table. BB shot is about 4.5 mm in diameter.
-- Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Examples on Earth - Brine Shrimp & Soil Crust
by
rm3friskerFTN
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Soil Crust Analogs on Earth??? Likewise a USA Today article Imprint
shows Mars craft landed in 'weird stuff' describes "The
soil was stripped up and folded in an interesting way," said Jim Bell, who
designed the panoramic camera that Spirit used to photograph the "mud-like"
patch. "It has quite alien textures."
Might this soil crust on Mars be same/similar to the biological soil crust
found at Arches
National Park (Moab, Utah)?
Additional details regarding biological soil crusts maybe are to found here:
That's funny - I was thinking bowling ball. Could you imagine walking off a lander onto the surface of Mars only to see 16 lb. balls hurling around through the air?:)
Re:The spherules [talk to pilots]
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Ummm, I should think that quite a lot is known about dust devils.
Every cumulus cloud that you see is a dust devil (though usually without the dust). The rising air of the dust devil is itself responsible for the cloud. Oft times it happens that the rising air either runs into an inversion or is sufficiently dry that it doesn't reach the dew point to condense a cloud. In deserts and dryer climes those rising air columns often find plenty of dust to pick up, making them visible.
Further, these things are useful. Skilled pilots can use them to fly hundreds of miles in a day (1000km is not unheard of; I've personally flown > 300 km several times). As the poster mentions, they are often visible and rise up to two miles. (Actually more; in New South Wales (Australia) or Arizona (US) on a good summer day, they go regularly to 3-4,000m and more than 5,000m is not unheard of.) In mountainous areas where pilots are likely to carry supplemental oxygen, dust devils are scarcer, and orographic winds are more practical for achieving very high altitude (10,000m+) and long distance (500km+) flights. The orographic winds ("ridge lift", "wave") also tend to break up dust devils, strongly limiting their altitudes in mountainous regions.
Without thunderstorms (on earth) dust devils sometimes reach upward speeds of 30 knots (15m/s) or more. With thunderstorms (condensing and freezing water release heat), much more powerful winds are created (> 70 knots).
Further, in many areas of the world, you can get soaring forecasts. These provide some indication of the likelyhood of "thermals" (dust devils, w/ or w/o dust), what time of the morning they are likely to start (they are driven by sunlight), how strong they are likely to be, how high they are likely to be, and how many can be found per unit area. (Or you can use a T-phi chart or a Stuve chart (aka "skew chart") and a few measurements to figure these things yourself.)
forget water -they discovered LIFE on Mars in 1976
by
mattblanchard
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
One scientist that was quoted in the article, Dr. Gilbert V. Levin, was the lead scientist on a life detection experiment that was aboard the 1976 Viking lander mission. He's been trying to tell NASA and the world for the past 3 decades that "the Viking LR experiment detected living microorganisms in the soil of Mars". Check out this paper. Amazing stuff. Truly amazing.
After reading this paper and several others by Dr. Levin, I have to wonder why the general public has no idea about these findings. Don't they merit public discussion? Why don't *any* of NASA's planned Mars missions contain direct life-detection experiments? IANACT (Conspiracy Theorist), but something smells fishy to me.
Not sure why this is such a big surprise
by
cunniff
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Most planetary scientests have accepted for decades that water is a major force in Martian geology. The polar ice caps have long been known to have a substantial water component. The Viking missions detected chemical salts typical of evaporation deposits. Nothing other than water has been proposed for the major outflow channels found all over the Martian surface. See planetary scientist William K. Hartmann's excellent recent book, "A Traveler's Guide to Mars" for lots more information.
Evidence of *recent* water activity is interesting and important, but the loss of this nuance is typical of "news" journalism, which must justify every story as Brand! New! Exciting! Information!
Water is only one factor
by
forgetful
·
· Score: 4, Informative
And have the rovers confirmed the presence of peroxides? Remember the Viking biologic experiments came back positive. It seemed at the time, like some folks went into overdrive to explain the results on the basis of soil peroxides. That always seemed far-fetched, to me, on a planet covered with FERRIC oxide. The Martian soil crusts sure look like desert crusts on earth, and on earth the crusts are loaded with cyanobacteria. The predominance of CO2 would argue against that, but there is almost NO ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN. Is there nitrogen (read: ammonia) in the Martian soil? Nitrogen is an essential component of amino acids and proteins.
