Slashdot Mirror


Mars Express Begins Search for Water on Mars

H_Fisher writes "The BBC reports that the Mars Express spacecraft team is ready to deploy a radar antenna to search for traces of water and ice beneath the Martian surface. The deployment has been delayed for a year due to concerns that the unfurled antenna might damage the spaceship. Mission controllers are optimistic; perhaps the ESA will be the next to make an important discovery about the red planet?"

198 comments

  1. Did they try the store? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure Wal-Mars has some water at low low prices.

    1. Re:Did they try the store? by peetola · · Score: 1

      At first glance I read the title as:

      "Mars Express Begins Search for Women on Mars"

  2. But... by leapis · · Score: 5, Funny

    they already found water on mars!

    1. Re:But... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

      worst. product. placement. ever.

    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well it made me thirsy. And since when the hell is Mars an "Energy Bar," I have a roomate that eats those things all the time and he is the laziest sack of shit I've ever met.

    3. Re:But... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is probably water at deeper levels in the martian soil. All you need is to dig a well to get at it. Digging the well might be tough, so I suggest looking for the beagle probe. It should have given you a good head start on the hole.

    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's weird, I ate a lot of Mars bars for a week and I couldn't shit at all for a couple days.

    5. Re:But... by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine all the royalties we'll owe to the dang Martians (if we ever discover them) for using their likeness or image for our commercial advantage?

      EARTHLING - Greetings from Earth!

      MARTIAN - You suckers are gonna pay. You've been selling Mars bars for like 50 years. You owe us!

      EARTHLING - How's 40 acres and a mule sound?

      MARTIAN - We can live with that. Done.

      EARTHLING - Oh, and while we're in bargaining mode, mind if we put a Wal-Mart around here somewhere?

      MARTIAN - What could be the harm in that?

      EARTHLING - (walking off) I hope they give me that Salesman of the Year plaque this year. *grin*

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    6. Re:But... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      EARTHLING - Oh, and while we're in bargaining mode, mind if we put a Wal-Mart around here somewhere?

      MARTIAN - What could be the harm in that?

      EARTHLING - And have you heard the good news about Jesus Christ?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:But... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Well it made me thirsy. And since when the hell is Mars an "Energy Bar," I have a roomate that eats those things all the time and he is the laziest sack of shit I've ever met.

      That's weird, I ate a lot of Mars bars for a week and I couldn't shit at all for a couple days.

      Exactly. How useful is a sack with a whole in the bottom?

    8. Re:But... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Parent modded "informative"...HAHAHAHA!!! I hope that was a joke anyway. Do people have common sense anymore?

  3. Better find it soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The ESA's dog is very thirsty.

    1. Re:Better find it soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha ha ha "Beagle" i get it

      first time i lol'd on /. in weeks

    2. Re:Better find it soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should just bring Helen Keller up there.

      Wah-wah!!

  4. Re:What? by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    wrong article? what am I missing?!

  5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Close but no cigar. I think you were looking for the article before this, but maybe I'm wrong.

  6. This'll be good. by NoseBag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AFAIK, all the "water" finds on Mars have been indirect - albeit very convincing - evidence of surface water in the past.

    But the radars on this puppy might just punch down - maybe only a few feet - and get a hard f*ing ice reflection, which would put paid to all the surmise and deduction. Then we would know its still there.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:This'll be good. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's all true. But don't underestimate the desire of ESA to not believe it until Europeans have "discovered" water on Mars. Or to at least claim credit for some discovery. it is just a press release, after all.

      I also might add that this means large quantities of water. Water in small amounts has been visible at the poles in winter for years, and there are numerous pictures of water frost from the surface from Viking 2 in 1976. So there is water, known to some level of certainty, since the invention of the telescope.

      It's an interesting additional input, but it's hardly a new discovery.

      BTW - don't count the chickens before they are hatched. The type of struts used for the antenna don't usually like being stowed for too long - and now it has been stowed for a year or so longer than intended. Waiting may not have been the conservative move.

      It'll probably be OK.

      Brett

    2. Re:This'll be good. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, this will presume that theres nothing we don't know about that can reflect radar like water ice. So this won't really close the debate. Bottom line, we'll have to send every doubter to mars and give them a bottle of aquafina to really settle things.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:This'll be good. by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Viking saw dry ice frost (CO2), not water frost. And the water seen at the poles is not a small amount, it is thought to be HUGE amounts.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:This'll be good. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well not to be argumentative, but:

      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_pa ge /vl2_22e169.html>

      among many others.

      Brett

    5. Re:This'll be good. by qualico · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...until Europeans have "discovered" water ...

      Interesting way to put it since they were looking for land not too long ago.

    6. Re:This'll be good. by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm! I had always heard it was co2 and never checked it myself! I stand duly corrected. apologies. :)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It won the Noble Piece Prize, not the Nobel Peace Prize.

  8. Ya gotta shop around... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    Those damn Martians will rip you off!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  9. Maybe... by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Long John Silver Restaurant chain will be willing to offer free shrimp for a second time if this finds any fresh water. Of a man's appetite can dream.

    1. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YARRR there not be a Long John's near me, God hates shrimp and all you heathens that eat them anyway.

    2. Re:Maybe... by Stankatz · · Score: 1

      The whole "God hates shrimp" thing was funny once, but after the hundredth time I've seen it posted on a message board, it gets a little old. Especially because the new testament indicates that it's OK to eat any food. The new testament does not condone same-sex relationships, however, so the whole point of that website is moot.

    3. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Especially because the new testament indicates that it's OK to eat any food. The new testament does not condone same-sex relationships, however, so the whole point of that website is moot.
      Oh good, I was worried about the moral standing of those who eat Soylent Green. Now I guess I'm still screwed on the being gay part, www.godhatesgays.com
    4. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Microsoft is going to Open Source Windows if the asteroid hits in 2029.

    5. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah!

      Fag.

    6. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the new testament indicates that it's OK to eat any food.

      I think that human flesh is still taboo for some reason.

    7. Re:Maybe... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Free jumbo shrimp? Whats that like a Claw Shrimp?

    8. Re:Maybe... by mikael · · Score: 1

      The Long John Silver Restaurant chain will be willing to offer free shrimp for a second time if this finds any fresh water. Of a man's appetite can dream.

      "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  10. Let's Bottle & Sell It! by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet we can charge twice as much as Evian gets!

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
    1. Re:Let's Bottle & Sell It! by Biogenesis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't laugh about the cost of bottled water. I know of an Australian dairy farmer who was getting ~32c/L for milk and later found a natural spring on his farm and was able to get ~50c/L for the water....Without having to get up at 4am :p.

    2. Re:Let's Bottle & Sell It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way OT...
      Evian is "naive" spelled backwards.
      I don't think it is a coincidence. The one time I checked the label, it said the water was bottled at a place called "Catchet Springs", or similar.

  11. Life on Mars. by Molly+Lipton · · Score: 0

    I was watching something on the Learning Channel about Mars. They showed this strange face-looking thing on the surface. Wouldn't it be wild if there were actually water on Mars? That would almost certainly mean life and maybe, given this weird face thing, even some ancient civilization.

    Of course, these Learning Channel shows always encourage the viewer to believe in crazy speculation -- sort of irresponsible really. I would really have to rethink a lot of things if there turned out to be life on Mars though. Everyone would.

    It's good to see that people are still pursuing space exploration.

    --


    -- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
    1. Re:Life on Mars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water would not "almost certainly mean life." The absence of water would make life extremely unlikely.

      Just because it is required for life does not mean it guarantees life.

    2. Re:Life on Mars. by uncoveror · · Score: 0

      Whether this probe finds water on Mars depends on if the Zhti Ti Kofft decide to let it. They didn't tolerate Mars Polar Lander or Mars Climate Orbiter, and the probes we have recently seen pictures from are really in Arizona's Painted Desert.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    3. Re:Life on Mars. by sweetfathairyjesus · · Score: 1

      what shite

  12. Heh by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend of mine is a planetary geologist that has been working with data from this probe since it reached Mars. He's reasonably convinced that Mars has had active hydrology in the recent past geologically-speaking, so from what I gather he'd be really, really surprised if they found no water at all.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Heh by Cobblepop · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, my friend can beat up your friend.

