Slashdot Mirror


Ice Lake on Mars

DecoDragon writes "The ESA's Mars Express discovered an ice lake on Mars. The ESA has a number of images and an explanation of what was found. The lake was found in an unnamed crater. The report says it can't be carbon dioxide, because carbon dioxide ice had already disappeared from the northern polar cap at the time the image was taken." Coverage from the BBC also available. From the article: "The team has also been able to detect faint traces of water ice along the rim of the crater and on the crater walls. Mars is covered with deep gorges, apparently carved out by rivers and glaciers, although most of the water vanished millions of years ago. "

374 comments

  1. Cool... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice pictures. I think the article has one thing wrong, though. It should be possible for the ice to sublimate away above -103 F on Mars. Unless, of course this particular crater never gets that hot...

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:Cool... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm. What I wonder is how there appears to be snow on the hillside - I mean, that suggests that the ice is blowing away (unless that's a trick of their colour retouching). Maybe that ice lake is only temporary?

    2. Re:Cool... by 3D+Monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I always thought that sublimation was the state change from a solid directly to a gas w/o achiving a liquid state inbetween. This is what happens to dry ice (carbon-dioxide ice), but I don't think that water sublimates. I might be wrong, but when the tempature rises shouldn't it just melt, and eventually evaporate if it gets hot enough?

    3. Re:Cool... by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Informative

      See the phase diagram for water Here

      It'd be nice if there was some more marks on the axes, but you can see that somewhere below one atmosphere of pressure, you can get directly from ice to vapor.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Cool... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sublimnate is the word that describes the phase change from solid to gas without going through the liquid phase. This applies to all substances. There is usually a temperature range where a solid will sublimnate straight to a gas instead on melt then boil. Carbon dioxide (as well as most substances that we normally consider a gas) just happens to not have a liquid range at any temperature under low pressure (Earth atmosphere or below). Water, on the other hand, has a distince sublimation temperature range and a distinct liquid range in Earth normal (and Mars normal) pressure conditions.

      You probably have water sublimating in your very own house, in fact. We call it freezer burn.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    5. Re:Cool... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Nice link.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    6. Re:Cool... by jackelfish · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would agree with you, but I think that you assume a surface pressure of only 1 Pa. At the recorded pressures of 0.675-1 kPa for Mars' atmosphere, water remains ice until it reaches a temperature of somewhere between 240 to 275 K (-27 to 35 F). The average recorded temperatures of the surface of Mars ranges between 130-250K (-225 to -9 F) with a mean of 210K, so it is entirely possible for this ice to remain year round without sublimating, or melting at the extreme temperature (275K) and pressure (1 kPa) range. I am only extrapolating these values from a phase diagram for water, therefore the numbers are most likely off. This, of course, also assumes that the sun is not shining on the region in question, as soil temperatures of 300K (+81 F) have been reported.

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    7. Re:Cool... by 3D+Monkey · · Score: 0

      Now if I could only read these diagrams!

    8. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What I wonder is how there appears to be snow on the hillside


      Condensation, in the shade. There is water vapor in the atmosphere of Mars.

      Put another way -- it's frost.
      http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/ImMars/frost.gif
    9. Re:Cool... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or does it look to anyone else like this water could gotten there along with whatever object struck the surface to create the crator?
      Good to keep an open mind to all posibilities when doing science.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    10. Re:Cool... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I mark my axes every time I kill an Orc.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Cool... by Pxtl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Whoa, I missed that one before. Didn't realise there was frost on mars.

    12. Re:Cool... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      If you look really close at the images you'll see tiny martians with little ice skates doing pirouhettes.

      Ok, ok ... I just wanted to use the word "pirouhette"

    13. Re:Cool... by uberdave · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So it should be relatively easy to build atmospheric condensers. No need to hunt down a special crater or gorge for the manned mission.

    14. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, ok ... I just wanted to use the word "pirouhette"

      At least spell it right, then. Pirouette.

    15. Re:Cool... by oldwarrior · · Score: 1, Funny

      SPACE HOCKEY! The time is NOW!

      --
      If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
    16. Re:Cool... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
      So it should be relatively easy to build atmospheric condensers. No need to hunt down a special crater or gorge for the manned mission.

      Yes, but can we get protocol droids capable of speaking their language?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, it's sublimate (note the lack of the letter n. An alternate form is to sublime.

      Second, water's sublimation curve isn't near one atmosphere, as would be found in a freezer; the pressure must be at least below about 0.006 atm, which is the triple-point pressure of water. Just as liquid water can evaporate at room temperature and pressure, far from its boiling point, ice can also evaporate below 0 C and at 1 atm. That is the cause of freezer burn. It's not clear to me whether this should properly be called sublimation or evaporation (or whether both terms apply), but I thought I'd point out this subtle difference.

    18. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To quote the article:
      There is a height difference of 200 metres between the crater floor and the surface of this bright material, which cannot be attributed solely to water ice."
      :)

      Obviously, it isn't ice at all, just the roof a very large ET base.
    19. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phase diagrams are pretty simple. One axis is pressure, the other axis is temperature. The bent-up Y drawn on the chart shows the borders between each phase.

      You start at a given pressure and temperature, and at that point you can see which third of the graph you're in to determine what phase of matter you have. So, at 1 Atm and 105C, you're in the Vapor section.

      To see how the phases change, you simply move your "point" as you vary pressure and temperature. Whenever your point crosses the line between two phases, you get a phase change.

    20. Re:Cool... by uhlume · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read the accompanying text with your phase diagram, you can see that the pressure range is 0.006 atmospheres and below. That's a little more useful. Anybody know offhand what the atmospheric pressure is on Mars?

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    21. Re:Cool... by coopex · · Score: 1
      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    22. Re:Cool... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > can we get protocol droids capable of speaking their language?

      All we need is someone who can speak the "Universal Language of Funk." George Clinton should do nicely.