-- "...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
I don't see what's mysterious about these at all. You have to remember that Mars has much less gravity than Earth, ergo, the amount of force required to displace a pebble is so much less. So while the atmosphere is thinner there than it is over here, it is still sufficiently dense to allow for substantial winds to develop; winds that displace these pebbles and cause them to move over the ground, and over time--millions and millions of years--this repeated displacement causes the tiny stones to become spheroid in shape. The end.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Come on, somebody get that copywriter laid before he sublimates again.
Yep, just like that other NASA falsehood that the Spirit rover dug the first artificial hole in Mars recently, when we know that the European Beagle lander did that late last year.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Now I'm thirsty and hungry!
There's a bit of a difference between an orbiter and a rover located on the actual planet.
I doubt you this kind of evidence from an orbiter:
Other images show the rover tracks clearly are being made in "mud", with water being pressed out of that material, Levin said. "That water promptly freezes and you can see reflecting ice. That's clearly ice. It could be nothing else," he said, "and the source is the water that came out of the mud."
I've seen the canals with my trusty telescope!
mars# mount /dev/evidence /mnt/water
OK we all know that water is needed to sustain life on earth, which is why its such a biggie when the possibility of water on extra-terrestial terrains arises.
But what is it exactly about water that makes it so important? Here is a page which shows some of the most important properties of water. It shows, for example, how capillary action works, a property that allows plants up to 20 feet (i think!) tall to absorb water without using any energy whatsoever!
Another interesting point is probably a possible power source so if some of the nice red rocks contains a substance that is able to generate engergy, that would be better.
"There are lots of geologists out there who are looking at these pictures and they are starting to drool," Haldeman said. "The American taxpayer that spent $800 million on this deserves a thorough analysis," Haldeman said.
Which taxpayer payed this much?
I have a life. I really do. I've just chosen to ignore it.
but it also has Hydrogen Peroxide in the atmosphere!
link
Antiseptic and life-killing, the chemical helps explain why the martian atmosphere and surface are void of life.
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
*Idiomatic Irish variation on an Anglo Saxon word.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Damn those lazy NASA engineers. The February 29th cut off date has come and gone and they have yet make an official declaration of an ocean on Mars. What the hell have they been doing over there? Moving the rover 10 ft at a time, spending days just to get the damn thing off the landing platform, pathetic. There must be some shady deal going on between them and Long John Silver's to move really slowly to not have to tell the world that they found an ocean so they can share all of the free giant shrimp between themselves. This article just confirms it. Obviously they have enough evidence to proclaim that Mars is a big ocean, yet they don't because it would cut into their giant shrimp profits. Scandal I say!
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
I mean, seriously. I'm not trolling, just scratching my head...
We are sitting on a planet that has everything we could possibly want. Water, food, sun, beaches, fresh mangos, carnival once a year, beer, ADSL for peanuts.
And now the hint of the memory of water on Mars is enough to give us sciencegasms of pleasure. "Oooh, water, bacterial lifeforms,"... I know, water = life, life = understanding, etc.
But it seems so perverse. There is such a huge waste of life and resources going on all around us. Nothing we ever find on Mars will be remotely as interesting as - say - a bucket of seawater from any corner of the world's oceans. We'll spend fortunes trying to extract a few nuggets of knowledge from the furthest corners of our domain while ignoring the mountains of knowledge that remain to be unpuzzled all around us.
Are we just a perverse species, or what?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Has anyone else noticed the six segment radial spoke pattern on one of the spherules? Six-fold symmetry perhaps related to the same way that snowflakes form? Maybe the beads are snowflakes that gradually accrete into ice-droplets?
Either that, or the spherules are organic...
The Mars program's stated goal is the detection of water on Mars - therefore every possible shred of evidence for that conclusion is being reported, with no discussion at all of any alternative interpretations.
A couple of very interesting opinion pieces at spacedaily.com recently sum up some alternative theories.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it to be true. But there's a distinct water-mania in the current NASA press machine...
Why should humans go to Mars?
Because humans need new destinations and ever-expanding horizons.
Because going to Mars will inspire the nation's youth.
I hope they didnt stay up all night answering their frequently asked questions.