    2. Re:Heh by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      Ask him what he'll think if they find Beagle 2 face down in a puddle of water. That would be soooo ironic.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    3. Re:Heh by uniqueUser · · Score: 0

      ....a planetary geologist really? On a long trip like that, playing with his probe is about all he could do.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  13. So... by squiggleslash · · Score: 0
    It's Mars. Of course there's water on Mars. Why wouldn't there be?

    We've had this discussion now for several centuries, as if to argue that there'd be something significant about this. Truth be told, we know that there's water just about everywhere where the temperature and pressure doesn't turn it to steam. I mean, take hydrogen, oxygen, two very abundant elements in the solar system, and bam!, you have water.

    How could that not happen? Answer: it couldn't not happen. There's simply no chance that it couldn't not unmaterialise.

    There's ice on the moon you know. Yes. The Moon. The moon was part of the Earth once, so you can be pretty sure that the moon has ice on it. Maybe not a lot, but it's there. Probably under the surface. Under that dust.

    Want to know why there's so much water on Earth? Why Europa's positively drenched in the stuff? It's because the solar system has more hydrogen and oxygen than it knows what to do with. Same goes for carbon which is why if a planet's not drenched in water, ten to one it's flooded with methane or some other hydrocarbon. Do you seriously think Mars is covered in methane? Well, do you? I don't.

    Blue moon! You never saw me alone - without a dream in my heart; without a love of my own.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a shame I can't moderate you arrogantly misleading.

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you, some kind of communist?

      Isn't that what Hitler did?

    3. Re:So... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I don't know if I would mod you arrogantly misleading, but perhaps grossly simplifying.

      I mean, take hydrogen, oxygen, two very abundant elements in the solar system, and bam!, you have water.

      It's not this easy. As I look around the room, I see gads of oxygen and hydrogen molecules. (Yes, I have very good eyesight!) I have bammed many times tonight, and yet still no water. Okay, some sweat on my Coke can--oh, and in my Coke--but that was water already formed; it doesn't count.

      It's not like water just automatically spontaneously forms from hydrogen and oxygen (that whole entropy thing), it only happens under a specific set of circumstances as a specific reaction. Most of the hydrogen and oxygen in, on, and around the Earth is not water, although a lot of it is. It's contained in other molecules such as O2 (what we breathe in), CO2 (what we breathe out, of which there is LOTS on Mars), H2 (potential fuel panacea and, oh, what also blew the Hindenburg up), SiO2 (sand, of which we have plenty), and so on.

      And we're not talking about looking for just a few free-floating water molecules. It's generally accepted (okay I admit, only by everyone I've asked, which is a group composed entirely of myself currently) that when one talks about "water on Mars," he or she is referring to a rather large collection of the stuff, such as in a lake, an icecap, or even an ice cube.

      So no, I don't think it's so readily apparent that there is water on Mars, otherwise I have a tough time believing that scientists are so gung ho to spend billions of dollars to prove something that everyone knows is so painfully obvious.

    4. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
      I have bammed many times tonight, and yet still no water.
      See your doctor. Male impotence is treatable.
    5. Re:So... by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There's ice on the moon you know. Yes. The Moon. The moon was part of the Earth once, so you can be pretty sure that the moon has ice on it. Maybe not a lot, but it's there."

      That is rather facile logic. By the same token we should expect life on the moon shouldn't we? After all it was "part of the earth". The Moon was formed in the fiery inferno of a planetoid collision with earth, any water that didn't volatilize off and remained after coalescence couldn't be readily held by the weak gravity and intense solar irradiation at its (relatively) close orbit to the sun. Furthermore, the only place where water has been SUGGESTED to possibly occur on the moon is at the poles in permanently shaded bottoms of craters in the form of hydrated minerals and in fine and sparse ice dust among the dirt. There is nothing absolutely certain and derministic about the presence of water on any solar system body (except earth) without examining that object first. Io (right next to europa!) has no water because its a flaming hell full of superhot volcanoes produced by the tidal flexing of its mantle; an effect from the orbits of Europa and its proximity to Jupiter. This is a completely non-intuitive phenomenon and no one really suspected it was happening until we went there with the Voyagers.

      "Same goes for carbon which is why if a planet's not drenched in water, ten to one it's flooded with methane or some other hydrocarbon."

      I wouldn't take THAT bet! The only place we know of in the solar system which is "flooded with hydrocarbons" is Titan. An absence of water is absolutely by no means a determinant factor in whether a world has lots of hydrocarbons! (eg. Venus, the Moon, Mercury, Io, Phobos, Neptune, Jupiter...... all have no water and NO huge amounts of hydrocarbons!) The solar system seldom lends itself to easy characterization by the application of overly simple maxims of the sort you seem to have affection toward.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    6. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 0
      otherwise I have a tough time believing that scientists are so gung ho to spend billions of dollars to
      prove something that everyone knows is so painfully obvious.
      Let's see. What else do we spend money on and its painfully obvious?
      1. greenhouse effect and global warming? Check
      2. thought and consciousness? Check
      3. smoking causes cancer? Check
      Or how about cars. We all know that if you run a car into a block of cement at 30 mph, it's going to go "crunch". And yet we do it over and over with every new model.

      Just because we know something doesn't mean we know *all* about it.

      After all, marketing departments spend billions to try to disprove something that, to use your words, everyone knows is so painfully obvious - Windows Sucks.

      Besides, since when will anyone turn down a research grant?

    7. Re:So... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      Your logic is flawed. We study the greenhouse effect and global warming because we're still trying to figure out all the different variables present that cause these phenomena. We know what thought and consciousness is, but we have no idea about how and why it is the way it is. We do studies to make a casual relationship between smoking and cancer, but more importantly we do these studies to find out what specific compound(s) cause cancer and why they cause cancer. We know a car will get crunched if we ram it into something, but we don't know how bad it will be or how safe the driver will be when a crumple zone is hit. Notice a pattern here? We know these things are there, but we want to know HOW and WHY. We're not trying to find out how or why water is on Mars or any other planet, we're only trying to figure out if it's there.

    8. Re:So... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 4, Informative

      I mean, take hydrogen, oxygen, two very abundant elements in the solar system, and bam!, you have water.

      Please take a chemistry course. Oxygen and hydrogen don't just spontaneously form water. You have to nudge the solution over it's activation barrier before the two will react. Of course the activation barrier depends on many variables.

      Just because something can happen doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen.

    9. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We know what thought and consciousness is.
      Really? Please publish so that the world can be enlightened. You can start by presenting the proof that you are a conscious being. Or that someone else is. One of the interesting problems of conscious thought is that everyone knows what it means, but there is NO way to prove that you actually possess it.

      As to the h2o on mars, we know its there, just like we know there's ice on/in jupiter (maybe even in liquid form - Jupiter is more of a failed brown star than a planet.

      It would be impossible for the jovian planets not to have molecular water in some form.

    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not like water just automatically spontaneously forms from hydrogen and oxygen (that whole entropy thing)

      Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about. Entropy isn't the problem here. Entropy might not be favourable for the reaction H2 + 0.5O2 -> H2O, bit since enthalpy is very much so, the whole reaction is, at least at reasonable temperatures, very favoured.

      The reason why having H2 and O2 isn't a guarantee to have water is twofold:
      1) activation energy
      2) existance of even more stable products

      But GP is right: Water is so stable that usually you'll have at least some water when there's H2 and O2.

    11. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is rather facile logic. By the same token we should expect life on the moon shouldn't we?

      Heh. The assumptions of the kind are based on the theory that there's life on the Earth - a postulate I would regard as wildly incorrect :-).

      Now before I go, a question which clears up he whole mess. Is there life on the Internet?
      An answer is simple - you _assume_ mind behind the letters, otherwise theres none.
      I say Mars along with other planets in the Solar system is a kind of a book, its channels are scriptures for some to read. Humanity on Earth are running around much like bubbles in ink-jet printer publishing out some freaky manga solely for amusement of some who watches it. No more, no less.

      Ciao.