  2. pool by Ledskof · · Score: 0

    Lake hell. It looks like a swimming pool.

    --
    This is my sig. The post is over.
    1. Re:pool by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Lake hell. It looks like a swimming pool.

      Since the crater is 23 miles across and close to a mile deep, the patch of ice, judging from the picture, is actually fairly good size. Not enough for sustainable human development, but enough to demonstrate that there is water here and there.

      I wonder what a core sample would show?

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if people can ice skate on it.

    3. Re:pool by 3D+Monkey · · Score: 0

      additionally, if you use the mesurement in TFA of 15 metres per pixel, and apply that to the "hi-res" image (which is undoubtedly not the original resolution) you get some pretty amazing numbers.

      A quick measure of the "pool" is about 1990 pixels across. 1990px*15m/px=29850m. That means this thing is almost 18miles in diameter!

      That's some pool.

    4. Re:pool by jdray · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not enough for sustainable human development

      Why not? If that's water ice, there's a lot of water there. Now, it's not enough to suit the needs of a planet full of people, but it's certainly enough to sustain a community of humans of some appreciable size, so long as they don't do something stupid like convert it all to rocket fuel.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    5. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it not enough to sustain human development?

      And colony on Mars will undoubtedly have massive water recycling systems in both water for personal use and water used for food production, and will only need a small amount of water per-person.

    6. Re:pool by Ucklak · · Score: 1
      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    7. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a sec... how's a lake 10 MILES WIDE (check the image scale)not enough water to sustain human development? That should be more than enough for a small research colony and then some. With proper water containment and recycling, it would last almost indefinitely.

    8. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the crater itself is only 35 kilometers wide and the ice is nowhere near the full width of the crater, I'd say your estimate is a bit off. I don't think pixel multiplication is the best way to estimate it's size. In fact, just a glance at the pic shows that the crater's diamter is roughly 2.5 to 3 times that of the ice. So the ice would have a rough diameter of 11-14 kilometers.

    9. Re:pool by Booya72 · · Score: 1

      I do agree with you that this is a fairly good size. If the creator is 23 miles across, judging by the picture the ice patch is at least 10 miles across. They already stated how deep the ice was "200 feet". I disagree completely with you and saying that this is not enough for sustainable human development. I'm sure this is enough water to sustain development for years to come, long enough for somebody to find water somewhere else. That's my two cents.

    10. Re:pool by barawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree completely with you and saying that this is not enough for sustainable human development. I'm sure this is enough water to sustain development for years to come, long enough for somebody to find water somewhere else.

      Well, it's of order 20 trillion liters (10mi*10mi*200 feet) of ice (which is about the same volume as the equivalent liquid water content - ice is only about 10% less dense).

      A random site says that Americans use on average 80-100 gallons per day, which means that water would supply a colony of 10,000 for 11,000 years.

      Yes, the water needs for a colony are higher than the water needs for a person, but an off-planet colony probably is going to recycle water (one would hope), so I'd imagine actually that it probably works out pretty well.

      So yah, I agree with you. This is a heckuva lot of water.

    11. Re:pool by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Assuming, of course, that this is all water ice. I would imagine that there is a nice blend of ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide ices at the bottom of that crater. Still, even if it were 1 percent water ice, a colony could last for a century based on your numbers.

    12. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming, of course, that this is all water ice. I would imagine that there is a nice blend of ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide ices at the bottom of that crater. Still, even if it were 1 percent water ice, a colony could last for a century based on your numbers.

      Actually, it is much more likely that it is mostly, if not all, water ice. Simple reasoning suffices to explain it. If the conditions in this particular crater were such to freeze and accumulate appreciable amount of CO2 ice or other ices you would most likely see appreciable amounts of it out and around this crater and all over. After all, we know those substances are there. Additionally, it clearly seems like that water came from some sort of "event". In which case it would unlikely that it was conveniently mixed with large amounts of other substances.

    13. Re:pool by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can just imagine what the property development advert would read like:

      Live on Mars!

      This exclusive development of luxury apartments designed by an award wining architect is set to become reality. Each apartment is located in its own biodome with a 360 panoramic view of the martian surface. Access to communal area is provided by a underground tunnel which also doubles as storage space.

      Other features include an private 10 kilometre wide ice lake with privacy guaranteed by a 17 kilometre crater ridge approximately 2 kilometres high.

      Prices range from 1 billion to 10 billion dollars. For further information and a brochure contact your local Century 25 agent. Hurry, these properties won't be on the market for long!

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    14. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the creator is 23 miles across" Is that how big he is?

    15. Re:pool by ickpoo · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering, why is it so clean? Shouldn't it be well coated with dust and dirt?

      --
      I am not a script! .Sig?
    16. Re:pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jedi's Lament A plain, brown cloak swirls As unsheathed light's Force flashes, An elegant death." Are you some kind of a fag?

    17. Re:pool by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1
      It just looks clean because it's actually a huuuuuge area represented in that little photograph.

      About 5 miles of land are represented by 1 inch of paper in that photograph (or something like that). Zoom in to 5 feet of land per 1 inch of paper, and you will probably see all kinds of dirt and sand.

    18. Re:pool by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1

      >A random site says that Americans use on average >80-100 gallons per day, which means that water >would supply a colony of 10,000 for 11,000 years.

      well actually that means it would sustain 10,000 average americans for 11,000 years. but in europe the toilets dont use nearly as much water, and i suppose the martian colonists won't dump water on their lawns or take daily showers. probly no golf courses, bathtubs or car washes either!

      on the other hand, a colony's agricultural greenhouse water useage comes to mind, and i wonder how efficient a greenhouse could be, if really necessary.

      i wonder if the ice was brought to mars by the very same meteor which caused the crater. many meteors are, in fact, made of ice. so it seems logical (to my layman's mind) that ice could pool into a lake in its very own impact crater.

      --
      "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  3. I have a suggestion... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 0
    The lake was found in an unnamed crater.