Wouldn't it be better to find the real thing?
what a weird / poorly written article. maybe i'm misunderstanding some of their statements, but the author makes certain important conclusions that totally lack support. In particular, the possibiliy of liquid water (as evidenced by mud) is suggested. The article states "Levin points to Opportunity imagery that offers conclusive proof of standing liquid water and running water on a cold Mars." The argument is that freezing areas in the rover's tracks are filled with ice, which is supposedly identified through pictures. This may be valid, but to suggest that such an important conclusion can be made by theorizing on what could make a shiny surface in imagaes... seems excessive. This appears especially absurd to me because the rover has tools specifically designed to answer this question. I mean, why is this guy attempting to conjecture this based on images when we can use IR & GC to find out exactly what is there? I suppose the point in this article is that this data has been collected, and is to be announced soon, but the confidence with which the article makes these assertions and its lack of explication for the possible errors in these theories really frustrated me and seems totally inappropriate in a scientific publication, even one online :\
Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
If Mars really is a "Waterworld", we'll invest vast amounts of money in it but no people will ever go to see it. Oh wait...
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Yeah but it doesn't matter if there is water or not because if the supposed "Life Killing Chemical" is really present in the martian atmosphere like this article says it is...
3 82 7.asp
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03012004/utah/14
Keep the faith, share the code
I wonder on Mars if it can rain upwards
It only makes sense, considering the red sky and blue sunset.
On Mars, er-- In Soviet Russia, the umbrella wears YOU!
How about the viking landers in '76?
They had a little scoop so they could get some soil and perform tests for life.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Anyone know where the images of this 'pasta-like' object are? I'd sure like to see that!!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Its not "not discovered here", its "news media organizations not heavily biased over there" ...
Slight difference, I know, but get it right. The Media is quite often the enemy of Science, and The People.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
wow what a stupid post & argument. i dont mean to sound argumentative, but you provide almost no support for your conclusion that "ESA's mission is superior to NASA's mission". First let me say the ESA mission is important and useful. Remote mapping of the surface will help researcers understand martian geography, helping to locate points of interest, understanding weather paterns, and learning more about the geographic changes the planet may have undergone over the past few thousand years.
. html for spirit's photos, http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportu nity.html for opportunity's.
_ surface_instru.html for details) are also very important. these tools will allow accurate analysis of collected samples. while an orbiter can determine chemical content to a degree, the detail pales in comparison to what the rovers are finding.
But the US mission is also very valuable. You ask "But what have they produced so far? A few snapshots and panorama pictures (which are nice, but well...), and some stone probes." which is really just silly. The photos the landers have taken are more than just panoramas of the scenary. While these do tell us more about the martian surface, the really imporant pictures are of the rock formations, close-ups of the surface sand and rock, and micrographs of all the material there at the surface. Seeing exactly what martian rock, pebbles, and sand looks like is very important for understanding the martian atmosphere & weather patterns, as well as geologic makeup and history.
to suggest that it's only taken a few is absurd... check out http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit
the other tools on the rovers (see http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft
with all your unfounded critisism and palpable distaste for another country, I almost mistook you for an American! try not to be so prejudiced in the future, mmK?
Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
> I wonder on Mars if it can rain upwards," he said.
:)
I wonder if they are smoking some pot in Maryland...
class he-man extends man!
The presence of water in Mars has nothing new in it. In fact, for quite long we have had several evidences of its presence. Unfortunately all this messed with a long-standing presumption that Mars is Dry-Dried-Drying-Dead. This presumption was born from the unfortunate fight between Lowell and other scientists on the presence of civilizations in Mars. Each one of us may qualify Lowell's extrapolations from several points of view. But the fact is that many scientists of his time and later decided that the best argument against Lowell was to extrapolate the counterarguments. The fact was that the "scientific" discussion of Lowell's ideas as more as putting counterweights rather than well-weighed scientific arguments. It seems that people were more scared by Lowell's radicalism rather than studying Mars. If Lowell said there was a civilization, his opponents tried to overshow everything to demonstrate that civilizations could not exist in Mars, down to denying the chances for Life in Mars. If Lowell argumented that Mars had channels to carry precious water, almost everyone tried to demonstrate that there is not even a molecule of water in the atmosphere...
