Slashdot Mirror


NASA Says Mars Rocks Formed in a Salty Sea

NASA has made another announcement, live on NASA TV, regarding the discoveries of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. They believe that the rocks examined by Opportunity were actually formed in water; that those rocks were actually sediments laid down in a shallow salty sea. They've already had outside scientists examine their data and those scientists concur with the conclusions. NASA has a story with explanations and some photos.

102 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. This is HUGE NEWS. by s20451 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this is true, and those rocks truly are sedimentary, they should be full of bacterial fossils. All we have to do is get one of them under a microscope to confirm life on Mars.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm... it depends. Salty sea = Water salt? Or an acidic sea? Water != life. Sea Water != life. Its a posibility, but I think your jumping the gun a bit.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    2. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by Afty0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this is true ... they should be full of bacterial fossils.

      But only if there were bacteria there in the first place?!?!

    3. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by Scoria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but I think your jumping the gun a bit.

      Well, you obviously aren't a modern journalist. ;-)

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    4. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was supposed to be:

      Look harder.

      But /. ate my link

    5. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by s20451 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Acidophiles.

      There is no environment on Earth too extreme for life, as long as there is liquid water.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    6. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you're overlooking the little green men option.

    7. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by ShinyBrowncoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a great science fiction story on the topic of finding fossilized evidence of past life on Mars called "The Carhart Shale", by Grant Callin, which appeared, among other places, in Analog Science Fiction and Fact [v113 #12, October 1993].

      --

      "They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
    8. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by jafac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Liquid water + Gently flowing means the following:

      Mars was once geologically active -magnetic field protecting from solar radiation - thus, thicker atmosphere, thus, warmer, warm enough for flowing, liquid water, possibly also hot springs or undersea vents.

      I'd be willing to bet that the first sample-return mission will bring back sedimentary rocks filled with fossilized remains of sea creatures. Whether they evolved past the protazoan stage, who knows? But the conditions certainly existed, billions of years ago, as they existed on earth.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    9. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If this is true, and those rocks truly are sedimentary, they should be full of bacterial fossils. "
      Not to be a spoil sport but change "should be full of bacterial fossiles." to "could be full of bacterial fossiles".
      There are a lot of unanswered questions still but all in all very exciting news.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by October_30th · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And, apart from the state of the mind a few religious-fringe lunatics who actually believe that life is unique to Earth, what is that going to change?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    11. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by the_consumer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem awfully sure of yourself, there, bub. It may just be that On Earth = On Any Old Wet Rock.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    12. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 2, Interesting
      All we have to do is get one of them under a microscope to confirm life on Mars.

      What's the limit of magnification they can apply given the instruments on the rover?

    13. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by bricriu · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... but I'm not going to tell you anything about it, and the link I provide won't have the text. Nyah nyah!

      --

      AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
      - Reakk, Sluggy Freelance

    14. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by Caseyscrib · · Score: 2, Funny
      Liquid water + Gently flowing means the following:

      Mars was once geologically active -magnetic field protecting from solar radiation - thus, thicker atmosphere, thus, warmer, warm enough for flowing, liquid water, possibly also hot springs or undersea vents.

      .... or that they found a better place to fake it on Earth. :P

    15. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by doconnor · · Score: 4, Informative

      During the news conference the possibility was raised that this water was under a protective layer of ice. So this could have happened without a thick and warm atmopshere.

      The huge volcanos make it pretty clear Mars was once geologically active, I think.

    16. Re:This is HUGE NEWS. by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd be willing to bet that the first sample-return mission will bring back sedimentary rocks...

      I hope they don't do that. It would be a tremendous waste of resources. This is one case of many where it is much wiser to send the equipment up there to do the analyzing. Kind of like what we're already doing.

      --
      What?
  2. A Salty Sea on Mars by Captain+Tenille · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I suppose that would explain the ruins of a Long John Silver's that Viking 2 found in the 70s.

    --

    ------------
    /* You are not expected to understand
    1. Re:A Salty Sea on Mars by HexRei · · Score: 2, Funny

      And all those pirate fossils. Who would guessed that peglegs and hook hands would make such distinct fossils?

    2. Re:A Salty Sea on Mars by beacher · · Score: 3, Funny

      Speaking of Long John Silver's... HEY FREE SHRIMP!

    3. Re:A Salty Sea on Mars by semifamous · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except they missed the 2/29 deadline.

      No shrimp for you!

  3. Single cell organisms to follow... by paleobones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bet they'll soon find some stuff that will look like biological processes. Cool stuff...

    1. Re:Single cell organisms to follow... by Ayaress · · Score: 2, Informative

      As was said above, salty sea != life bearing sea. It could have been highly acidic (or highly alkaline), and not been able to support life (as we know it anyway).

      However, it's a major boon to people looking for evidence of biological process on Mars. Sedementary rocks are by far the best ones for preserving that sort of evidence, as well as forming in the most likely place to find life. If we don't find it there, we probably won't find it elsewhere.

  4. Ok by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's time to get our asses to Mars. There is far too much to learn for us to just sit around and do nothing.

    Especially considering some of this may be applicable to what will happen to our own planet in the future. We currently have seas. Mars used to. It'd be a good idea to figure out why they don't have them anymore.

    --
    Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
    1. Re:Ok by Dysan2k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Easy... the colonists revolted and the Go'auld decimated the planet.