    How about naming it "Vito Corleone"?

    1. Re:I have a suggestion... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I just saw that movie, that was awesome.

    2. Re:I have a suggestion... by Swamii · · Score: 1

      You're obsessed with that movie, my friend. Great movie, but you're obsessed.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    3. Re:I have a suggestion... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      You're obsessed with that movie, my friend. Great movie, but you're obsessed.

      Really, what makes you say that?

      :)

    4. Re:I have a suggestion... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since it's a lake, why not name it after Fredo?

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    5. Re:I have a suggestion... by coopex · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you be sleeping with the fishes?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  4. HI-RES? by Agret · · Score: 4, Funny

    HI-RES JPG
    Size: 13,100 kb

    How big do you want to make it!? Good thing they are on a phat pipe or /. would've got them instantly ;)

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
    1. Re:HI-RES? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't know why they do this. Give us a 13 Meg JPG, and we have to put up with them overcompressing it. Which leads to a question. Are there any good lossless photo compress formats that work well on photos. Hint, not PNG.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:HI-RES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint, PNG

    3. Re:HI-RES? by TransEurope · · Score: 1

      The answer is: It is a very phat pipe ;)

      DFN = Deutsches Forschungsnetz (German Science Network)

      http://www.dfn.de/content/

    4. Re:HI-RES? by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      What I find amusing is how they provided a picture for those of you with oldskool 3d glasses:

      http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808 BE_1.html#subhead4

      And they include a super-high-res version of that too.

    5. Re:HI-RES? by starbird · · Score: 1

      tiff + lzw

    6. Re:HI-RES? by m_chan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try jpeg2000 in lossless mode.

      Another decent overview is available at O'Reilly.

      2000's lossy mode is superior to jpg as well.

    7. Re:HI-RES? by STrinity · · Score: 1

      HI-RES JPG
      Size: 13,100 kb

       
      Obviously Google is funding the ESA in preparation of launching mars.google.com.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    8. Re:HI-RES? by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
      How big do you want to make it!?

      ACTUAL SIZE!

    9. Re:HI-RES? by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

      JPEG 2000 is patent encumbered.

    10. Re:HI-RES? by Mehtuus · · Score: 1

      What I find amusing is how they provided a picture for those of you with oldskool 3d glasses

      I thought so too. lets see, I still have one of those in the back of the drawer... Yep!

      --
      http://mehtuus.googlepages.com
    11. Re:HI-RES? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      13 megs? Ha! NASA had a panorama from the Mars rovers that I clicked on without first checking the size. 30 MB! It was big enough that my computer froze up for about 10 minutes after I clicked the zoom button, while Firefox rendered it.

    12. Re:HI-RES? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Which leads to a question. Are there any good lossless photo compress formats that work well on photos. Hint, not PNG.

      What's wrong with PNG ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  5. Colonies? by tommertron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this mean sustainable Mars colonies are possible?

    --
    Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Colonies? by khendron · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, just sustainable hockey and curling leagues.

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    2. Re:Colonies? by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sustainable... no, but you might be able to use this to help a small outpost last a long time.

    3. Re:Colonies? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Not in the long term, no. In the short term, they were already possible before this discovery. In the medium term, this might make it somewhat easier.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Colonies? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Duh. Haven't you seen Total Recall? It also means there's a giant alien nuclear reactor just primed and waiting to heat up all that ice and make air for the entire planet.

    5. Re:Colonies? by dupup · · Score: 2, Funny
      sustainable hockey...leagues

      At last! From my point of view, this fact alone justifies all historical and future budget expenditures. I am pleased to see that my congressional reps are finally falling into line with my needs.

    6. Re:Colonies? by NardofDoom · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not quite yet, but it does make exploration a lot easier. The water can be used to make rocket fuel, air to breathe, hydrogen or methane for fuel, irrigate crops, flush toilets and drink.

      Considering we'd have to, at the very least, carry a lot of hydrogen along with us to do the same things, this is very, very good news.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    7. Re:Colonies? by vsprintf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not quite yet, but it does make exploration a lot easier. The water can be used to make rocket fuel, air to breathe, hydrogen or methane for fuel, irrigate crops, flush toilets and drink.

      Could you please put "drink" on the list before "flush toilets"? Thanks.

    8. Re:Colonies? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that people are using the word 'sustainable' to describe a possible colony on Mars, when the entire western world is not, at the present time, sustainable.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    9. Re:Colonies? by whimmel · · Score: 1

      "flush toilets"

      Geez, I hope people aren't stupid enough to contaminate drinking water with feces when it is in such limited supply.

      --
      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    10. Re:Colonies? by tommertron · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Western World isn't perpetually sustainable (is anything?) but it's at least a little more sustainable than a small colony with a frozen lake and no oxygen supply.

      --
      Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
  6. You know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were two of those craters that were semi-symmetrical it would be proof that men are indeed, descendant from mars. We build monuments to the fact.

  7. This is not news! by jarich · · Score: 4, Funny
    Nasa has known this for months!

    Here's the photo: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050401.html

    ;) It's humour! Laugh!

    1. Re:This is not news! by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not a joke, still from the Astronomy Picture of the Day site, is this picture, which according to the page text, was actually taken back in February, and reported in the June 2005 issue of Nature. So while it's news, it's not new news.

    2. Re:This is not news! by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, thats the ice lake in question...
      And for missions that need year(s) to actually get there, a week or two doesnt make it old

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:This is not news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A suggested rule for moderators: if the post has to come right out and *say* ";) It's humour! Laugh!", it probably doesn't deserve to get marked as Funny.

      I'm just sayin.

  8. When can I move there? by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious about how long everyone thinks it will take before people are able to live on Mars. Now that we're pretty sure there's water there, it isn't a far stretch to believe that the planet is more than capable of supporting human life.

    1. Re:When can I move there? by Altec+at+LM · · Score: 1

      Cue the Kim Stanley Robinson discussion thread...