    12. Re:So... by Witchblade · · Score: 1
      "Same goes for carbon which is why if a planet's not drenched in water, ten to one it's flooded with methane or some other hydrocarbon." I wouldn't take THAT bet! The only place we know of in the solar system which is "flooded with hydrocarbons" is Titan. An absence of water is absolutely by no means a determinant factor in whether a world has lots of hydrocarbons! (eg. Venus, the Moon, Mercury, Io, Phobos, Neptune, Jupiter...... all have no water and NO huge amounts of hydrocarbons!) The solar system seldom lends itself to easy characterization by the application of overly simple maxims of the sort you seem to have affection toward.

      Really- no water and no hydrocarbons on Jupiter, huh? So what, pray tell, are these swirling bands of dark stuff that I'm seeing?

    13. Re:So... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      The swirling clouds are mostly ammonia and the colors are thought to be caused by various phosphine and sulfur compounds. Yes there is a very tiny amount of water in Jupiter's upper atmosphere, less than 0.1%. There is an equally small amount of methane (less than a tenth of a percent I think) too. Not really what I would call "huge amounts" though. Also, the compounds are being continually created then destroyed again when they fall back down to lower altitudes and very high temperatures. Compare to Titan where organic goop coats everything, methane is several % of the atmosphere and literally flows down rivers on the surface (a surface with "water sand" and huge boulders of water ice everywhere!).

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    14. Re:So... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      Well now you've lost me. You cited thought and consciousness as an example of something we spend money on that is "painfully obvious". But wait, now you're saying it isn't obvious? Either you don't know what you're talking about or, more likely, we're in agreeance but on different pages in the same book. In either case that's not the subject of the thread so it's irrelevant.

      I suppose there should be some clarification as to what constitutes a discovery of water on an extraterrestrial object. There's no doubt that water exists, to some extent, where hydrogen and oxygen are present. However, a "discovery of water" would most likely be a discovery of water capable of supporting life; a few moles of water on a planet of any decent size isn't exactly noteworthy. I'm not saying that I think there is only trace amounts of water on Mars since there is a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. But like I said in my other post, "Just because something can happen doesn't necessarily mean it will happen."

    15. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And female impotence?

    16. Re:So... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I'm not wanting to go anywhere near an uncontained mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. It's very, very unstable.

      Unless the temperature is very low, the reaction will happen in an explosive manner. And even under adverse conditions, it will happen, albeit slowly.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    17. Re:So... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      By the same token we should expect life on the moon shouldn't we?
      Life exists under a much smaller range of temperatures and requires a certain degree of a support infrastructure to exist. Nor is anyone suggesting life existed on Earth when the moon was formed. Water and ice cannot "die", the worst that can happen is that they're vapourised off. There's no reason to believe that all the water was vapourised off the moon.
      Furthermore, the only place where water has been SUGGESTED to possibly occur on the moon is at the poles in permanently shaded bottoms of craters in the form of hydrated minerals and in fine and sparse ice dust among the dirt.
      I see your misconception. You're suggesting I was postulating that there's ice on the moon and suggesting there had to be because there was water and ice on Earth. Not so. I was telling you there was ice on the moon and explaining why it got there. For a rather patronising look at the evidence (to go with my Troll Tuesday post. Sheesh!), check here.
      I wouldn't take THAT bet! The only place we know of in the solar system which is "flooded with hydrocarbons" is Titan.
      There's probably more methane in Jupiter than there's iron on Earth (Not that that's impressive, given Jupiter's size, but I thought I'd mention it.) Most planets have either an abundance of water, or an abundance of methane. There's one or two rocky outcrops of the Mercury variety that do not, but a quick look at Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus (appropriately enough), Neptune (that's why it's blue!), and many moons shows how abundant methane is. Often it's not the most abundant substance, but neither is water on Earth.

      If you don't believe me, Google is your friend.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:So... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Given Jupiter's size, 0.1% is actually quite a lot. Indeed, 0.1% on Earth is quite a lot, there's stuff we use all the time that relies on elements and compounds far more scarce than that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:So... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      Well I wouldn't want to be around a hydrogen leak either. The two do react explosively if the proper conditions are met, a spark will certainly do it. That's why hydrogen lines have multiple shells and multiple sensor relays to report any leaks. But you have to remember that we're on Earth, conditions will vary elsewhere. Pressure, temperature, etc...

      Technically oxygen and hydrogen do form water spontaneously (keep in mind spontaneous doesn't indicate a time scale). It's a very slow process though. I just didn't want to overly complicate my original post.

    20. Re:So... by andynz · · Score: 1
      This was modded insightful? Good god, someone failed high school chemistry.

      You don't get much free hydrogen in the atmosphere (except in the upper layers where there is little oxygen). The vast majority of the hydrogen on earth is tied up in water molecules. Also, it hardly takes special conditions to produce water, if free oxygen and hydrogen are present, it only takes a small energy input for them to combine.

    21. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Something can be both obvious to you and impossible to prove. For example, can you PROVE that anyone you meet is actually a conscious, thinking being? You know they are, but try proving it. All you have are their statements that they are (which doesn't constitute proof) and your observations of how they behave (which might be indicative, but isn't proof). Prove that we're not all actually a simulaton, or a dream you're having.

    22. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really care, as long as you're getting yours?

    23. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's so "Insightful" about this stupid post?

      They aren't trying to prove there is water on Mars. They are trying to find it. This is a search for the location of water on Mars. Location and quantity. Duh. It's a mapping mission.

      Finding water on Mars would be great for future exploration, but squiggleslash seems to think we can just go there and find it everywhere because we all know how common water is.

      Oh, I also found this stupid too: Truth be told, we know that there's water just about everywhere where the temperature and pressure doesn't turn it to steam.

      What? Steam isn't water?

    24. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      H2 (potential fuel panacea and, oh, what also blew the Hindenburg up)

      This has been known to be false for about 15 years. If you look at a videotape of the Hindenburg fire, there's a very visible flame, especially right around when the announcer says "oh, the humanity!"

      Hydrogen burns invisibly.

      The History Channel has an interesting special covering this. It turns out that the problem was almost certainly the aluminum powder gel in cellulose that they used to waterproof and leakproof the canvas shell. This sounds like a good idea at first - that's basically antiperspirant - until you realize that that's also primitive rocket fuel. Any large spark would have set it off, and it would have burned like that no matter what it was full of.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    25. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      That is rather facile logic.

      Facile means "easily comprehended," or "presented in a pleasant form" (as opposed to a difficult form.) Exercises left to the reader are exercises for which the author could not or would not provide a facile explanation, for example.

      Perhaps you meant "fallacious," given that grandparent was engaging in hasty generalization?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    26. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Please take a chemistry course. Oxygen and hydrogen don't just spontaneously form water. You have to nudge the solution over it's activation barrier before the two will react. Of course the activation barrier depends on many variables.

      Whereas you are correct, your tone is utterly unwarranted. Converting hydrogen and oxygen to water can be accomplished many ways, one of which is burning, and given that essentially any planet with an atmosphere will generate lightning, it's pretty damned difficult to imagine a situation in which no water at all would be created.

      As long as grandparent takes a chemistry course, you ought to consider a course in statistics.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    27. Re:So... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      They aren't trying to prove there is water on Mars. They are trying to find it. This is a search for the location of water on Mars. Location and quantity. Duh. It's a mapping mission.
      That's not what most people think. Most people talk about "Water discovered on Mars!" as some kind of miracle, and the impetus behind these missions is generally framed as "We need to find out if any water, beyond trace elements, exists on Mars"
      Finding water on Mars would be great for future exploration, but squiggleslash seems to think we can just go there and find it everywhere because we all know how common water is.
      Nonsense. You're engaging in hyperbole. I never said anything of the kind.

      I said water on Mars is a virtual certainty and implied it almost certainly exists in reasonable quantities. It's unlikely to be a trace element.

      What? Steam isn't water?
      Yes, steam is water. However, steam is vapour, and has a tendency to disperse in vacuums. As a result, I'm not going to turn my generalization into an absurd one and suggest that, say, water is abundant on Mercury. It probably isn't. While there most likely were the ingredients for water on Mercury, chances are the stuff has vapourised and is nowhere near the planet today in anything but trace amounts.

      Hence the careful phrasing: "Truth be told, we know that there's water just about everywhere where the temperature and pressure doesn't turn it to steam." which does not mean "There's no water where there's steam".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    28. Re:So... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Facile also means : "Arrived at without due care, effort, or examination; superficial". and "Readily manifested, together with an aura of insincerity and lack of depth".