      --
      -What have you contributed lately?
    2. Re:Ok by steelerguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although I agree with you, it would be a dangerous mission. Look at the outrage the explosion of the latest space shuttle caused. Although there would be plenty of astronauts willing to take the risk, my guess is that, no time soon, will they even be given the opportunity.

      It seems that most people have forgotten that this kind of exploration can be dangerous. I think people would be leary of sending Lewis and Clark out in this day...but what if they get sick...what if Clark falls..yadda yadda

    3. Re:Ok by Hizonner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Time to keep our asses off of Mars. There are far too many ways for humans to contaminate the place and make it impossible to learn anything.

    4. Re:Ok by homerjs42 · · Score: 2, Informative
      We currently have seas. Mars used to. It'd be a good idea to figure out why they don't have them anymore.

      Well IANAPA (planetary astronomer), but the general consensus is that any water that was there has mostly evaporated and/or frozen. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, and liquid water would not stay put for long -- just as water boils faster at altitude, this is equivalent to water at a very high altitude. Now how water lasted there for thousands of years (or more likely millions, if it has modified the rocks surrounding it seriously), without evaporating is beyond me. I think the current idea is that the atmosphere must have been thicker then. As the atmosphere slowly drifted off (since Mars doesn't have the gravity to hold it), the pressure got less, and the water evaporated too. Sound reasonable?

    5. Re:Ok by Iron+Sun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scientists think they have a handle on why. Low atmospheric pressure means that water can't exist in liquid form on the surface any more. Mars' atmosphere was denser billions of years ago during what is called its Noachian period. For various possible reasons (such as a lack of a magnetic field to protect against the stripping solar wind) Mars' atmosphere was mostly lost, and all the water boiled off into vapour, and was either lost to space or deposited in the ice caps.

      A lengthy and detailed overview of current theories can be found here: Part 1, Part 2. Especially cool is the stuff about Mars' "obliquity cycles", namely the fact that the planet's axial tilt appears to be chaotic, and may have been completely tipped over on its side several times in the past. During such a period Mars would not have ice caps at the poles, but rather an ice belt around its equator.

    6. Re:Ok by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah exploration is *far* too dangerous to risk the lives of American astronauts.

      American astronauts should sit at desks pushing their mouse around playing solitaire or somthing.

      I really pity them... its sad that such cowardice should infect such a (formerly) great nation.

      Yeah *troll*, *flamebait*, *whatever* but its true.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Ok by Krondor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Soudns very reasonable, except, you're forgetting that Martians moved the bulk of their atmoshpere to Earth which they then terraformed into a habitable planet. Of course this was a long long time ago, and the martian overlords have since progressed on leaving us to wonder why we're here.

      Come to think of it this sounds an awful lot like Scientology. Oh god! They're right! On second thought I think I might listen to too much Clutch.

    8. Re:Ok by Iron+Sun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nope. (Relevant bit about halfway down the page). My guess based on the information in the link is that the obliquity variations occur over a period of hundreds of thousands of years, so the ice migrates slowly toward the equator, while the seasonal variations occur over a period of just hundreds of days, so the ice doesn't have time to migrate back.

      One correction: The obliquity cycle would seem to not exactly be highly chaotic, but rather a slow oscillation.

    9. Re:Ok by mubar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... "Mars was once a warm place and is now cold and dry". May be Venus would be the next earth? ...

      This is an interesting idea, and it was a popular concept for a while ago. Writers as diverse as Burroughs and C.S. Lewis wrote stories around these concepts. It could be called "dying Mars, high noon Earth, and promising Venus" hypothesis or something. I suppose this has lot to do with Percival Lowell's writings about ancient martians still trying to fight against their planet's inevitable destiny as a dry and dead place (with canals he claimed to have found). Add to this the fact that before 1960's we had no way of knowing how it's like in the surface of Venus, so it was easy for scifi writers to place there nice tropical forests just waiting for future civilizations to appear. After all, who could've guessed that right now Venus has temperatures around 480 Celsius and about the worst greenhouse effect you can imagine.

      However, it's not getting cooler. Quite the opposite. Everyone doesn't agree about the exact timelines but the general consensus seems to be that we only have about billion years til Earth becomes too hot for living. That's simply because the Sun is getting hotter as it gets older.

      One cannot underestimate the power of popular culture that has painted us the image of dying Mars. However it's important to see why the red planet once was better place for life and held vast amounts of liquid water, and why it isn't anymore. Of course we can't be sure about everything yet, but we can make good guesses. Most probable reason is that Mars, being smaller, has so low gravity compared to Earth or Venus. This has led it gradually losing most of its atmosphere, lowering both the pressure and temperature on surface. This in turn made conditions unfit for liquid water, so the seas then disappeared, making it very hard for any possible life there. Question now is, where is the water? If it's anywhere to be found anymore, it just might've vaporized to space. And obviously we're interested in any possible marks of life.

      So apparently the Sun, and thus the whole solar system is getting increasingly hotter, but still we cannot reliably say what happens in any individual planet. I'm not sure anyone has complete theory explaining what causes Venus's ultra-thick atmosphere and what that planet would be like if something thinned the atmosphere to more Earth-like levels...