The result was that at Viking's time, most circles were standing for the Dry-Dried-Drying-Dead argument, no matter the controversial data from spectroscopy, the first pictures from Mars and several theories about the formation of the Solar System. Most academical circles were not only willing to but forcing the view that Mars was just like the Moon but more colder.
Unfortunately things did not stop only in this. There were people that for some reason falsified Viking's results or manipulated other results. For some reason, these people needed the Dry-Dried-Drying-Dead Mars argument as a weapon for their silly, stupid and overreligious theories. Frankly it is another show on how Mars, since Kepler, has been ground not only for a scientific debate but also for political-religious fistfights... Anyway, the extremism of ideas and the fundamentalism of some slowed down the exploration of Mars.
If you hear a refutation of the new discoveries, be careful. Before coming into conclusions try to find if this is the product of a scientific discussion, how correctly people step up with their arguments, or if this is another mass-media show between Hoagland-alikes and Horowitz-clones.
...that on something as large as the PLANET Mars, there would be at least SOME water? I heard in school that water is made of common elements,
... pffffft.
'hydrogen' and 'oxygen'. Finding water on Mars is inevitable.
Let me know when they find some sort of bacteria or micro-organism. Water
ESA decided to send one orbiter and one lander to mars, NASA decided to play safe and sent out not one but two landers, Spirit and Opportunity. And of course, they have their own orbiter, too.
Orbiter? Try Orbiters -- there are two existing orbiters -- Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey. The MER missions did not orbit.
But when you look at the actual scientific data produced by both the ESA and the NASA mission, you will see that NASA definitely does the better PR work. But what have they produced so far? A few snapshots and panorama pictures (which are nice, but well...)
You don't really have a clue, do you? First, some of those "snapshots" are from the Pancam, which has a variety of narrow-band filters to allow detailed image analysis. Second, the rovers have been collecting a TON of data from the other main science instruments -- MiniTES, Mossbauer, APXS. While these don't produce pretty pictures (just boring spectragraphs), it's a wealth of scientific information.
and some stone probes. But due to their design, they can't drill down further than maybe a few meters (if even that deep).
"Stone probes"? WTF are you talking about? The rovers can essentially spin a wheel in place to carve out a trench in the soil. That can dig in the ballpark of 6 inches. There's also a RAT tool to grind rocks, which only goes a few milimeters -- that's all you need to get past any dust or weathering.
This isn't a sub-surface exploration mission, so complaining about that is like saying Slashdot sucks because there's not enough advice on cosmetics.
but IMHO, it's not really something special: we've seen pictures from mars before, and we've analyzed probes from mars before.
We've never seen pictures like the microscopic imager is taking. And it's naaive to say that just because a couple of previous missions have takes pictures that there's no value in doing anything similar again... For simple example, look at how radically different the Opportunity site is from the other missions (Spirit, Pathfinder, Viking I&II).
So, I'm a lot more impressed by the work done by ESA: although they lost their lander (what a pity...), they concentrated not so much on the PR (no "the best crew in the world!" cheering) but more on actual science
That's an insult to everyone in NASA working on the MERs. Have you ever done any real science? It's obvious you don't know anything about the NASA mission, but to make a blanket statement like that about the science just a couple of weeks into the mission is stupid. It can take months to years to develop all the final results.
Let's look at your other ESA claims:
produced detailled 3D maps of parts of mars which has never done before, and where the big geological structures can be analyzed better than ever before.
Uhm, no. NASA has been making maps since the Mariner and Viking missions in the 60's and 70's. More recently, the MGS and Odyssey orbiters have been producing higher-resolution imagery. MGS has even taken pictures of the rovers on the surface (see http://www.msss.com/mer_mission/index.html).
proved the existence of water on the south pole of mars. NASA asserted that they had detected that in 2001 already, but in fact, they didn't, because they didn't have the right equipment. All they were able to detect at that time was hydrogen, which is a possible indicator for water, but definitely not a prove.
It would be more accurate to say "confirmed," no "proved." ESA's PR is in hyper-overdrive here. Previous results from other missions (especially Odyssey's neutron spectrometer) have led to the forgone conclusion that water/ice is present. ESA's results are an "independant cconfirmation," but are hardly a novel or shocking result.
measured the actual temperature on the mars surface (up to +4 degrees Celsius), which is higher than estimated before.