    2. Re:When can I move there? by Moo+Moo+Cow+of+Death · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm curious about how long everyone thinks it will take before people are able to live on Mars. Now that we're pretty sure there's water there, it isn't a far stretch to believe that the planet is more than capable of supporting human life.

      Except for, you know...the sub zero temperatures and the lack of oxygen and all... :)

    3. Re:When can I move there? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      With or without self supplied life support?

      With, technically it could be done today. Practically speaking, it will probably take 30 plus years.

      Without, hundreds if not thousands of years. And by that time we (as a continually developing technological species) will probably outgrow the need for a planet to live on (or destroy ourselves first)...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    4. Re:When can I move there? by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It seems to be that "could" and "will" are two different things in this situation.

      Odds are, we could live on Mars right now -- learning to grow crops could take some work, but everything else is actually fairly straightforward. You can make bricks from the soil, make O2 from the atmosphere, mine water out of the soil, etc.

      Now, when *will* we live on Mars is something else. The answer is pretty much either "a couple of years after a major government decides it's worthwhile" or, more likely, "a few years after we find some way to make money by doing so".

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    5. Re:When can I move there? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Well, once the sun has warmed sufficiently to turn the earth into a dinosaur age steaming hell, life on Mars may be preferable. Give it abother 10,000 years or so...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    6. Re:When can I move there? by kfg · · Score: 1

      And there's still some question about whether the frozen lake contains frozen fish.

      KFG

    7. Re:When can I move there? by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, motivating a government to pursue this goal results in enormous economic gains over the mid to long term. Look at apollo. The sheer amount of research and manufacturing buildup that had to happen to make it possible gave a huge boost to the US in every corner of the economy as it did so. Big govt money spurs research, factory construction, employment to man those factories etc... and don't forget the societal boost as you give your nation a purpose.

      Of course, Senator Joe Doofus just sees that taxes will be raised a few dollars to see this accomplished and strikes it down.

      --

      -

    8. Re:When can I move there? by jackelfish · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except for the fact that the average surface temperature of Mars is -63 C, the atmospheric pressure is 100x lower than earth and the O2 composition of the atmoshpere is about 1,000,000x less.

      --
      "When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
    9. Re:When can I move there? by Surt · · Score: 1

      People can live on mars right now. It's just a challenge to get there. Of course you probably wouldn't live very long, but in geologic terms, you won't live very long here either.

      To live a happy life on mars will be centuries from now, barring major surprises in technology. Given a major surprise in technology, it could be next week.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:When can I move there? by dupup · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the lack of sufficient atmosphere to protect against UV radiation.

    11. Re:When can I move there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a couple of years after a major government decides it's worthwhile"

      "a few years after we find some way to make money by doing so"

      These are different how?

    12. Re:When can I move there? by Swamii · · Score: 1

      Except for, you know...the sub zero temperatures and the lack of oxygen and all... :)

      Welcome to Minnesota.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    13. Re:When can I move there? by Azzhole · · Score: 0

      If they have oil and natural gas up there I'd guesstimate about 3 months.

    14. Re:When can I move there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or, more likely, "a few years after we find some way to make money by doing so".

      Change "we find" to "Bill Gates finds" and "money" to "a shitload of money" and I'd say your prediction is right on.

    15. Re:When can I move there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't ruin a nerd's wet dream with actual facts! stop that.

    16. Re:When can I move there? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      And lack of atmospheric pressure. :)

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    17. Re:When can I move there? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      No. We couldn't live on Mars. Everything is not pretty straightforward. Sorry. We could put a colony on Mars, but it would require huge inputs of energy and equipment. There's a reason no one lives in the Sahara, ya know, and it has oxygen!

      And what the hell are you going to do with a brick?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    18. Re:When can I move there? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about how long everyone thinks it will take before people are able to live on Mars. Now that we're pretty sure there's water there, it isn't a far stretch to believe that the planet is more than capable of supporting human life.

      Except for, you know...the sub zero temperatures and the lack of oxygen and all... :)

      Vaporize the ice, and you get increased atmospheric pressure. Leave some of it liquid, and you can plant some simple plants, which will start turning carbon dioxide into oxygen. When they die, their decomposing remains will eventually form soil, allowing more complex plants to grow. This will eventually result in breathable atmosphere, assuming that there is enough water and carbon dioxide to form it and enough gravity to hold onto it.

      As for the temperature, increasing amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere will create a greenhouse effect which will warm the planet. And you could always just wear warm underwear :).

      I mean, if people could live in Greenland in preindustrial times, surely we can survive in Mars ?

      Anyway, the biggest problem I predict is that the lower gravity (and weaker sunlight and whatever else is different) on Mars will eventually cause those living there to develop into their own subspecies of humanity. Considering the history of humanity, this will almost certainly lead to interplanetary warfare.

      Then again, if we inhabit space, war in space is eventually unavoidable. Can't be helped, I suppose...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:When can I move there? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No. We couldn't live on Mars. Everything is not pretty straightforward. Sorry.

      Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why, when water can be found, food can be grown and oxygen can be produced ? What is this thing that bars us from living on Mars ?

      We could put a colony on Mars, but it would require huge inputs of energy and equipment.

      No, really ? Moving lots of people from one planet to another takes lots of energy and equipment ? Are you serious ?

      There's a reason no one lives in the Sahara, ya know, and it has oxygen!

      From Wikipedia: "2.5 million people live in the Sahara, most of these in Mauritania, Morocco and Algeria."

      And what the hell are you going to do with a brick?