    10. Re:Ok by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hrm, I know you're NAPA (nor am I) but I believe the reason Mars doesn't have an atmosphere isn't the gravity (Mars gravity is pretty close to Earth gravity, something like 0.8g) but rather the lack of a magnetosphere to protect the atmosphere from outside forces (solar flares, etc.) IIRC this is because there is no longer thermal activity in the Martian core, which isn't exactly something we can change in any comprehensible amount of time (say, under a billion years or so.) So it seems the sci-fi geek dreams of terraforming Mars are, much like women, just sci-fi geek dreams.

    11. Re:Ok by steelerguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sad thing is the astornauts themselves are not the one's complaining. They seem to understand the risks and are willing to take them.

      Making this an anti-American argument was just silly though. In fact, we are much more likely to send people into space than any other country. That is why we have/had so many hitch hikers on the space shuttle missions.

    12. Re:Ok by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Informative

      The surface gravity of Mars is 0.38g. Its ability to hold an atmosphere is more closely related to its mass, which is only one ninth that of Earth.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    13. Re:Ok by johnjay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the face of it, it is an inconsistant national philosophy that American soldiers are regularly expected to risk their lives, but space flights are held to a standard of 100% success. America is supposed to be a nation of cowboys. The "cowboy" image is much closer to that of an explorer than a soldier.

      I think it's because space science is held to a perverted form of perfection, rather than because Americans as a people have become cowards. Every time an astronaut dies, the space program is shut down and there is an intense investigation. Inevitably, something is found that could have been done differently/better and prevented the accident. NASA is criticized and expected from then on to make no errors. It is an admirable goal, and has produced some amazing machines and science, but it stifles progress.

      When space travel is so commonplace that it is no longer news, the astronauts will be allowed to take risks. But, until then, the engineers and scientists involved in space will be more concerned with not being the subject of one of those witch-hunts, rather than actually doing something. I am not criticizing the scientists of NASA; I think they are held to unrealistic expectations.

  5. It was a dead giveaway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...after the discovery of a layer of surfboard wax in the sediments.

  6. Spring Break Meridani Planum! by superdan2k · · Score: 2, Funny

    WOOOOOOO! PAAAAARTY! Show us your tits! Pass the tequila. Where's Shenor Frog'sh at? Adonde esta el bano? Can I get some more salt for my margarita glass?

    You know it's only a matter of time. Really.

    --
    blog |
    1. Re:Spring Break Meridani Planum! by JackMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      And slightly thereafter -

      Girls Gone Wild: Martian Style

      I can't wait.

  7. A Salty Sea? by bcolflesh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure, sure - next they'll try to make us swallow Martian seamen!

    1. Re:A Salty Sea? by Borg453b · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We're sailors of the moon.. we carry a harpoon..'

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
  8. Peer Review? by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, so they've shown it to a few scientists who concur.

    Whatever happened to *publishing* the results of your experiments (and the data) in peer-reviewed journals?

    Now, granted, there's plenty of political bias in the journals -- anyone that thinks science is purely dealing with the facts these days is *beyond* an idiot, but still. Just because you've got the rovers and you've got a daily press conference doesn't mean that your statements should be treated as anything but sensational speculation this early on.

    If NASA were claiming Cold Fusion or Perpetual Motion, they've be laughed out of the scientific community for broadcasting just a revolutionary claim without first publishing.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    1. Re:Peer Review? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A print publication has what, a two-three month (minimum) leadtime? I'm sure it'll get published as soon as possible. The article is probably already submitted.

      In the meantime they've had an independent review, and put out the news as quickly as possible. A reasonable compromise.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:Peer Review? by rabel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dude, this stuff is happening Live, as you see it. The fact that they've had time to let other scientists peer review their work, even at the highest levels, is pretty cool. There will be plenty of peer review going on over the next many years, but for now I think the Mars Rover science teams are going out of their way to make sure they are only reporting what they believe they can prove. None of them has stated that there was life on mars, they're just reporting the facts as they see them.

      I'll bet you they'd be willing to debate the facts with you if you had credentials to match your statements above.

      For now, this is a pretty big deal and one step towards making us wonder seriously if there was life on mars.

    3. Re:Peer Review? by kippy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think NASA is claiming anything more than broad speculation with lots of caveats. They're pretty sure there was lots of water. When? How much? How long? Who knows. Since I'm paying for this info anyway, I'm glad they're making it available as quick as they are.

      Besides, isn't releasing this data to the world defacto peer review?

    4. Re:Peer Review? by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Interesting


      When NASA shows their results to another group of scientists (peers), doesn't that count for the purposes of peer review? Isn't that what peer review is?

      I thought peer reviewed journals were where you published crap that had already been peer reviewed.

      I'm not a professional research scientist, nor do I play on on TV, or even slashdot. I have done minimal post graduate work. I don't know how these things work. Please educate me if I'm wrong.

    5. Re:Peer Review? by tfreport · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. NASA could have sent it to a journal that would have a handful of scientists look at the arguments (which they are sure to do) or they could let the world know what they were up to and in the process have the entire world analyze things. Sure this data is through a filter of the press, which may make it harder for scientists everywhere to analyze the claim. But they did do it live on NASA TV and surely have information on their website (or soon to). Therefore for you scientists out there, you will have a great opportunity to analyze, scrutinize, etc. a huge finding.