Aga
The Mars Global Surveyer found traces of hydrogen first, and also returned the first images which seemed like water carving the martian surface.
And, to top it all off, there is a small but steady band of real scientists that believe that Viking did in fact find life on Mars.
This is my sig.
We all know that hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe, why is it such a big deal that some of that greatly abundant hydrogen exists in H2O on Mars?
With the countless gallons on earth, it shouldn't be a big deal that just a fraction of that much water ended up on Mars.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Is there anything in this world that people can work together without turning it into a pissing contest?
The Mother of all pissing contest, the Cold War, has already ended.
So take example and start aiming to the toilet. This place is already too smelly.
-For Cleaner Environment
I remember watching a documentary on UK television describing one of the theories as to how water came to be on Earth. It was proposed that much of the ocean's water came from comets that pelted the Earth before there was an atmosphere and with the Earth being the right distance from the sun, we got oceans (instead of steam on venus and ice(?) on Mars). It has also been suggested that the building blocks of life (amino acids etc.) may also have come from extraterrestrial debris.
Could it be that without an atmosphere on Mars, comets and the like could be falling on the planet and depositing their contents on the surface in the same way as has happened on earth? I mean, heck, we've even got our rover planted in the midst of a crater created by extra-martian debris and since there is little or no erosion on this planet we could be partly examining the contents of extra-planetary material. Personally, I think this would make the examination even more interesting than it already is!
A BB is a ball bearing.
Specifically, when someone says "a BB" in the US, it means a small ball bearing used in a "BB gun", which is an air powered gun that fires BBs.
These BBs are around 2 millimeters wide. So you have your answer.
Remember when Chekov was scanning Ceti Alpha 5 for life before testing the Genesis device there, and his captain said that even a microbe meant the test would be a no-go? Remember what happened to the invading Martians at Grover's Mill NJ: they're highly vulnerable to Terran bacteria.
But seriously, a dead, sterile Mars is one we could start sending people to, and eventually set up a permanent settlement (with waste products and all). But one with actual life would - for scientific, and arguably for moral reasons - have to be quarantined.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I was going to mod yet feel that I must post. Why can we not just take our nationlism, stow it and accept the fact that both NASA's mission and the ESA's mission are providing valueable contributions to mankind. Spirit and Opportunity provide a prespective that Mars Express cannot. Mars Express provides a prespective that Spirit and Opportunity cannnot. Both missions are good science!
Of course, if they find nothing, the scientific community will graciously bow to all things religious and happily confirm that there is no life beyond Earth. Yeah, fair play for all from the scientific community...
More likely, they'll concoct some weird story about dust on some solar panels, admit a setback, find some last minute "evidence", shut off the rovers, ask for some money, and try it again.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Sorry, but the ESA orbiter showed this more than a month ago. NASA is just too late
It is obvious that you didn't read the article. The editor's post of the story was a little misleading because we've known about water on Mars for some time.
Having said that, the article states that they think they are actually SEEING liquid water freeze as it's being pressed upward out of the soil by the rover's wheels. That's much different than detecting it with an orbitor. Also, if I'm not mistaken the ESA orbitor suggested that water vapor exists in the atmosphere, not the soil. The missions are complimentary (ESA and NASA have been assisting one another by relaying commands through both of their orbitors and NASA has been trying to actually find Beagle visually using their orbitor). No one is taking credit for anything they haven't done. No need to get defensive.
"...and I say that we should wipe them out before they cause any more trouble. Their incessant broadcasting in practically every frequency gives me headaches every time we pass that system. I tell you, they are galactic trailer trash."
"OK, tell you what. We'll let them develop without interference. We'll take that dead world nearest them, and sprinkle it around with some single-celled organisms. Once they start exploring, they'll find the organisms, and THEN - when confronted with an entirely defenseless foreign life form - we'll see their true moral character."
"Deal."
-Styopa
Hmmm, you should have paid attention in your freshman physics class. No such thing as "negative pressure." What you meant to say was "lower relative pressure" and even then you're still wrong. Even if the leaves managed to lower the air pressure above their surface to zero psi, which of course they can't, the highest you can lift water via air pressure differential is 10.3 meters. A water column 10.3 meters high weighs as much as a column of air reaching from sea level to the top of the atmosphere.