      Build a house, presumably.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:When can I move there? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      I just don't think it's as easy as you make it sound, by many orders of magnitude. Cost per Kg is very high, and the input of resources required would be insanely high, and for what return? A self sustaining colony (ie; only needing the highest tech they need imported) would bankrupt the Earth, if it could be done at all. The idea of living on Mars is fantasy, presented to us in all sorts of romatisised forms, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

      As penance for the snarky tone of my original post, I present my long term plan for humanity in space;

      1. Stop all manned exploration now. Robots do more, cheaper, faster. And when they blow up, barely any one even notices.

      2. Design, build, and launch a bunch of probes to nearby stars. Provide probes with spore samples, so if they find liquid water, they can start terraforming right away. Also launch a big, expensive imaging system of some sort that can return data about planets orbiting local stars.

      3. As soon as the materials show up, start building a space elevator. "The first space elevator will be built 20 years after people stop laughing about it" -- A. C. Clark. We can then think about supporting small colonies on Mars. Lowering the cost of getting out of the gravity well is essential if we want to have any real future in space.

      4. If we discover a star in the 'hood with a oxygen ecosphere (here's to hopeing), make an Ark, and launch it. This would be more likely to be sustainable than a Mars colony, with a much greater potential payoff.

      5. Resume killing each other and depleting finite resources at astonishing rates.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    21. Re:When can I move there? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      2. Design, build, and launch a bunch of probes to nearby stars.

      This is pretty pointless to do so early in your program. Anything we launch in the near future (next 100 years or so) will take thousands of years to travel to their destination. If and when we get a real breakthrough -- cheap antimatter, Bussard ramjet, laser-boosted solar sail -- then we can get started on interstellar exploration. Also you don't seem to have any faith in non-planetary colonies, eg O'Neill cylinders, which will be much easier to get going than Martian colonies, let alone further afield.

    22. Re:When can I move there? by Tune · · Score: 1

      Big govt money spurs research, factory construction, employment to man those factories etc... and don't forget the societal boost as you give your nation a purpose.

      That sounds really sad. As though a complete nation is wandering purposeless without grand PR projects like this. Why not spend billions on something that benefits earth habitants in the process? Why is finding a cure for cancer, aids, or solving startvation, crime, or pollution a less worhty ambition?

  9. Amazing Photos by necrofluxneo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excerpt taken from a chat session between ESA and NASA lead engineers: NASA: "Our Mars Rovers are both still going strong, moving at over an inch per day, and finding all sorts of great new types of reddish sand. I could possible arrange to send you some sam-" ESA: "WATER!! YEAH BABY!! WE pWnEd j0000!!! MWA AHHAHAHAHAH!!"

    1. Re:Amazing Photos by clambake · · Score: 1

      Excerpt taken from a chat session between ESA and NASA lead engineers:
      NASA: "Our Mars Rovers are both still going strong, moving at over an inch per day, and finding all sorts of great new types of reddish sand. I could possible arrange to send you some sam-"

      ESA: "WATER!! YEAH BABY!! WE pWnEd j0000!!! MWA AHHAHAHAHAH!!"


      NASA: Damn it, fine, you wanna play? Mike, get over here...

      Mike: Yeah?

      NASA: Point the rovers north.

      Mike: Sure thing boss!

      ESA: Jerk.

    2. Re:Amazing Photos by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Mildly funny, but I will point out for the more serious NASA-haters that the rovers have been going for over a year and a half (6 times their "warranty"), discovered quite a bit about Martian geology and weather, provided a strong PR boost through the quality of their images, and are still going. Meanwhile, piggybacked Beagle crashed, and the Mars Express itself, which entered orbit around the same time the rovers landed, is still practically pulling it's pants on.

      Not to undermine the ESA's achievements of course. Express is a completely different mission and it's data will be equally as valuable as the rovers in the long run. ESA also did a great job with the Hguyen's probe.

  10. What's more... by burtdub · · Score: 5, Funny

    Romance advice authors have found evidence of men on Mars. No word on Venus.

    1. Re:What's more... by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      I think they all moved to the moon to live with the Amazon Women

  11. Yes. by krell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sustainable colonies are now possible, now that you won't have to deal with the expense of the colonists returning to Earth every winter to get in some ice fishing.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  12. how did we miss that before? by option8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    really. IANARS*, but how did previous missions miss that? haven't we already imaged most or all of the martian surface from orbit at a resolution high enough to see this glaringly obvious bullseye?

    and if it wasn't there a few years ago, where did it come from?

    * not a rocket scientist

    1. Re:how did we miss that before? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Mars is big. and the lake 20 miles is relitivly small. I chalange you to find a 20 mile lake on earth that you didn't know about before. using google maps.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:how did we miss that before? by mattdm · · Score: 4, Informative

      really. IANARS*, but how did previous missions miss that? haven't we already imaged most or all of the martian surface from orbit at a resolution high enough to see this glaringly obvious bullseye?

      Well, this patch of ice looks like it has a surface area of what, 75 square km? All of Mars is about 145 million square km, so we're talking about 0.00005% of the surface -- I can kinda see how that might take a while to notice.

      Basically, planets are big -- Mars may be smaller than the earth, but since there's no ocean, it has about the same land area.

    3. Re:how did we miss that before? by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that we're talking about what may be the ONLY LAKE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET.

      You'd think that the people looking at the images captured by this multi-million dollar probe would have spent a few thousand dollars to develop a rigorous method (i.e. automated) of scanning the images for bright spots that could be water.

      Otherwise, what's the point of taking the photos in the first place?

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    4. Re:how did we miss that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I chalange you to find a 20 mile lake on earth that you didn't know about before. using google maps."

      What are you trying to suggest with this? Is it actually supposed to be a challenge? It's harder to find cartoon porn with Google than find a previously unbeknownst ~20 mile lake.

      How about Princess Mary Lake? Heard of it before? I would doubt it.

    5. Re:how did we miss that before? by delcielo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you kidding? With 200,000 troops, a herd of inspectors and millions of pissed off disaffected Iraqi citizens we couldn't find WMD in a country less than the size of Texas.

      Those rocket scientist kids are doing okay.

      Maybe we should have sent them into the desert.

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    6. Re:how did we miss that before? by ehiris · · Score: 1

      I wonder how comes no one built a software to look for patterns such as those that could resemble ice in the collection of images. Making the difference between a lot of red and a lot of blue shouldn't be THAT hard.

    7. Re:how did we miss that before? by gamer4Life · · Score: 2, Informative

      That implies that they are there ;)

    8. Re:how did we miss that before? by option8 · · Score: 1

      yeah. that's what i'm saying.

      hell, with a few decades worth of time - when did we send out the mariner and viking missions? - i would expect even unskilled human labor to be able to find this.

      "red. red. red and bumpy. dark red. red. red. blue. red. red. red."

      "go back a sec..."

    9. Re:how did we miss that before? by mattdm · · Score: 1

      I wonder how comes no one built a software to look for patterns such as those that could resemble ice in the collection of images. Making the difference between a lot of red and a lot of blue shouldn't be THAT hard.

      They presumably *did* do this with software, although probably through something more sophisticated than simply looking for visible blue or red. Several of the instruments on the orbiter are specifically intended to help look for water.

    10. Re:how did we miss that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.... 'cos the US is actually not all that hot at high technology?

      All your best stuff is imported from Europe or Japan, and all your cheap stuff is imported from China.

      Of course, in Hollywood the US are best at everything - too bad you never told the Martians! Still, so long as you keep telling yourselves I suppose that's what counts.

    11. Re:how did we miss that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we only have Bush's word that the Iraqi citizens were disaffected before the US went in. And afterwards they were certainly disaffected, but with the Americans!

      It must be quite obvious there were never any WMD there by now.

      And I'm not sure how you would have sent the rocket scientists responsible for this picture into the desert. They are Germans, (from a different country, in case you have never heard of it), and Germany was deeply opposed to joining in a pointless agressive war aimed at ensuring the re-election of one of the most dangerous politicians on this planet.

    12. Re:how did we miss that before? by srleffler · · Score: 1

      Remember that Mars also has carbon dioxide ice, and you have to be able to tell the difference to know that you have found a lake of water ice.

    13. Re:how did we miss that before? by mopomi · · Score: 1

      We've seen such things before, and we've known that water ice exists at the poles. I'm fairly sure this crater has been the subject of a peer-reviewed paper in the past, but I haven't done a complete search of the literature, and I'm not sure the HRSC people have either. MGS MOC saw this crater as early as 2000 (and possibly early).

      http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E03 /E0302478.html
      http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m19_m23/images/M23 /M2301915.html
      http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m19_m23/images/M20 /M2001204.html
      http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E02 /E0200677.html
      (there are more, but I don't feel like posting all of them. . .)

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bi bcode=1976Sci...194.1341K&db_key=AST&data_type=HTM L&format=
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/1080497v1.pd f
      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=water+ice+mart ian+crater&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

    14. Re:how did we miss that before? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      They are Germans, (from a different country, in case you have never heard of it), and Germany was deeply opposed to joining in a pointless agressive war aimed at ensuring the re-election of one of the most dangerous politicians on this planet.

      I was tremendously amused, in the runup to George and Tony's Mesopotamian fireworks display, by hearing commentary from Americans who complained about the Germans being pacifists.

      Historical ignorance is one thing, but that was just comical. You guys want the old Germany back?

      Sure, this was a just war and it was all legal and OK and necessary because otherwise Saddam might have launched those WMDs, but it's like offering a recovered alcoholic just a half-pint... Sorry, but the Germans aren't allowed even a little wafer-thin war. You know what they get like after a few invasions.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    15. Re:how did we miss that before? by pedroloco · · Score: 1

      This feature has been imaged before.

    16. Re:how did we miss that before? by MisaDaBinksX4evah · · Score: 1

      I chalange you to find a 20 mile lake on earth that you didn't know about before. using google maps

      I already did that when I was cruising over Australia the other day. Man, that was easy to do. Can't you think up a harder challenge?

      --
      Misa no botha with yousa.
    17. Re:how did we miss that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it's been seen before - lots of times, but interpreted as CO2 frost. The Mars Express has the technology on board to differentiate between water and CO2.

      Isn't looking for water the main job of the US ground vehicles? Perhaps they should have been up in orbit with some specialist radar. At least you now know where to land the next probe!

  13. Too bad... by popo · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..its going to take Opportunity *forever* to get up there.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  14. rover by digidave · · Score: 1

    so... how far do you think those rovers can drive before they die?

    I guess we found the next landing spot, assuming they can either land it in the crater or drive into the crater after landing.

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    1. Re:rover by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      Wondering the same thing. Are the rover landings precise enough to land in that 35 km crater? The crater sides themselves seem pretty severe and pretty deep, I'd think driving (at least the current rovers) down would be a VERY long shot.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    2. Re:rover by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The crater sides themselves seem pretty severe and pretty deep, I'd think driving (at least the current rovers) down would be a VERY long shot.

      The latitude could be a problem too, albeit for a different reason - it's thought the ice is there because there's so little sunlight getting to the crater's floor.

      This hypothetical rover had better have an RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator), 'cause solar panels defintely aren't going to work too well... :-]

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:rover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Water implies Life by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Water => Life.

    I'll be damned surprised if we don't find life on Mars now that we know there's free-standing water (ice) on the planet.

    Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life, if we haven't already with our probes.

    1. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Water is needed by life. As a result, life implies water. Not the other way around.

    2. Re:Water implies Life by wrast · · Score: 1

      Just because there's water there means there must be life? Tell that to the scientists who have tried to create life using water + electricty + chemicals + etc, etc.

    3. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is water really needed by life? Is there some sort of scientific proof for that? We need to broaden our horizons a little bit, I think.

    4. Re:Water implies Life by HyperChicken · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the only evidence of life is that which exists on Earth. On Earth, where there be water, there be life. The statement "All life needs water" is supported by the evidence. The evidences scope, however, is rather narrow.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    5. Re:Water implies Life by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      'll be damned surprised if we don't find life on Mars now that we know there's free-standing water (ice) on the planet.

      We've known about the polar ice caps on Mars for at least 40 years.

    6. Re:Water implies Life by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Here is some discussion of the definition of life. Tell me, how are all of these properties implied by the existence of water?

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    7. Re:Water implies Life by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life, if we haven't already with our probes.

      Mars scientist Glezzargloop was denounced by the Martian Supreme Council for suggesting that 4 billion years ago, life was created on Mars by an alien probe from planet Earth which he also stated that destroyed itself in war shortly thereafter.

      "This is just blashemphy!" stated the Councils holy pontiff.

      While the more secular political cheif stated "This is just utter nonsesne, everyone knows we've elvoved from furry baablooz that lived in trees! To say that we came from another planet is just nonsense and conspiracy whacky!"

      The council did vote however to send it's own probe to debunk this theory even though it was question since an atomic war was about to break out with the outlanders across the ocean.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    8. Re:Water implies Life by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

      On Earth, where there be water, there be life.

      And where there be water, there be pirates. Yarrrr!

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    9. Re:Water implies Life by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      And where there be water, there be pirates. Yarrrr!

      Sadly, some people take Talk Like A Pirate Day a little too far. Unfortunately, daeley's been like this for nearly a year. The doctors tried medications and everything...but it doesn't seem to be working...sad really...

      I hope he gets better soon because TLAPD is right around the corner again... ;)

    10. Re:Water implies Life by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1
      Is water really needed by life? Is there some sort of scientific proof for that?

      Perhaps you should test whether life really needs water. Be sure to email us the results from your afterlife.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    11. Re:Water implies Life by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life, if we haven't already with our probes.

      Why not?

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    12. Re:Water implies Life by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      mars polar caps are dry ice (frozen CO2) http://www.mira.org/fts0/planets/097/text/txt003x. htm

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    13. Re:Water implies Life by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Arent there enough whales and shit to save here on earth?

      People wanting to declare parks and conservation areas on a dead rock in space, I mean, wtf?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    14. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be referring to Miller's experiment, where they did indeed produce organic compounds that are believed to have played a significant role in the evolution of earth life.

      This is an "infinite number of monkeys" problem--under appropriate conditions, you can produce important organic molecules. Then take a soup of organic molecules, and wait a REALLY long time for some of them to form a viable cell. This is the most accepted model for how life came to be on earth, so it's rather short-sighted to believe it couldn't have happened anywhere else. All it takes is a sufficiently long time with liquid water and somewhat favorable conditions.

      Granted, in no way does existance of water imply that there MUST be life. But it does make it a possibility. How strong a possibility depends on timing.

    15. Re:Water implies Life by gamer4Life · · Score: 1

      If life is found on Mars, I wonder what implications it has for religion on Earth?

      Will religious leaders dismiss it as contamination?

      Or will they evolve their religious theory to explain life on Mars as created by God?

    16. Re:Water implies Life by krell · · Score: 0
      'If life is found on Mars, I wonder what implications it has for religion on Earth? '

      The implications will be profound. The space program will be rejuvenated as Baptists, Muslims, and others clammor to be the first to "reach and teach" the heathen green infidel.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    17. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um Why?

      why is it that important to not contaminate it

      seriously, think about it for a moment

    18. Re:Water implies Life by gamer4Life · · Score: 1

      At last, a safe-haven from the RIAA.

    19. Re:Water implies Life by orthogonal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Why not?"

      A couple of very good reasons:
      1. We want to compare Mars life to Earth life. If Mars life has been contaminated with Earth life that'll be much harder to do. In particular, we'd like to know if, and to what extent, Mars life is similar to Earth life: does it use DNA, does its DNA use the same codons, are we descended from it. All of this will tremendously inform us about our own earth life, and will have strong implications for what life may be like elsewhere in the universe.
      2. And, if Mars life does exist, it's probably less complex than Earth life, and possibly easily overwhelmed by Earth life. Just for ethical reasons, we'd prefer not to destroy anything that is uniquely different.


      An analogy: European settlement destroyed much of the indigenous human heritage of South America. Catholic missionaries deliberately burned indigenous religious books, and pulled down indigenous temples. European explorers and settlers killed thousands of indigenous peoples with guns, and millions with European germs. We still have only a tenuous understanding of what human life was like before Europeans discovered South America, and that knowledge is slowly and painfully wrung from mall and inaccessible archaeological digs. (The same can be said of Australia and parts of Africa, where Europeans hunted natives for sport and received bounties for native scalps.) How much more would we know if we had an unbroken cultural history to learn from?

      The worst setback to our knowledge of Martian life -- and by extension, life anywhere other than Earth -- would be to heedlessly rush in and destroy the uniqueness of what we hope to study.

    20. Re:Water implies Life by krell · · Score: 0
      'An analogy: European settlement destroyed much of the indigenous human heritage of South America. Catholic missionaries deliberately burned indigenous religious books, and pulled down indigenous temples '

      It wasn't just here. Might as well point out that this happened in Mexico (which is in North America) in a very big way as well.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    21. Re:Water implies Life by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      They don't need to evolve their religious theory. It's already been adapted into Jehovah creating the universe. I'm not convinced life on another planet will be religion-shattering.

      Intelligent life is another matter, maybe.

    22. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps you should test whether life really needs water. Be sure to email us the results from your afterlife.

      It is this type of thinking that keeps us stuck in our search for life. More than likely, life in the cosmos will not match our paradigm for life. It may not need water, it may not be DNA (or even carbon!)-based. It will not have five senses such as we do. It may not "see", it may not "hear." If it does see, it may see in a slightly different part of the EM spectrum. What I am trying to say is that dogmatic statements like "life needs water" which are totally unproven will hinder our search for life in the universe.

    23. Re:Water implies Life by wrast · · Score: 0

      By the mid-1970's, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere "has been abandoned". Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Does and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture.