      Meanwhile, Joe Blows like me can actually hear about it and read about it rather quickly, instead of waiting for the filter down process after a peer-reviewed journal down to a general science magazine down to Newsweek or Slashdot. And I am very happy about that. After all, I have at least a couple pennies invested in those two rovers. And I should have a right to know what they have found.

    6. Re:Peer Review? by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Informative

      A print publication has what, a two-three month (minimum) leadtime?

      Yow. Usually much longer than that - only the absolutely highest profile papers (like Nobel prize material) get into press that quickly. This might, of course, but they don't have any competition so they can take their time getting the details and analysis exactly right.

      Anyway, science by press release usually isn't a good idea, but I'd make some exception for NASA. Even if they get this wrong, the mission has still been a spectacular success, and if they're right, more people will notice now than six months from now when it appears in Science or Nature.

    7. Re:Peer Review? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Informative
      I thought peer reviewed journals were where you published crap that had already been peer reviewed.

      Nope. Peer review is a formal process carried out by the journal itself. Each publication has slightly different practices, but the basic process is pretty much consistent. A journal will send copies of your submitted manuscript off to one or more referees--people who are acknowledged to have expertise in the same area. These referees will evaluate whether or not the manuscript is suitable for publication, and possibly suggest changes or additions. For some journals, the referees' identities are concealed from the prospective author.

      In some cases, there may be several iterations of review and resubmission before a paper is accepted by the journal for publication. The journal editors have the final say in whether or not the paper is published, but their decision is based heavily on the recommendations of the referees.

      Consulting with qualified scientists prior to submitting a manuscript to a journal doesn't count as peer review, but it's certainly a good idea if you reach controversial conclusions or use unusual methods. (Properly, those scientists with whom you consult should be acknowleged in the paper.) In the case of the results NASA has presented here, they have probably had access to virtually all of the most qualified individuals in geology and so forth, so I have little doubt that when these results are published they will have no trouble passing the peer review process. I'm sure that NASA's internal researchers and external collaborators wouldn't be issuing press releases if they didn't believe very strongly that they had a bulletproof conclusion--but technically these data have not been peer reviewed.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  9. Salty sea? by JordanH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know anything about this area, really, but in seas on the earth isn't it thought that salt accumulation occurs from activities of living (and dying) organisms?

    1. Re:Salty sea? by hopemafia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not usually. Salt deposits on earth generally form inorganically...usually because evaporation in a confined body of water causes it to become supersaturated with respect to Na+ and Cl- ions.

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
    2. Re:Salty sea? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, salt accumulates in the oceans from the erosion of surface soils and rocks, as the minerals wash into larger bodies of water. This may mean that Mars once had rain.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  10. Next headline you'll see by Tebriel · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Opportunity Rover on Strike: Demands Pina Coladas, Sunscreen, and 5 days off to enjoy time at beach."

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
  11. Re:makes sense by steelerguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Im so glad all these scientists have finally be able to validate your claim...you must be very proud.

    Suddenly I'm hungery for a nice juicy steak...

  12. Re:Mars Play-by-play by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, for chrissake.

    They're throwing out updates as soon as they get them because, really, this is so far beyond anyone's expectations that we're really floored.

    The big deal is that if we really do find life that evolved separately from terran life, it throws a *huge* quandary for some philosophies and a lot of world religion, besides being a major psychological breakthrough for science. And the signs look *awfully* good.

    Besides, NASA had a lot of bad press from Columbia, and they're hungry to be able to give good news.

    And, really, aren't you even a little bit excited.

  13. Best thing since first grade! by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember back in Kindergarten when all of my classmates and I wanted to be astronauts when we grew up. All of our dreams were dashed to bits the next year when the Challenger exploded. We all went back to wanting to be fire fighters or whatever.

    I tell you, these Mars rovers have done more to get me excited about space exploration than anything which has happened since then. I'm currently applying to medical school, but a long-dormant part of the back of my mind whispers, "You should have been an astronaut after all!"

    What an amazing day to live in, when we may be at the threshold of discovering LIFE on ANOTHER PLANET!

    1. Re:Best thing since first grade! by El · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What an amazing day to live in, when we may be at the threshold of discovering LIFE on ANOTHER PLANET! Better yet, we may be at the threshold of creating life on another planet! As far-fetched as the eventual terra-forming of Mars seems, it is much more likely than finding little green men, or even little green bacteria, already living there.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Best thing since first grade! by rabel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, if you were deterred from being an astronaut because of Challenger, then it's probably for the best. No offense, but to be an astronaut you gotta have some huge nuts (so to speak) to ride those flying bombs up to orbit.

      What a great job, but you know... it's probably full of meetings and paperwork and boring-ass busy work most of the time, just like all the rest of us.

    3. Re:Best thing since first grade! by JavaLord · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd hate to break this to you but...not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up

    4. Re:Best thing since first grade! by affreca101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the stuff that inspires me to become a planetary scientist. A few years ago I did an internship with LPI/JSC for college students wanting to get into this. Most of us had been kindergarten to second grade when Challenger exploded. And for us, Challenger had been one of the big tragedies of our childhoods.

  14. Until recently no one believed water was there! by purduephotog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't blame the guy for being excited. Skeptics called everyone 'foolish' for believe that water could have existed in any significant quantities on mars, in any form.

    He may be jumping the gun a bit, but those water seekers certainly scored big by hitting two targets that both were drenched in water at one time.

    'Course, nothing drives people better than proving someone else wrong...

    1. Re:Until recently no one believed water was there! by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Exactly. Last night I read Ben Bova's Mount Olympus (in The Hard SF Renisance -- excellent read, BTW), circa 1995, about the second manned Mars mission. In it, the scientific community is just wrapping its brain around the notion of water ever being on Mars.

      It's still a good story, but has been rendered mildly obsolete. That says a lot of good things about the rover missions rather than bad things about Mr. Bova's predictive powers. Occupational hazzard.

      --

      "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    2. Re:Until recently no one believed water was there! by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Informative
      Skeptics called everyone 'foolish' for believe that water could have existed in any significant quantities on mars, in any form.


      No self-respecting skeptic would call an idea foolish when neither that idea nor its converse are substantiated by credible evidence.

      Furthermore, no self-respecting skeptic would call anyone foolish while pursuing rational discourse, as it would be nothing more than an ad hominem argument.

      This concludes today's lesson on skepticism.

      -Peter
  15. What a discovery!! by DR+SoB · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't believe they actually discovered they have rovers over there:

    "NASA has made another announcement, live on NASA TV, regarding the discoveries of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. "

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
  16. Re:Crap first post chance and I have nothing to sa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Almost makes you wonder if buying that low UID on eBay was even worth it, huh?

  17. Limestone Re:Salty sea? by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are probably thinking of limestone. Calcium carbonate.

    If memory serves, limestone isn't necessarily laid down by critters, but finding stromatolites or chalky cliffs ala Dover would be a very good sign indeed.

    As would finding a fossilized opabinia, or one of the cannons the Martians used to launch their cylinders to Earth back in 1898.

    Stefan

  18. Surf's up on Mars! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Funny
    "It must have been radical," said NASA spokesdude Jeff 'Sex Wax' Corona at a press conference held in a salt water taffy booth in Atlantic City, New Jersey. "The waves would have come in out of the north, and based on our topographic mapping, would have curled perfectly and just tubed out for miles."

    "Would there have been life there?" asked Jayson Blair, new cub reporter for Tool & Die Quarterly.

    "Dude!" said Corona, "With wave action like that how could there not be life? Can't you just imagine the green-skinned Mars babes lounging around, sipping Martain pina colodas while rubbing tanning butter all over their Barsooms."

    "So you think Mars mught have supported intelligent life?" asked Baba O'Reilly, a distant cousin of Bill O'Reilly working for Akron City College Daily Herald, Mid-Morning Edition.

    "Yeah... yeah... those barsooms, man," said Corona. "Huh? What? Oh, well, you wouldn't want them to be too intelligent, you know what I mean, man?"

    The press conference was brough to an early end when a catsuited Gloria Allred and Camille Paglia paraglided into the taffy booth and beat Corona into submission.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  19. Re:makes sense by Pottsynz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cooling my friend cooling. Mars' core cooled alot further than earth's due to its smaller size/distance from the sun. And a planet with no in ternal heat can not hold an atmosphere properly.

  20. Re:NASA's "Major" announcements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I fixed some PHP code last night where I'd used a & instead of a $ to start a variable name, but you don't see me holding a press conference.


    You didn't hold a press conference because everyone already knows you suck at coding.

  21. Re:NASA's "Major" announcements by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Salt water is important news because it shows that the water was there for a long period of time and that it had some sort of feeds (rivers?) to keep adding eroded minerals and maintain water levels, not just some brief puddle.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  22. Low Gravity, for one Re:makes sense by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Informative

    It (probably) got there in the first place during Mars' formation, and perhaps later due to cometary bombardment.

    As to why it was lost, crudely put: evaporation into outer space.

    Molecules of volatile gasses, including water vapor, that waft into a planet's upper atmosphere occasionally reach escape velocity and are lost.

    Why some gasses and not others? There are a bunch of factors at work:

    Heavier gasses -- CO2, for example -- require more energy to get up to escape velocity. They statistically hang around longer.

    Larger planets have higher escape velocities.

    Planets farther from the Sun recieve less insolation, so there's less of a chance that a molecule will get kicked up to escape velocity.

  23. View the Briefing by stecoop · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're fast enough you can go view the briefing live, if not its archived on this web page: Briefing

  24. Re:Mars Play-by-play by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if we really do find life that evolved separately from terran life, it throws a *huge* quandary for some philosophies and a lot of world religion

    Like when they first showed the earth wasn't flat, and suddenly christianity collapsed because a flat world was one of its cornerstones? Don't kid yourself, there is a world of difference between dogma and religion. Dogma comes and goes like the tides, religion is eternal. The handy thing about holy scripture is that you need to interpret it, so what it actually says is left up to the interpreter. When we do find conclusive evidence for alien life, the major religions will all come back and say "well ofcourse, our holy scripture said it all along, here's the passage that mentions it."

  25. Rust Buckets? by scottennis · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't all that salt going to be bad on the rovers? I know it was hell on cars in Utah when I lived there.

    1. Re:Rust Buckets? by sik0fewl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, that salt won't hurt unless mixed with water. Oh.. wait..

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  26. No fossil experts on NASA team by Alien54 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Nasa has said that they do not take input from the public on what to look at when taking pictures witgh the rovers. They have their own agenda and program going on. Which makes sense, to pre-plan everything.

    It is now apparent that they might not have any type of fossil experts in their employ as well. Consider the following from the tin foil hat crowd:

    • Compare e.g. the sphere on the following URL:
      http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/oppor tunity/20040204a/1M129070954EFF0224P2933M2M1_str-B 011R1_br.jpg

      With the fossils on the following URLs:
      http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/plants/porocystis _globularis.htm
      http://www.iftx.com/oct03.jpg
      http://wardsci.com/category.asp?c=834
      http://www.iftx.com/oct03.jpg

      Or compare the Opportunity outcrop structure to the following image showing the layering found in coral fossils on earth:
      http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/navassa/geology/fossils 4.html

      So whats's going on a NASA ? Have the geologist overcome the astrobiologists ?

    And things would not be complete with this interesting read from the tin foil hat king himself, with lots of pics. It would have been nice to have had a fossil expert on staff to help sort these things out in advance. But 20/20 hindsight, y'know ...

    But also, it does suggest that they are being really really really overly careful about saying that there was or is life on Mars. Almost like they are scared of it.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:No fossil experts on NASA team by affreca101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA has a quite active astrobiology section. And while the geologists involved are not experts, they are just as interested in what could be fossils. In fact, at the planetary science conferences I've been to, the astrobiology talks are some of the best attended. Of course they are being really careful about what they are saying is evidence of life, especially what they are declaring to the general media. Remember the Mars meteorites and those possible fossils? Responsible science requires caution before announcing that every spherical blob is a fossil bacteria. That's why NASA sponsors research projects investigating Earthly bacteria fossils such as the those in the Gunflint Iron formation of Ontario to see what they should look like (check out the work of Rachel Schelble in the scientific journals). Oh, and from guestimating from the crossbedding, the picture in this article is not heavily magnified, these spheres would be awfully big bacteria.

  27. Shai-halud! by Ececheira · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, Mars had a Sea and now it's dry and desert-like...

    How long until they find worm-sign?

  28. Re:Mars Play-by-play by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The big deal is that if we really do find life that evolved separately from terran life, it throws a *huge* quandary for some philosophies and a lot of world religion

    No it doesn't. Please... I'm an atheist, just finished beating down some bible thumper on another site for arguing that evolution was bunk, but the existence of microbial (or even non-intelligent macro) life wouldn't be a huge quandry.

    In this case some religions could even use it as a pro-God point. Yes, there was life on Mars, but it was not favored by the Creator and thus died out.

    Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe may cause a bump in religion (at least as far as Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology goes; most other religions aren't as self-centered), but I doubt even that would destroy it. Belief in a higher being (or beings) has been part of humanity since well before the written record. And, most importantly, the central concept of most religions is faith -- such that no reasoning for or against it can counter that faith.

  29. Luck? Or lots of water? by sampson7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What amazes me isn't so much that they discovered evidence of water on Mars, it's that they've discovered so much of it so quickly!

    This is really the first fully sucessful mission to Mars whose primary function is to search the geologic record for evidence of water -- and not only did they find it -- they found it twice and quickly at that!

    First of all -- kudos to the mission planning team. They picked their landing spots beautifully (and then hit a moving target from a moving target -- this isn't Lawn Darts folks. That alone is impressive.)

    Second -- how much like Earth is Mars??? If the entire planet was covered with Oceans at one point, then (obviously) finding water isn't that remarkable. If, however, Mars is geologically similar to Earth, then 3/4 of the "land" would have been covered with water at one point. But I don't see that.

    Mars seems to have little/no active tectonics -- and therefore no sea floor spreading. Also, since we can't find magenetically charged banding on the ancient Mars "ocean" floor, it suggests to me that Mars simply does have the characteristics that created large oceans like Earth does.

    What I want to know is if the rovers are cabale of taking a thin-section of some of these sedimentary rocks. So much of the ocean floor on our planet is actually microscopic bits of dead diatoms and other creatures -- that would certainly answer the life question!

    Which brings me back to point 1 -- if there isn't that much water, those rocket scientists really did their homework.

    Wow. This is some seriously cool sh*t.

  30. any theories by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    on why and how Mars lost its mass, and therefore the gravity necessary to have salty seas, and the probable atmosphere and precipitations to create them?

    suppose Mars was bigger once, and due to a huge impact, lost a good chunk of itself... would it take a long time to reform itself into a spherical planet? Would there be any proof that such an event ever happened?

    1. Re:any theories by oroshana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That makes me wonder, would a collision of that magnitude have altered the planets orbit enough to make it unstable? I find it hard to believe that that big of an event would leave mars in a nearly earthlike orbit. Then again, IANAP ( I Ain't No Astro-Physicist)

    2. Re:any theories by Keeper · · Score: 4, Informative

      The loss of oceans on mars has nothing to do with a loss in mass.

      The magnetic field Mars current has is not capable of protecting it's atmosphere by deflecting solar wind (the solar wind has been eating away at the Martian atmosphere for some time now; I'm not sure if scientists believe mars ever had a magnetic field capable of doing do, but as it's core has cooled off/solidified the magnetic field on the planet today is what it will always have).

      As Mars's atmosphere is stripped away/blown into space, the atmospheric pressure drops. At a certain point, the pressure drops to a point where water cannot exist in liquid form and evaporates -- creating more atmosphere, which then gets stripped away by the solar wind ...

      The cycle continues until all surface water has evaporated or frozen.

  31. Re:Mars Play-by-play by Ayaress · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, Christianity had a hard problem a century or two ago explaining exactly why the planets and moon appeared to be made out of rock. Finding water makes things worse. It's also not as far from finding life as you may think. No, it doesn't mean there was life, but it's the holster where we're likely to find the smoking gun - there may not be a gun at all, but if it's there, we know where it is now.

  32. Why search for fossils? by Aggrajag · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if there's still some form of archbacteria living on Mars? I mean the ones living on earth can survive basically anywhere. Or they could be hibernating as the bacteria on earth are able to do.

  33. Re:What they'd find by tijnbraun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If bacterial fossils would be found, it could possibly tell us a lot about how life orginated on earth.

    The biggest problem with all the hypothesis of the origin of life is that of falsification. This problem is not confined to theories of the genesis of life alone.

    All biologist that want to explain why a certain animal evolved from its ancestors in such a way and not in an other way, have this problem. So do historians. "What would have happened if king George the whatever died at 18 of pneumonia, I assume that germany bla bla ".

    You can probably tell a nice story, but do you have any data to prove your assumptions?. Although biologist often are in a better position to prove their assumptions (there are a lot more animals with the same niches/ancestors, living in different continents/islands evolving in different species in comparison to king George's), it often resorts to just story-telling.

    If life did orginate independently on Mars and any remains of this event could be found and studied, it could not only falsify a lot of hyphotesis but also stir new ones in the right direction

  34. Re:What they'd find by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 2

    If life did orginate independently on Mars

    Seeing that we have found Martian asteroids at the poles, proving life developed independently rather than being contaminated from earth is a long shot. Surely some of the ejectile material from dinosaur killing type asteroids made it throughout the solar system and beyond. Considering an estimated 95% of the bugs and bacteria in soil have not been discovered yet, the odds are good some undocumented extreme-ophiles are dormant on Mars.

  35. Re:What they'd find by El · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If evidence of bacterial life was found on Mars, that wouldn't be evidence of independent origin. More likely, it would be cause to suspect a common source, e.g. life originating in asteroids which impacted both Mars and Earth. It is even possible that "life" ejected from one planet in a meteoroid collision survived the trip through space to land on the other planet. Granted, the odds against this are huge, but a lot can happen in 4 billion years.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  36. What IS that?! by rchoetzlein · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I'd like to know is, what is that clearly visible, dark, yet shiny object in the foreground in the Meridiani Planium image at 97 degs (the largest image download has azimuth degree marks)?

    It can't be the Backshell & Parachute which are at 235 degs. It can't be heat shield either, which is much farther away. And from the image, it clearly is much darker and rises above the surface.

    Also interesting is the fact that it lies on one of the bounce marks from the airbags, but none of the other bounce marks have this feature. Its' in line with the distant East Crater (probably by chance), but clearly in the foreground...

  37. Re: Article pointed to is dated... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Interesting
    and it contains this little arrogant gem:

    What we DO know now with reasonable certainty is that such water could not possibly have been any warmer than near-freezing. Noachian Mars may have been "cold and damp", but we can now rule out the view of some hopeful scientists that it must have been "warm and wet".

    Well so much for reasonable certainty, eh?

    AN interesting question those articles do pose, though, is - if Mars was so wet for so long (wet enough to make this sedimentary rock) why is there so much Olivine up there? Olivine breaks down when exposed to water - even frozen water.

    It's a mystery - so I guess we'll just have to pack up the truck and go check it out.

    Swimmin' pools, movie stars...

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  38. Re:Mars Play-by-play by phyy-nx · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Like, say, this LDS scripture:

    "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose;... But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."

  39. Not being a smartarse but... by niittyniemi · · Score: 3, Insightful



    Wouldn't a geologist (I'm not but I did) conclude that earlier pictures showed clear signs of the rocks being sedimentary?

    Look at the area below Zugspitze in the picture above and then try and tell me with a straightface that those striated rocks are igneous in origin.

    The question is why did they wait so long to announce the fact that there were sedimentary rocks?

    Maybe a geologist could tell me whether there are any igneous rock formations that might look sedimentary & they therefore had to do further analysis.

    --
    The Machine stops.
  40. Amino acid probe in 2009 by peter303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Big hullabalo a few weeks ago that scientists had shrunk an amino acid detector and analyser to the size of a computer chip. They'll try to get these on the 2009 landers.

  41. Liquid != H2O by F00F · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've read a lot of discussions lately about recent evidence for why there must, at one time, have been liquid water on Mars. But, much of that evidence relates to the deposition of sediment, presence of erosion patterns, aftereffects of evaporation, presence of salts, crystallization patterns, and so forth -- none of which (to my knowledge) requiring the liquid in question to be H2O. Some of the evidence, on the other hand, relates to the formation of minerals such as hematite, which presumably form only in or near liquid H2O, and not, say, liquid H2O2, liquid CO2, or liquid N2. The biggest question(s) I have that I've not seen well addressed are:

    1. What evidence supports or rules out the presence of liquids other than H2O on the surface of Mars, at one time, in large quantities?

    2. How much, if any, of the present evidence could be explained by flows of liquid CO2, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, or some other liquid?

    3. Which evidence, if any, points most strongly to the presence of large amounts of H2O as the liquid in question? I know there are currently thought to be large, polar caps of solid H2O, but how much of the current evidence precludes the existence of large seas of some other liquid in the distant geological past?

    I apologize if these questions are simple or completely baseless. I am not a geologist, and am legitimately curious.

    Cheers,

    F00F
    1. Re:Liquid != H2O by kindbud · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. What evidence supports or rules out the presence of liquids other than H2O on the surface of Mars, at one time, in large quantities?

      No evidence supports any such thing. Nothing rules it out, however, see answer to question #2.

      2. How much, if any, of the present evidence could be explained by flows of liquid CO2, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, or some other liquid?

      None. The chloride and bromide salts found are soluble in water, not any of those other liquids. By definition, chemical compunds classified as salts require the presence of water.

      3. Which evidence, if any, points most strongly to the presence of large amounts of H2O as the liquid in question?

      The presence of chloride and bromide salt deposits. They can't be formed any other way, but by precipitation from solution in water. The presence of hematite by itself is less conclusive than that, but in the presence of the salts, it adds to the certainty that water was present.

      I know there are currently thought to be large, polar caps of solid H2O, but how much of the current evidence precludes the existence of large seas of some other liquid in the distant geological past?

      The salt evidence excludes the other liquids.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:Liquid != H2O by DrMorpheus · · Score: 3, Informative
      1. What evidence supports or rules out the presence of liquids other than H2O on the surface of Mars, at one time, in large quantities?

      Short answer, temperature. It's way, way, way too warm for any liquid like N2 or methane or ammonia to form as a liquid. And it's always been too warm. So the probability that the rock formations occured from any of those liquids is precisely zero.

      Secondly, H2O2 is highly unstable, it quickly decomposes into plain-old H2O and O2 in sunlight and/or temperatures above freezing. Both conditions exist and have existed on Mars for billions of years so there is zero probability that H2O2 had anything to do with it.

      2. How much, if any, of the present evidence could be explained by flows of liquid CO2, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, or some other liquid?

      Zero evidences for all of those substances. Again, its far, far, far too warm. First, carbon dioxide does not exist in liquid form at atmospheric pressure at any temperature. It requires a temperature of 20 degress Celsius and a pressure of 30 atmospheres to form. Mars has never had such conditions so there is again, zero chance liquid CO2 had anything to do with Mars' sedimentary rocks.

      The other compounds on your list require extremely cold temperatures to form into liquids. Far, far colder than it EVER gets on Mars for most of them. It also requires a much higher atmospheric pressure than Mars had for most it's existence. Finally, there isn't sufficient quantities of some of these compounds to form rivers, lakes or oceans, nor is there any evidence of that there ever was enough.
      Here's the list of temperatures:

      • Nitrogen == -196 degrees Celsius @ 1 atmosphere of pressure
      • Methane == -162 degrees Celsius @ 1 atmosphere of pressure
      • Ammonia == -33 degrees Celsius @ 1 atmosphere of pressure
        It gets cold enough on Mars for this, but there is very, very little amounts of it.

      Which evidence, if any, points most strongly to the presence of large amounts of H2O as the liquid in question? I know there are currently thought to be large, polar caps of solid H2O, but how much of the current evidence precludes the existence of large seas of some other liquid in the distant geological past?
      You answered your own question, the Martian polars caps consist almost entirely of ice. Enough ice that if they were melted they could form seas covering the entire surface of Mars 15 meters deep.
      --
      Debunking the "59 Deceits"
  42. Striated rocks are not necessarily sedimentary by Intraloper · · Score: 3, Informative

    Striations can be laid down by wind-blown dust, or by ashfalls from volcanos, to name just two mechanisms tha tdotn require wqter at all. Adn we know that there were volcanoes. If there was an atmosphere at some point, there would have been wind-blown dust. Even in the "wet" category, layers can be created by streams or freshwater lakes. So the 'wet salty' part is also not at all implied by the observation of striated rock alone.

  43. Re:that's a lot. by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "And it's easy for you to say, not your ass on the line."

    Since the days of pre-history when intrepid explorers navigated the Pacific ocean or the Bering land bridge, those explorers were risking their lives routinely.

    Are we, today, so squeamish and pathetically cowardly that we can't emulate the feats of our forefathers (and foremothers)??

    Exploration is a high risk activity. Either get over it or don't get a job as an astronaut.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  44. Re:What they'd find by shadowbearer · · Score: 2

    A huge asteroid could hit the Earth next Tuesday, but it won't.

    You're right. The chances of it happening are very low. It could just as well happen right now as it could twenty million years from now, but it won't.

    However, I

    what's that bright ligh AAAAHHHHH MY EYES AHHH

    (*$ R)UIGT&E )^(*FR&^R WHAM ffffhhhhhhhhhhhh

    *NO CARRIER*

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  45. My Mozilla Tabs say... by rat7307 · · Score: 4, Funny

    OT: but I had to share it:
    My current titles on my tabs in Mozilla say:

    "NASA Finds Critical Ass...."

    and

    "NASA Says Mars Rocks..."

    Kinda funny...

    --
    Burma?
  46. Nope, your the one sort by DrMorpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The correct equation is:

    Laws of Physics & Biochemistry = On Any Old Wet Rock

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"