      Though, fallacious also works.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    29. Re:So... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      Point taken.

    30. Re:So... by Rei · · Score: 1

      That's an old, very debunked myth. Propane burns faintly invisibly, and yet most campers have seen a propane lantern (hydrogen's flame, by the way, isn't invisible (even in the visible spectrum), just very faint blue - the darker it is around the flame, the easier it is to see it.). The reason that propane lanterns are so bright has nothing to do with the light from the flame - it has to do with the heat from the flame heating up a mantle and making it glow. In the case of the Hindenburg, it was one big lantern-mantle.

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
    31. Re:So... by Rei · · Score: 1

      And, in fact, it appears to be the third most common molecule in the universe, after H2 and CO. I can't name a single solid body in from Saturn and beyond that has been studied for surface composition that doesn't have large amounts of water-ice, apart from Quaoar (and our look at it has been pretty darn distant ;) ). Plus, the distant gas giants are more properly known as "ice giants", because of they are believed to have huge icy cores. Jupiter's moons tend to be quite icy as well (hence the proposed JIMO mission - "Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter")

      The only reason that water is rarer in the inner solar system is evaporation and sublimation, and then erosion from the atmosphere by the solar wind. Earth was partially protected by its magnetic field.

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
    32. Re:So... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      I had no malice or contempt towards my parent in my post, nor was I condescending. I just think someone should be informed before they speak about a subject. Perhaps my tone was stern, but that's about it.

      I never said there wasn't any water on other planets; I was merely pointing out that it isn't impossible for a planet with oxygen and hydrogen to have no water. In fact it's very possible. The planet can contain enough thermal energy, internally and externally, and have a low enough pressure to break O-H bonds.

      I'm actually about to finish my second statistics course. Not that it has any relevance to this conversation.

    33. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      It's actually one of the more fascinating problems, and one that has been pondered by people for ages (take any philosophy class and watch people scratch their heads over the question of proving consciousness)

      Now that we're (possibly) getting closer to artificial intelligence, how are we ever going to prove that a program is self-aware, and not just feeding us stuff from its' own programming?

      A lot of science fiction deals with this. For example, say it becomes possible to upload ourselves into a computer one day. How will we ever know for sure that it really worked, that Joe Blow is really "in the box", and not just a program mimicking him?

    34. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you're getting your information. We have yet to find water (or water ice) anywhere in the universe that's not on Earth.

      Yes, spectrographic studies have implied that molecular water may be highly abundant in the universe, but that's obviously not the same thing.

      And there's a theory that Europe might have a highly saline liquid sea beneath its surface (there's electromagnetic evidence to that effect), but it's never been observed.

      There's a huge difference between thinking that water might be possible on other planets and actually finding it there. So far we have many (mutually contradictory, ill-supported) theories, but absolutely no actual observation.

      There's too much science fiction in your science.

    35. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      His estimate was way off. While it is believed that there's water vapor in Jupiter's atmosphere, it's a trace amount, way too small as a fraction of the total composition to be measured from a distance.

      Basically there's about as much water vapor in Jupiter's atmosphere, in terms of partial pressure, as there is phosphine in ours.

    36. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      Your dictionary is broken. Facile means "appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial."

    37. Re:So... by garote · · Score: 1

      Er, according to some Hubble-gazing folks, Europa's crust is _made_ of frozen water. Stand corrected.

    38. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      Digging up some complete assertion from Google is not the right way to persuade someone. I could find you an article stating unequivocally that the moon is made of green cheese. Doesn't make it true.

      We've never been to Europa. We've never landed a robot on Europa. We've never even surveyed Europa from orbit. We don't have the foggiest idea what the surface of Europa is made of. A press release from 1995 stating without supporting evidence that Europa's got ice on it ain't gonna cut it.

    39. Re:So... by garote · · Score: 1

      Given that attitude, you have no basis to assert that we have "not found" water ice anywhere in the universe other than our own planet, either. We've seen it streaming off the ass-ends of comets for centuries, and you're doing the Clintonian "it depends on what you mean by 'found' " two-step. Got an ego problem?

    40. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      We've seen it streaming off the ass-ends of comets for centuries

      This is why I bemoan the current state of science education in this country.

      Yes, you can see something forming the tail of a comet. Do you know what it is? The theory of comets as volatile objects goes back to the 1700s. The idea has been bounced around ever since, notably coming up short when Schiaparelli announced his hypothesis that the Perseid meteors might be fragments of a comet.

      We sent probes through the coma of Halley's Comet in 1986; we learned nothing about its composition. We sent Deep Space One through the tail of a comet, but again didn't sample it in any way except photographically.

      So basically we know no more about the composition of comets today than we knew three hundred years ago.

      A vitally important part of the practice of science is being able to distinguish between observations and suppositions. We have observed that visible matter streams off of comets in the inner solar system. We have made suppositions about what that matter might be. But that's all.

    41. Re:So... by Chuckalo · · Score: 1

      There is water ice on the moon.... The moon is not on earth. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon. html

    42. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1
      Suggestion, Chuckles: Read the boldfaced type first.

      No water was detected from the July 31 crash of Lunar Prospector into the Moon.

      Or you could just read the actual release:
      This lack of physical evidence leaves open the question of whether ancient cometary impacts delivered ice that remains buried in permanently shadowed regions of the Moon, as suggested by the large amounts of hydrogen measured indirectly from lunar orbit by Lunar Prospector during its main mapping mission.
      Sorry, but indirect measurements of hydrogen do not add up to "there's water on the moon!" especially when the one experiment designed to actually detect water on the moon found ... none at all.
    43. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of your article hung for a moment on my slow wireless connection when it pulled up "digging up some complete ass" and nothing more.

      Of course... your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    44. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Learning words from dictionaries works about as often as Bullwinkle pulling rabbits from his hat.

      facile
      1483, from M.Fr. facile "easy," from L. facilis "easy to do" and, of persons, "pliant, courteous," from facere "to do" (see factitious). Facilitate is from 1611.

      facile princeps
      1834, from L., lit. "easily first." An acknowledged leader or chief.

      facility
      c.1425, from M.Fr. facilité, from L. facilitatem, from facilis "easy" (see facile). Its sense in Eng. moved from "genteelness" to "opportunity" (1519), to "aptitude, ease" (1532). Meaning "place for doing something," which makes the word so beloved of journalists and fuzzy writers, first recorded 1872.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    45. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I had no malice or contempt towards my parent in my post, nor was I condescending. ... Perhaps my tone was stern, but that's about it.

      Something one often needs age to learn is that one's tone is frequently not what one intends for it to be. Arguing with the observer what the observed tone of one's own voice is is naïve.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    46. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I have problems with this "debunking" for many reasons. For example, one of the very first assertions it makes is that an electrical spark does not have the energy to light the paint aflame. This is borderline ridiculous: not only does the History Channel special show a tesla coil lighting a reproduction on fire while wet, but we're talking about a bolt of lighting, which is frequently in excess of fifty thousand degrees in temperature. The second thing claimed is that a spark could not jump in some arbitrary direction required by the theory, except of course that the theory does not actually demand any direction, and that sparks are not governed by directionality in any way. Besides, it's not as if this theory demands a spark at all; the most likely explanation for static ignition is the charge built up between ground and the skin's static potential moving through ionized air; the ramie cording guaranteed that that was all kept on the skin, and the frame structure was such that the charge would have been unevenly distributed towards the tail of the ship (there were in fact many eyewitness acounts of a tail glow on the ship, which many have speculated as Saint Elmo's Fire, which would be consistent with an immense ground potential charge being developed.) Whether or not the static charge caused the ignition, it's fairly transparent that the charge was there, and physical simulations suggest that the charge should have been huge.

      Now, maybe it's just me, but when the History Channel has a NASA rocket fuel specialist saying that the paint is equivalent to primitive rocket fuel, and then some guy from a planetarium says "nuh-uh," I tend to believe the NASA guy. I'm not really sure where this guy gets the notion that the paint was the only fuel; it's not as if the hydrogen is expected to just sit still. The theory is not that the hydrogen didn't burn; it's just that the hydrogen wasn't the origin of the fire. When you consider that there was no oxygen in the baloon, then please explain to me how the fire started inside, without the skin burning.