If you want to move water to the top of a sequoia, you've got to use some mechanism other than air pressure differentials. In fact, had you carefully read the page you linked to, you would have noticed that transpiration peters out at around 32 feet.
BB is actually a reference to the American system of measuring the size of lead/steel shot in shotgun shells. Here is a convenient table. BB shot is about 4.5 mm in diameter.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Might the subsurface "sparkling" spheres be a form of Martian brine shrimp eggs
similar to the Great Salt Lake brine shrimp eggs???
photo 1
photo 2
More on the Great Salt Lake Brine Shrimp ecology can be found here:
Link 1
Link 2
Soil Crust Analogs on Earth???
Likewise a USA Today article Imprint shows Mars craft landed in 'weird stuff' describes "The soil was stripped up and folded in an interesting way," said Jim Bell, who designed the panoramic camera that Spirit used to photograph the "mud-like" patch. "It has quite alien textures."
Might this soil crust on Mars be same/similar to the biological soil crust found at Arches National Park (Moab, Utah)?
Additional details regarding biological soil crusts maybe are to found here:
intermediate details
advanced details
I believe Juanita
That's funny - I was thinking bowling ball. Could you imagine walking off a lander onto the surface of Mars only to see 16 lb. balls hurling around through the air? :)
Ummm, I should think that quite a lot is known about dust devils.
Every cumulus cloud that you see is a dust devil (though usually without the dust). The rising air of the dust devil is itself responsible for the cloud. Oft times it happens that the rising air either runs into an inversion or is sufficiently dry that it doesn't reach the dew point to condense a cloud. In deserts and dryer climes those rising air columns often find plenty of dust to pick up, making them visible.
Further, these things are useful. Skilled pilots can use them to fly hundreds of miles in a day (1000km is not unheard of; I've personally flown > 300 km several times). As the poster mentions, they are often visible and rise up to two miles. (Actually more; in New South Wales (Australia) or Arizona (US) on a good summer day, they go regularly to 3-4,000m and more than 5,000m is not unheard of.) In mountainous areas where pilots are likely to carry supplemental oxygen, dust devils are scarcer, and orographic winds are more practical for achieving very high altitude (10,000m+) and long distance (500km+) flights. The orographic winds ("ridge lift", "wave") also tend to break up dust devils, strongly limiting their altitudes in mountainous regions.
Without thunderstorms (on earth) dust devils sometimes reach upward speeds of 30 knots (15m/s) or more. With thunderstorms (condensing and freezing water release heat), much more powerful winds are created (> 70 knots).
Further, in many areas of the world, you can get soaring forecasts. These provide some indication of the likelyhood of "thermals" (dust devils, w/ or w/o dust), what time of the morning they are likely to start (they are driven by sunlight), how strong they are likely to be, how high they are likely to be, and how many can be found per unit area. (Or you can use a T-phi chart or a Stuve chart (aka "skew chart") and a few measurements to figure these things yourself.)
After reading this paper and several others by Dr. Levin, I have to wonder why the general public has no idea about these findings. Don't they merit public discussion? Why don't *any* of NASA's planned Mars missions contain direct life-detection experiments? IANACT (Conspiracy Theorist), but something smells fishy to me.
Most planetary scientests have accepted for decades that water is a major force in Martian geology. The polar ice caps have long been known to have a substantial water component. The Viking missions detected chemical salts typical of evaporation deposits. Nothing other than water has been proposed for the major outflow channels found all over the Martian surface. See planetary scientist William K. Hartmann's excellent recent book, "A Traveler's Guide to Mars" for lots more information.
Evidence of *recent* water activity is interesting and important, but the loss of this nuance is typical of "news" journalism, which must justify every story as Brand! New! Exciting! Information!
And have the rovers confirmed the presence of peroxides? Remember the Viking biologic experiments came back positive. It seemed at the time, like some folks went into overdrive to explain the results on the basis of soil peroxides. That always seemed far-fetched, to me, on a planet covered with FERRIC oxide. The Martian soil crusts sure look like desert crusts on earth, and on earth the crusts are loaded with cyanobacteria. The predominance of CO2 would argue against that, but there is almost NO ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN. Is there nitrogen (read: ammonia) in the Martian soil? Nitrogen is an essential component of amino acids and proteins.
"...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller