Mars Had Surface Water for Eons

LukePieStalker writes "Far from being a one-time event, it now appears that surface water flowed on Mars for eons. Nasa has announced that, after descending down further into the Endurance crater, the Opportunity rover has found a 'razorback'. It is believed that this was formed by 'fracture fill' from the minerals in percolating water. Since this feature extends through several geologic layers, it argues for a long period of wetness near the surface. This would seem to substantially increase the chance that life once existed on the red planet."

Comments

How long is an eon?

[strictnein]

Is there an official length of time for an eon? I know it just means "An indefinitely long period of time" but when it comes to life developing the amount of time available is quite important.

... Eon is a very long period of time. Geologists refer to a Phanerozoic Eon which is about 550 million years long
The Archaeon Eon lasted over 2.1 billion years.

or is it:

An eon is the period of time it takes for a universe to come into being and then disintegrate again.

Re:How long is an eon?

[Rei]

The problem is that the rovers are not equipped to be able to tell how old these rocks are - nor is it likely that any rovers any time soon will be able to do this sort of work. Labs that do radioisotope separation don't easily fit all of the categories ("small", "lightweight", "robust", and "self sufficient"), needed to send things to other planets. A sample return is a much more likely course before we can start dating these rocks.

Now, we can tell *relative* dates fairly easily with these rovers, but absolute dates are going to be a problem just using the rovers. There are some cases where you don't need radioisotopic dating, but I doubt they'll prove very useful here.

Why is it surprising?

[Neil Blender]

If Mars had water, why would it not have it for a long time?

Still waiting for fossilized remains.

[LeahofRivendell]

To me, that's the only concrete proof of life on Mars. Life is complex--there's more to it than water.

Can't increase chances retroactively

[ColonelPanic]

This would seem to substantially increase the chance that life once existed on the red planet.

No. Life did or did not exist on Mars, but either way, its chances are over.

What these results might increase, if true, is the chance of our discovering evidence that life has existed on Mars.

Re:Can't increase chances retroactively

[fiannaFailMan]

Okay then. It "increases the chances that it is true that life once existed on Mars." Happy now?

Re:Can't increase chances retroactively

[ViolentGreen]

Is it seriously necessary to pick apart posts and respond on technicalities? I don't think there is really much doubt about how the comment was meant. The meaning came across fine.

This remindes me of those exercises that I did in grade school where I had to write specific instructions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The teacher would then make a mockery of the instructions by making a mess with the ingrediants.

Few people here are lawyers so few statements are going to be hole free. Most statements here and elsewhere in the world require a little common sense to interpret correctly.

Being excessively anal accomplishes nothing.

Re:Chances of Life

[lukewarmfusion]

I know scientists that believe such a discovery would discredit religious beliefs... but many religious folks I know have absolutely no problem with life on other planets (or some a source other than that described in the Creation story).

One friend of mine, a pastor at a non-denomination church, argues that the Creation story is not a literal history; science can never remove God completely, no matter the discoveries.

Really, the obsession with life on Mars (or other places) has a lot of sources. As we learn more about the Universe, human beings don't want to be alone in it. We want to try and answer questions that may not have answers here on Earth, including the origins of life and the nature of evolution. Wouldn't you like to be there to witness the natural beginning or end of life on an entire planet?

Re:Water common?

[pclminion]

Is water all that common?

Probably yes. Hydrogen and oxygen are among the most abundant elements in the universe.

The unusual thing about Earth is that the environment is at the triple point of water. Water is able to exist as a gas, liquid, and solid all together in the same environment. This is only possible in a narrow range of temperatures and pressures. So water is probably very common. Liquid water, OTOH, is not.

As for why water is important for life, see one of my older comments.

Re:Chances of Life

[namidim]

First, since when does the presence of life on other planets contradict the existence of a god? The earth isn't flat and the sun doesn't orbit us either, yet somehow world religions go on. Second, how is it so hard to see the innate value and magnitude if we were to discover life on mars? Finally, why is the discovery of life only interesting if it involves little green men. Microbial life on mars would be a watershed event in it's own right. I can't even begin to list all the medical, philisophical, biological, etc implications that would immediately result.

Re:Chances of Life

[DynaSoar]

"I don't quite see the obession with finding life on Mars."

I do. But then I'm a scientist. I want to know stuff. I want to know as much as possible, and have other people in other fields find out as much as possible, because you never know what good things that can improve the quality of life can come of it. And actually, that last part is justification so that society will continue funding my research. Mostly, I just want to know stuff. It's why I became a scientist.

Also: because that's what humans do. They explore. They want to know their environment. I could probably come up with a decent hypothesis regarding cognitive dissonance driving humans' desire to decrease the number of unknowns in their environment in order to maximize their comfort level and probability of survival. But then that's the other thing I do as a scientist. Come up with hypotheses. Fact is, for whatever reason, or maybe no reason other than evolutionarily determined hard wiring in the brain, it's what people do.

Anyone not interested is free to focus their attention elsewhere. And dollars to donuts they themselves will have something like this that drives them that other people may not understand.

I'm sure you're right, that some people would use such a discovery as proof for and/or against some religious viewpoint. Hell, they did it with rock and roll music, and pretty much anything you can think of that they can use as leverage against each other in their power games. Good for them. Everyone needs a hobby, it gives them purpose in life, and it keeps them out of my hair.

Slashdot Categories and Mars...

[rulethirty]

Aren't there enough articles about Mars to warrant its own category within Slashdot?