      I'm also interested to learn where this guy gets the 1000 times too slow number; that seems quite made up. To wit, without the cellulose base, the paint was basically a mix of iron oxide and aluminum powder in nearly equal proportions; many of us know that mix, once compressed, as thermite, and it does indeed burn very quickly when presented with a gaseous fuel source. I've seen phosphorus doped thermite burn a hundred foot line in three seconds; god only knows what it would do with hydrogen behind it, but the speeds I've seen are consistent with the thirty four second period in which the Zeppelin burned. Mind you, given the seperation between the aluminum and iron, you should be seeing about a twenty minute burn, which the paper referred to actually brings up as a point, but then dismisses, given that the hydrogen burning underneath the paint burns hot enough to ignite the paint and at a speed consistent with what's on film. Cellulose Acetate Butyrate is also quite flammable, as people which have worked in photo labs are pretty familiar with. Its ignition temperature is very low, and it will burn despite water, so the storm is effectively a non-issue.

      This paper is extremely disappointing, and seems largely to be a diatribe against the other authors. It wastes huge tracts of space talking about the nature of proof, then makes a whole bunch of handwaving about rigorous analysis of the original paper's propositions. Unfortunately, that so-called rigorous analysis is anything but; you'll note that in fact none of the three principles examines are accurate, and that furthermore even were those three topics debunked the presumption of the paint as a liable source for flame is not actually damaged. Hell, one square inch of the zeppelin's skin burning would be enough to set the hydrogen off, and that's all the paper proposed; the document you've given acts as if they suggest

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    47. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Facile also means [answers.com] : "Arrived at without due care, effort, or examination; superficial". and "Readily manifested, together with an aura of insincerity and lack of depth".

      This is why one shouldn't attempt to learn words from dictionaries. The tense in which you're interpreting that is incorrect. Evaluating a tic tac toe board is facile, because a decision can be arrived at without care, effort, or significant examination. One particular evaluation of a tic tac toe board, however, cannot be facile. Facile is said of abstract topics, not concrete instances.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    48. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should be a bit more complete in my response. Another way to address the issue of direction in the word facile is to look at its synonyms. You'll notice that they tend to be listed as things like apt, felicitous or ready.

      In my prior example of a tic tac toe board, then, the tense becomes obvious: to evaluate a tic tac to board is any of those three things, but the evaluation had of a particular board is else described.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    49. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      You should settle down and marry this guy. You two would get along swimmingly.

    50. Re:So... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Sieg heil! :) Just kidding, you obviously are right.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    51. Re:So... by Rei · · Score: 1

      If you have an alternative explanation for the clear ice lines in spectrographic data on studies of almost every body in the outer solar system and in the universe as a whole, by all means, please state it. Otherwise, don't make claims that you can't support. All of our knowlege of reality is based on "the best evidence available" - if you have *any* alternative interpretation of the spectrographic data, show it.

      Not to mention that the material behaves like ice, shines like ice, has the density of ice, and fits solar system models...

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
    52. Re:So... by Rei · · Score: 1

      You clearly haven't read the whole thing; just for starters, they actually discuss what is wrong with igniting it by a tesla coil (tesla coils channel *huge* amounts of power, and even still, they had to orient it just right, and *still* it burned itself out.). Go back, read the whole thing, then come back here. The facts are that cellulose acetate is *not* very flammable at all (search for cellulose acetate on google - check out the MSDS), and 5:1 aluminum to iron oxide, in separate layers, is distinctly *NOT* thermite (thermite burns by stealing oxygen from iron oxide for aluminum combustion). The craft was *not* coated in thermite, and *not* coated by guncotton. In short, read the whole thing, and then we can actually discuss.

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
    53. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      If you have an alternative explanation for the clear ice lines in spectrographic data on studies of almost every body in the outer solar system and in the universe as a whole, by all means, please state it.

      We can start with "there's no such thing as an ice line." What you're referring to is the water absorption line, which indicates nothing more than the presence of water molecules. A million tons of ice, or just molecular water in the outer fringes of the atmospheres in question? Nobody knows. Nobody has any way of knowing.

      All of our knowlege of reality is based on "the best evidence available"

      No. Our hypotheses about reality are based on evidence. They don't become knowledge until they're tested. An implication drawn from an untested observation isn't knowledge. It's rumor.

      Not to mention that the material behaves like ice

      Just what material are you referring to here? We're talking about spectrographic analyses. All we have is light.

    54. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Aw, someone's angry that his attempt at correcting someone else failed? (sniffle)

      I bet you'll be even angrier when you find out what Hesiod's name actually means.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    55. Re:So... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      they actually discuss what is wrong with igniting it by a tesla coil (tesla coils channel *huge* amounts of power

      Actually, I have. Did you bother to stop and think that a tesla coil's power stops seeming huge when we're talking about 1/10th of a lightning bolt's amperage, which I had previously pointed out to you?

      Just because they address something doesn't mean they address it accurately.

      Go back, read the whole thing, then come back here.

      I could say the same to you.

      The facts are that cellulose acetate is *not* very flammable at all (search for cellulose acetate on google - check out the MSDS),

      When hit with lightning, some kinds of stone catch fire. Cellulose acetate can be lit with a blowtorch, which is in the neighborhood of 400 to 600 degrees fahrenheit. A lightning bolt is often two orders of magnitude hotter than that.

      Look, when exposed to fourty thousand degrees of heat, granite melts. Do you really think that the cellulose acetate might not have even been melted out of the way of the canvas?

      Besides, if you know what a material safety data sheet is, you should know that cellulose acetate and cellulose acetate butyrate aren't significantly related. By comparison, remember that both sodium and chlorine are lethal, but together they're not only vital to life, but to the flavor of a potato chip.

      Cellulose Acetate Butyrate has a flash point of three hundred ninety five degrees celsius, meaning that without any other flame even present it will spontaneously burst into flame at that temperature. That is less than one percent the temperature of a lightning bolt, approximately the temperature of the air a foot and a half away from a lightning bolt. That means that even in the unlikely event that a lightning bolt went close to the canvas, it would burst into flame.

      and 5:1 aluminum to iron oxide, in separate layers, is distinctly *NOT* thermite

      5:1 aluminum to iron oxide isn't that far from thermite, which ranges from 1:1 to 4:1.

      (thermite burns by stealing oxygen from iron oxide for aluminum combustion).

      Which is why when you want it to burn longer you increase the amount of iron, and when you want it to burn hotter you increase the amount of aluminum. I fail to see what point you're trying to make - you could mix it 16:1 in either ratio and it'd still burn a hole through the hood of your car, or set off (even with two tiny flakes, one of which had worked its way through the canvas with its sticky gel coating) the acetate.

      The craft was *not* coated in thermite

      What I said was that it was coated in something similar. That remains correct, no matter how many words you want to place in capitals framed by asterisks.

      and *not* coated by guncotton.

      I never said anything like this.

      In short, read the whole thing, and then we can actually discuss.

      You've ignored nearly everything I had to say, instead focussing on a distorted version of one tiny point I made, ignorant entirely of the remainder. Even given that I've read it, something tells me from the tone of your voice that I could read it thrice more, build my own zeppelin, force a lightning fire, and you still wouldn't be willing to give any credence to anything that chafed against your precious planetarium paper.

      Why, he looks at saturn through a telescope; surely he knows more about rocket fuel than a NASA rocket fuel expert.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    56. Re:So... by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 1

      The Greek poet? I don't get the joke.

    57. Re:So... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have. Did you bother to stop and think that a tesla coil's power stops seeming huge when we're talking about 1/10th of a lightning bolt's amperage, which I had previously pointed out to you?

      The incendiary paint theory was not due to lightning, and for good reason: craft like the Hindenburg had been struck by lightning several times previously, with no ill effects. In fact, it is a bit silly to picture such a huge craft *not* getting struck by lightning. Consequently, the theory was about an electrostatic spark between sections of the skin.

      Furthermore, you completely ignored the fact that the skin *burned itself out*. Yes, a rock can catch on fire when struck by lightning, but it will *burn itself out*. A theory that the hindenburg fire was from "flammable skin" cannot be based on a skin that will burn itself out relatively quickly.

      Just because they address something doesn't mean they address it accurately.

      If you misrepresent it, I call it as I see it.

      Cellulose Acetate Butyrate has a flash point of three hundred ninety five degrees celsius, meaning that without any other flame even present it will spontaneously burst into flame at that temperature.

      Yes. Barely lower than that of paper. You don't see paper spontanously bursting into flame all of the time, do you? Not to mention that this was fabric coated in cellulose acetate butyrate. It observibly burns itself out. The Hindenburg, by contrast, had completely been engulfed in flame in 34 seconds, with a wavefront moving at 25 feet per second.

      5:1 aluminum to iron oxide isn't that far from thermite, which ranges from 1:1 to 4:1.

      WRONG. Thermite is 3:1 *Iron Oxide To Aluminum*. It's the other way around. The coating was 10-fold off from even the boundaries of the thermite reaction, and it wasn't a mixture at that, which is required for thermite to function. In fact, there was a binder between the aluminum and iron. Lastly, the top of the craft would have burned with different color, intensity, and rate than the bottom part, since iron oxide was only on the top; nothing like this is either visible in pictures, nor described by witnesses.

      Which is why when you want it to burn longer you increase the amount of iron

      This isn't even close to thermite. There's not enough oxygen that the aluminum could steal to sustain the reaction, *even if they were mixed, which they weren't*. You're an order of magnitude off, and not mixed. It's not even close to thermite, so comparisons are just ridiculous.

      Why, he looks at saturn through a telescope; surely he knows more about rocket fuel than a NASA rocket fuel expert.

      The NASA scientist you refer to is Addison Bain. His theory is not lightning, but electrostatic charge. So, you clearly disagree with the NASA scientist.

      Just ignoring that, Dessler (who authored the refutation that I provided) has a BS in physics from Caltech, a PhD in physics from Duke, worked for 7 years on space physics research for Lockheed, worked for 26 years as a professor of space physics and astronomy at Rice, and directed the Space Science Laboratory at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center for four years. Other authors on the subject include Donald E. Oers (48 year commercial balloon pilot, 12 years working on airship construction, starting in the 40s, and 29 years in naval nuclear engineering design) and William H. Appleby (a statistical researcher, aircraft maintaenance warrant officer, and ground crew member for lighter than air craft).

      If you want to debate the subject, then lets go.

      1) If hydrogen airships burn invisibly, why did hydrogen airships from World War burn highly visibly and in the same manner, despite being made completely differently?

      2) Why does the fire quite clearly burn along gas-sack lines, even though the skins are continuous?

      3) Why did the skin burn out so easily, and why is there so much left, if it was supposedly

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
  14. Re:What? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Close but no cigar. I think you were looking for the article before this, but maybe I'm wrong."

    A few years ago I made a little mistake like that. I had opened a bunch of Slashdot windows to different stories and replied to the wrong one. The mods were having fun at my expense. I'd ask why I was modded down, they'd mod that off topic. Finally, somebody told me to scroll up.

    Yep, it was bonehead stupidity on my end, but I really wish I hadn't been modded down 5 or 6 times before finally getting told.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  15. Heh... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1, Funny
    FTA: "it is thought the greatest reservoir of retained water on the Red Planet could be found beneath the planet's surface."

    Well duh, like it is on earth: you have the surface of the ocean (where it meets the air), and most of the water is below that. Go figure (gravity and all).

  16. Mars Express? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Choo-choo!

    1. Re:Mars Express? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The real pain was getting it to Launch Pad 9-3/4.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Mars Express? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short and funny. Very high comedic density. I laughed out loud for the first time today, and I'm not sarcastic.

  17. Contamination by lheal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how long it will take before the bacteria riding aboard the various spacecraft we send to Mars begin to spread all over the planet?

    If we then "discover" bacteria on Mars, imagine the excitement, and the loss. The loss of our chance to truly know if it was there already. The loss will go unnoticed, though, as anyone broaching the question will be lumped with the Creationists, an object of scorn.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Contamination by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      You say two-may-tow, I say tah-mah-tow. You say contaminate, I say terraform. Let's call the whole thing off...

    2. Re:Contamination by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

      cool it's the microscopic War of the Worlds!

    3. Re:Contamination by imemyself · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to determine if they are very similar to anything that is found on earth. I'm sure NASA/ESA would take that possibility very seriously, since it would be without a doubt the greatest discovery in human history.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    4. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to clue you in, it's fairly standard practice to thoroughly sterilize landers and probes before they get sent up to avoid that possibility... not to mention, even if something did get by, it would take a competent biologist probably 2 minutes to figure out it was of Earth origin... "move along, nothing to see here".

    5. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's actually a lot of debate and some evidence that life on Earth comes from amino acids that were brought here by meteorites coming from Mars (I got the info from an article in Science & Vie which unfortunately doesn't have a good web presence). Amino acids are one thing, but bacteria are a bit more complex, would they be able to survive the deep space environment during the transit to Mars?

    6. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spacecraft sent to land on Mars are very carefully sterilized to prevent exactly that problem.

    7. Re:Contamination by aprilsound · · Score: 1
      Just what sort of bacteria are you thinking of that can survive in space for the amount of time that it takes a probe to get there?

      Manned missions, perhaps, though still quite unlikely, but there is no ephing way that an unmaned probe is going to arrive with anything from earth alive.

    8. Re:Contamination by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well. maybe. But note:

      http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep 98_1.htm

      recounting the discovery of common strep (Streptococcus mitis) that was left in the camera on Surveyor 3 and returned 3 years later on Apollo 12, surviving the equally difficult environment on the moon.

      This really tells you two things - first, that it's possible for bacteria with at least some protection to take the raw space environment for a while, and second, that although there are at least some consideration for preventing contaimination on most if not all landers (including Surveyor) that stuff slips through the cracks. They didn't pay nearly the attention to it on Surveryor that they had on others before and since (some of the early Ranger missions had failures suspected to have been caused by the sterilization procedures damaging the equipment) but they didn't just sneeze in it and shoot it off, either.

      Brett

      (and yes, space is sort of my personal hobby horse (not to mention my primary source of income), so please forgive my multiple posts!)

    9. Re:Contamination by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Um, have you read the War of the Worlds? Or even seen the film? Don't you remember what happens in the end?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    10. Re:Contamination by tgd · · Score: 1

      Thats an awfully cultured reference for /.

      Stick to Userfriendly and penguin references, please.

    11. Re:Contamination by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping Tom Cruise gets torn limb from limb.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    12. Re:Contamination by HokieJP · · Score: 1

      So how exactly would you propose to check for the existence of bacteria on Mars without sending a landing craft? Hubble?

    13. Re:Contamination by freqres · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the book or seen the movie but from past experiences I assume Tom Cruise will save the world in some fashion.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    14. Re:Contamination by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Whoops, forgot there was a new film, I meant the one with the "flying wing".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  18. Premature by peacefinder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To quote Agent Smith, "They're not out yet."

    In this case, it's the antennas for the survey instrument that aren't out yet. While the engineers seem very optimistic that the antenna deployment will go well and allow the survey to begin, there also seems to be some trepidation that the deployment could seriously damage the spacecraft.

    Wait another two weeks, then celebrate the start of the search.

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:Premature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Matrix quote?

      How lame.

    2. Re:Premature by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      "A Matrix quote?

      How lame."


      It would have been lame, but I wrote it with a sense of post-modernist irony!

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  19. Re:What? by Stankatz · · Score: 1

    Dude, you got the wrong article. This is about that CMU professor's rebuttal against RIAA propaganda. I think.

  20. For the next Nasa project by hardwarejunkie9 · · Score: 0, Troll

    maybe they should work on making a boat so they can go skii on all that water the next time they're there... Another good idea would be an in-depth study of metric conversion.

    --
    I like losing arguments, it just means that I can take your point and make it my own.
  21. Once again... by uofitorn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Once again, another article covered earlier in the day by The Register.

    --
    "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
    "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    1. Re:Once again... by thegamerformelyknown · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that /. REPOSTED stories, not repoted them.

  22. This could be... by notmyeye · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...the most expensive divining rod ever built...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

    1. Re:This could be... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      The main antenna is two 20m fibreglass booms. It's obviously a big fishing rod. Finding water is just the first step!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:This could be... by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      I didn't know Jim Bob and Bubba built it.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
  23. Start The Reactor by Ranger · · Score: 1

    Mars Express spacecraft team is ready to deploy a radar antenna to search for traces of water and ice beneath the Martian surface.

    I can see the story now: Microwave beams from MARSIS radar melts ice causing chain reaction, releasing frozen atmosphere and water.

    "Quaid...Quaid...Start the reactor." .

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Start The Reactor by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      "Quaid...Quaid...Start the reactor." .
      ... oh yeah, water AND hot/demure/slutty women. I can see it now. Of course, with NASA's luck lately, the f'ing probe is going to end up at The Last Resort, get drunk on a can of WD-40, and piss off the mutants big-time!
    2. Re:Start The Reactor by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      It's not a NASA probe. However once they get the radar working, maybe they'll ticket the Mars Rovers for speeding? (Or worse. There used to be municipal road signs "Speed Controlled By Radar". I figured they must have a pretty powerful radar gun!)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  24. But it's NOT RED! by cryoknight · · Score: 0, Interesting

    NASA has been coloring the pics to hide the GREEN seen on Mars...

    http://www.themarsrecords.com/mars_red_planet_colo rs.htm
    http://www.lunaranomalies.com/colors.htm

    1. Re:But it's NOT RED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the heck would they do that?

    2. Re:But it's NOT RED! by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, Mars has both weather and seasons. Both affect the amount of dust in the atmosphere. If you really want to be clever, go play around a few of the 80,000 images from the mars rovers and see how much green you get by combining the red, green, and blue filtered images. You can compare images that show the color target (used specifically to make sure the color balance is right) taken on earth before launch to images taken on Mars, where the red dirt is pretty clearly visible. The color target looks the same.

      More importantly though, since you've discovered this massive cover-up that none of us have been able to, you should take the next step and find out why. Does it truly benefit NASA to hide the existance of life, or at least green, on Mars?

      As long as we're talking about color, I wanted to toss in a bit of little-known trivia: While on earth the sky is blue and sunsets are often red, on Mars, the sky is red and sunsets are often blue.

    3. Re:But it's NOT RED! by jong99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The images are not recoloured. It is simply a product of swapping the red channel for an infra-red channel as NASA often does.

      This graph shows the reflectance of each of the colours on the calibration target. Notice how the blue target relects infra-red light in the region of 400-500mm.

      When taking most science photos, more often than not they use the infra-red filter. When putting together pictures for the press they use the infra-red channel rather than red. The upshot of this is that particular blues reflect strongly in infra-red and come out in the final picture as red.

      You can see a wonderful example in this picture which shows the blue insulation tape as pink, and the usually blue NASA logo as red.

      They're not modifying the images, just using the filters most useful for science applications.

    4. Re:But it's NOT RED! by cryoknight · · Score: 0

      Apparently to hide all of the GREEN vegetation and to give poor resolution shots of what they see, so we can't see what's really there.

    5. Re:But it's NOT RED! by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      For a big group of color images and an explination of why they look the way they do, check out http://www.xpda.com/mars/

    6. Re:But it's NOT RED! by cryoknight · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is:

      NASA is taking the regular pictures of a NON-RED MARS, then altering them so that MARS LOOKS RED.

      We're in complete agreement then! :)

  25. Watch where you point that thing by Bad+to+the+Ben · · Score: 0, Troll

    As if it wasn't enough throwing bits of solid metal and stuff at the Martians, now we're going to increase their risk of cancer by nuking them with radio waves! If there is intelligent life down there they've got to be pretty pissed by now. We could at least beam them cable TV or something to make up for it.

    1. Re:Watch where you point that thing by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Funny
      We could at least beam them cable TV or something to make up for it.

      If they were actually intelligent, they'd construe that as an act of war!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:Watch where you point that thing by Bad+to+the+Ben · · Score: 1

      Nah they wouldn't. Everybody knows that TV makes you more intelligemented.

    3. Re:Watch where you point that thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, how would you beam cable? Wouldn't it then be broadcast? Or are you thinking of laying a few million (billion? trillion?) miles of co-ax?

  26. You know what'd be funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If some smart alien decides to put a glass a water on Mars just to screw with NASA.

  27. Trolling for business plans... by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Step 1: Find water on Mars
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit!

    --
    R(k)
    1. Re:Trolling for business plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1: Find water on Mars

      Step 2: Transport to Earth

      Step 3: Sell as space water for way too much

      Step 4: Profit!
    2. Re:Trolling for business plans... by kc0re · · Score: 0

      Seriously... Does anyone really give a FUCK if there is/was water on Mars?

  28. I hope though... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    ...that the folks at ESA who operate Mars Express brace themselves for people with far-out ideas like Richard C. Hoagland, who's going to do some very strange explanations of the MARSIS radar images when we start receiving these radar images. Given Hoagland's reputation, you know it was happen literally at the drop of a hat. (rolling eyes skyward)

  29. Re:Great news...but wait, give this a thought by naveenkumar.s · · Score: 1

    And what if Asteroid 2004 MN4 comes head-on towards earth?
    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news146.html
    We may become extinct along with the other species on earth.
    May be that's paranoid. But there is a possibility. Having an extra-terrestrial colony is a safe bet in such situations.
    The amount of knowledge we gain from these missions justifies the funds we put into them.
    Homo Sapiens are not a perfect species. We have our problems. We always had. But that should not stop us from exploring. This exploring habit is one of the traits which makes us fit for survival.
    I accept your thought that we should try to alleviate the hazards facing our planet, but that should not be at the cost of these explorations.

  30. Re: A Knowledgable Solar System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the solar system has more hydrogen and oxygen than it knows what to do with.
    Please stop anthropomorphizing the Solar System.
    The Solar System doesn't "know" how to do anything, because it's as dumb as a brick.
    And not one of those super-intelligent bricks you've heard of that scientists have created in laboratories, either, but just a plain, ordinary, everyday brick, the kind that you may pass by every day on the way to work or to the dentist, the kind that just sits there and doesn't say anything, and that doesn't listen, not really, to anything that you may say to it.
  31. please help me by dj245 · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find it. After hours of staring at the picture, I still could not find the water on Mars. Perhaps someone could help me out? I couldn't find the spam either though so maybe there isn't any and this is all a stupid joke.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  32. Re:Great news...but wait, give this a thought by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

    Because there will always be people in poverty or poor. Even if you make them richer, then you just reset the amount of money at which you are considered poor. By the way, the current poverty line is pretty high - my stepdad made enough money to support a house, 4 kids, internet, cable tv, regular big dinners and a new van, but we were considered in poverty by the state, and qualified for free lunch, etc

    --
    "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
  33. Water is nice but by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    When do they begin the search for Scotch?

  34. uh...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    next to make an important discovery?
    The only were the first to find water on that planet ..
    ESA is doing pretty well whilst we are catching dust and poking rocks.

  35. Re: A Knowledgable Solar System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please stop anthropomorphizing the Solar System. (...) the kind that just sits there and doesn't say anything, and that doesn't listen, not really, to anything that you may say to it.
    So you're saying I shouldn't say this because to the Solar System because she won't hear me?
  36. Culpability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My cousin Vern over at NASA in Huntsville has CB(/vert) in his Coon truck.

    Before you yankees and ethnics get all hot and bothered, have a look at some old timey hunters with coons. Oh yeh, all you city slicker preservationists. Here's what you do with the coon after nailing his salty skin on a board and hanging it on the side of the barn. That's a joke son. Look here if you need a coon recipe. Nothing gets wasted. Even the scent gland which the dogs love to roll in. Besides, there's a culture that needs preserving! A culture of sensitive souls.

    If don't know it by now, a coon truck is a modern tool used by present day coon hunters to haul the dogs. Coon hunting being a social sport leads to more than one truck. The favored form of communication is CB radio. Which gets me to the point.

    To keep the CB 'whip' antenna from chipping the trucks paint as it 'whips' arond, Vern put a tennis ball on the end. He suggested that the ESA install something similar but they just wouldn't listen to a dumb ole redneck.

    1. Re:Culpability by theolein · · Score: 1

      perhaps he was as much an arrogant fuck about it as you were in your post, and thereby managed to piss off a whole load of people who would have otherwise listened to him.

    2. Re:Culpability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take that you literalist horny peacock!

  37. Radar Sounding by amightywind · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, all the "water" finds on Mars have been indirect - albeit very convincing - evidence of surface water in the past.

    Radar sounding will produce no more direct evidence of water/ice than this or this. Radar just adds another plodding data point to something that has already been established, by NASA by the way.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  38. OT: Hindenburg by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

    I thought it was "generally accepted" that the Hindenburg disaster was as big as it was more the genius combination of hydrogen, gun cotton and thermite in the construction, rather than just hydrogen.

    1. Re:OT: Hindenburg by Rei · · Score: 1

      Guncotton = cellulose nitrate, an explosive
      Hindenburg coating = cellulose acetate, a relatively poor burning material (the reason that so much of the Hindenburg's skin survived and is in the hands of collectors today, despite the huge fire).

      Thermite = 3 to 1 iron oxide to aluminum in a fine powdered mixture.
      Hindenburg coating: iron oxide only on the upper side of the craft; even there, the ratio was 4 parts Aluminum to 1 part iron oxide, and in separate, unblended layers

      There are a lot of stupid myths about the Hindenburg out there.

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
  39. Re:Great news...but wait, give this a thought by Spacejock · · Score: 1

    All that money isn't going into space, it's being spent on Earth. And the people that money is going to (albeit indirectly) are spending it on housing, food, clothing, education and so on - so it's keeping THEM off the poverty line. And also the people teaching their kids, selling them cars and houses, assembling and shipping their TV sets and so on and on. It's a trickle down effect - keep pouring money in at the top, and people will keep spending it. And for the rare breed who just stick it in the bank, the bank will turn around and lend it to someone for a house, a car, whatever.

    That's not even touching on the scientific benefits, or the intangible effect of pictures from the surface of a distant planet being beamed into our lounge rooms.

  40. Re:Great news...but wait, give this a thought by kyojin+the+clown · · Score: 1

    once we colonise mars, we can send the poor people there! its two birds with one stone! seriously though, poverty inspired huge numbers of people to venture to the new world 400 years ago. crossing the atlantic on a 17th Century tallship was probably a similar venture in relative terms to going to mars in about 50 to 100 years, when it becomes feasible. obviously its all completely different now, no need to stack up all the 'are you comparing yadda yadda...? replies below, however there may well be some parallels. furthermore, space travel is just as valid a use of resources as sport, or art. it doesnt feed your kids, but it does feed their spirits.

  41. duh? ever seen the icecaps? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Anybody can see the Martian icecaps in a telescope. I presume the article deals with discovering liquid water or water closer to the equator.

  42. You forgot something. by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 1

    MARSIS instrument. Will shortwave radio work for Mars colonists? Ionospheric sounding, 0.1 to 5.5 MHz, will provide some clues.

  43. water on earth too by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that hey should use that costly technology here on earth to find water for those country that dont have any drinkable water.

    1. Re:water on earth too by Alcilbiades · · Score: 1

      Is that kind of like saying...I think we should stop spending money on researching better ways to grow food and spend it on a better distribution system. Wait then in 30 years when the population reaches how much food we produce and we don't have any new ways to produce more we are screwed. The object is to advance human society and to make it more survivable and that means finding a way to keep a global disaster from killing every human off.

    2. Re:water on earth too by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

      I havent said we shouldnt go to mars, i only wrote that this technology should be used to help here FIRST!
      Are you blind to what's happeniing in the world or since it's not in your backyard it doesnt concern you?
      You think we should just find other planet to populate and just give up this one because we made a mess out of it?
      Mentality has to change here before it can work better elsewhere!
      Humanity could advcance much faster he we could solve all of our problems here with ourselves before going to outside help!!

    3. Re:water on earth too by MaDeR · · Score: 1
      "this technology should be used to help here FIRST!"
      An you know everything about usability in Earth enviroment, right?

      Another nut... like they whom say NO to space travel while is at least one starving child on world.

      "Humanity could advcance much faster he we could solve all of our problems here with ourselves before going to outside help!!"
      Our problems NEVER will be solved if we only sit on this fucking rock. And escape from that gravity well is NOT a solution, it is BEGINNING of solution.

      Of course, all our problems will end, when (not IF... yes, WHEN!) humanity die. We as species can only choose way of extinct: we kill ourself or we give birth to something many, many, MANY fold times powerful as we.

      This is way of evolution: better species was created, ancestors perish.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    4. Re:water on earth too by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

      I'm no nut, i'm just AWARE of the situation here ! ARE YOU? I never said no to space travel! never said not to use technology! you invented words out of the blue! SOmetimes, try not to read between the lines because there is nothing to read between them! ASS

    5. Re:water on earth too by Alcilbiades · · Score: 1
      I believe we are understanding you and it is just that your opinion is very short sighted. First off you can't successfully feed the worlds population currently without major problems that goes along with housing them. Yes I feel sorry for 3rd world countries with huge death rates but, have you considered what would happen right now if we fed all of those children who die from stravation or of diseases because they have no food to keep their immune systems running. I will give you a hint the worlds population would skyrocket until those 3rd world countries finally industrialized.

      Also, your idea seems to be that because certain countries have industrialized first it is our "duty" or some such nonsense to wait until the rest of the world catches up before we try and futher our horizons. I find it hard to understand why you think we should wait solving problems we have already solved, btw we know how to solve the environmental problems we just choose not to and we already produce enough food for the world spending money on doing so is not the issue, I will remind you that if you look at NASA's website or search about discoveries made because of space exploration you would just stop arguing. A little device known as the personal computer was made possible because of needing to scale down processors to work i n a space suit and that is just 1 I can think of off the top my head.

  44. Bus by AuntMatilda · · Score: 1

    At least the people on the bus the Daily Sport spotted on Mars won't have died of thirst.

  45. Troll Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    squiggleslash (241428) admits he is trolling in the parent comment.

    1. Re:Troll Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this posting is thoroughly insightful.

    2. Re:Troll Alert by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Grow up. There's more than 1 type of troll. Did this look like GNAA shit to you?

      Some "trolls" are designed to make you think. This one obviously got a LOT of people thinking. Or would you rather that everyone be a knee-jerk same-opinion fan-boi to whatever is currently fashionable?

      But it's easier to scream "troll alert" than to think, isn't it, Mr. AC?

  46. Before you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Remember:

    Modding something as overrated is always automatically meta-moderated as "Unfair". Check the slashcode.

    Modding the above down as a troll will most likely also be meta-moderated as "Unfair", not automatically, but by an actual human, who'll read it.

    If you moderated it down, you probably want to undo your moderation. If you disagree, reply to this message.

  47. So what if... by http101 · · Score: 1

    What if they don't find water, but instead, find out the planet is composed of Vodka? :-) Hey, it could happen...

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  48. Haw. This guy's funny. by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    >Why is there so much water on Earth?
    Because it's in the right temperature zone, and comets (made of ice) from the OORT belt have been bombarding our planet for billions of years.
    Same goes for Europa, though I was under the impression they had tons of ice but the only liquid water might be deep beneath the surface.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
    1. Re:Haw. This guy's funny. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      I'm amused how many people have attacked my comment only to be flat out wrong, or far more wrong than I could possibly have been.

      The problem with what I said is that, hyperbole aside, it was largely correct. You apparently think it's comets that caused Earth to be covered in water.

      O.

      Kay.

      Must've been a lot of comets. A quick glance at our neighbours should make it obvious that hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most abundant elements in this solar system. Indeed, there's a reason why there's so much raw ice floating around.

      Truth is this a solar system with a lot of water in it. Most planets have a large amount of some form of water on them or failing that hydrocarbons. If it's not so hot the water will steam off, then it's probably there in some form.

      Mars Express may or may not find it on Mars. It's there, no doubt about it. But whether it's on the surface, a few feet under, or in some giant underground lake a mile under, is open to question. It may be just on the poles, fighting the dry ice for space. Mars Express will answer many questions, but the question we don't need answered is whether the stuff actually exists. We know it does. Even the comet enthusiasts surely realise it has to.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  49. I'm moving to Mars by SagaLore · · Score: 0

    I'm hoping that within my lifetime we had started colonizing Mars and begun terraforming efforts.