      Textbooks still present the Miller experiment as though it reflected the earth's early environment, when most geochemists since the 1960's would say it is totally unlike Millers. When the experiment is replayed using an accurate atmosphere by today's science, you do not get amino acids. Instead you get toxic chemicals, Formaldehyde and Cyanide.

    24. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sharks swim in water, there's water in my toilet . . ."

    25. Re:Water implies Life by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's pretty clear that life requires a solvent of some kind to form the complex molecules needed for life. Try and imagine amino acids forming in ice or some other solid. Water is regarded as the universal solvent since virtually everything will dissolve in it. Add to that that water is pH neutral and it provides a very hospitable environment for these molcules.

      Also, water has the unique property of being less dense in solid form than liquid form, hence ice floats. Thus, when bodies of water freeze, the ice settles on top of it. In other words, water freezes from the surface down, unlike other liquids. This action provides an insulating layer which allows life to flourish under the surface instead of being driven to the surface by ice forming from the bottom up.

      Water also has strong surface tension due to the hydrogen bonding between water molucules. This allows for capillary action in which plant can pull water up against gravity. This isn't necessary for the formation of primitive life, but it's difficult to imagine higher forms of life without it.

      No, all science points to water being the one molecule which is able to nurture and sustain life. It's an amazing compound despite the fact that it's so prevalent that we tend to take it for granted.

      --
      "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
    26. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay! I am convinced!

    27. Re:Water implies Life by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      True, it is important to learn what's there before we move in, but I think you'll have a hard time finding moral qualms in accidentally eradicating the local bacteria. Since what life we might find will almost definately be merely microscopic, or so I'd expect, it would be a little ridiculous to expect long-term protection of it once we've researched it adequately. In the long run, we're gonna move in, if not permanently then at least enough to displace the fauna. That is, assuming the first astronauts don't suffer a horrible and anti-climactic War of the Worlds denoument.

    28. Re:Water implies Life by SilicaiMan · · Score: 1
      Water => Life.

      Small correction:

      Water => Life as we know it, not life as it could be.

      Afterall, who says that all "living creatures" must be carbon-based? Let's not limit ourselves to our limited experience.

    29. Re:Water implies Life by OreoCookie · · Score: 1

      Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life

      Why? I'd like to contaminate it with several million acres of hardwood forest and another several million of prarie grasses. Now that would be cool.

    30. Re:Water implies Life by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      The Book of Genesis on states, basically, that God created Adam.

      If you'll note, it does not say anywhere that God only created life on Earth. It also doesn't say that Adam was it.

      And also, the story only says that God created life. It doesn't say "God created all the universe but only put life on Earth".

      So finding life on other worlds is not ruled out. And besides, even if we did find some martians under a rock somewhere, and they had their own religion, why would it be any different from the people on Earth who have other religions?

    31. Re:Water implies Life by TummyX · · Score: 1


      Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life,


      Most retarded comment ever.

    32. Re:Water implies Life by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      So on Mars are there...frozen pirates?

      Or...dun dun daaaaaa...ICE PIRATES!!!

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    33. Re:Water implies Life by RipTides9x · · Score: 1

      And we be the Pirates of the Crater-bbian. Yarrr!

    34. Re:Water implies Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his name was actually Iii-wik-wik-wik-bam Shoehorn.

  16. When do we start terraforming? by zardo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If we combine NASA and ESA, and maybe China if they want onboard, we could start terraforming that mofo in a few years!

    Dream on, I know...

    1. Re:When do we start terraforming? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      If a planet is geologically dead, which IIRC Mars is supposed to be, can it be terraformed?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:When do we start terraforming? by zardo · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I'm not sure what is possible, if it can't maintain an atmosphere then maybe an artificial environment could be created on the surface using inflatable domes or something. I don't think the word "terraforming" is too specific.

      I know that it has a solidified core and that is presumed to be the reason why there is no magnetic shield, the planet is heavily bombarded with radiation and that may prevent any life from growing there.

    3. Re:When do we start terraforming? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Well... One could make a 1,000km radius Fusion reactor at the center of Mars to make the magnetic field? Of course if you had that kind of technlogy, humans would most likely be at posthuman stage and not have to worry about things like atmophere or radiation.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:When do we start terraforming? by zardo · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of microorganisms on earth that live at the bottom of the ocean in near freezing temperatures, they produce methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. Perhaps something like that could be adapted to make mars a bit warmer, and who knows what the result would be.

    5. Re:When do we start terraforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China??? I'm sorry? what outstanding achievements have they accomplished other than sending a guy to space?
      It'd be far better to ask for russian cooperation instead of following the fashionable trend of being fooled by the loud and overestimated Chinese display of power.

    6. Re:When do we start terraforming? by HomerJayS · · Score: 1

      We've already got the how to turn your atmosphere into a greenhouse technology down pat. We should have no trouble at all warming Mars up to liquid water temperatures in no time at all.

    7. Re:When do we start terraforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen, terraforming a planet like Mars would involve emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases in order to create an atmosphere which would eventually be able to hold oxygen and warm up the planet.

      Basically we'd need very high output, pollution factories, pretty ironic given what we've done to the Earth.

    8. Re:When do we start terraforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA and ESA are civilian organizations. China's space agency is purely military. Russians started as military, but now are less integrated.

      Anyway, NASA+ESA+Russian space program would work together nicely. But "terraforming" a planet, well, how the heck would you do that with today's technology?

    9. Re:When do we start terraforming? by MisaDaBinksX4evah · · Score: 1

      "So, uh, Jim? How're we supposed to be doing this?"

      "Like this, mofo! You just stick this here heater to this here ice, and we terraform it's ass!"

      "Ok, that's great and all. But, I fail to see the, uh, point."

      "Because we terraforming it's ass, biatch!"

      "We'll, uh, yeah, and I'm 100% for that you know, but, uh, it looks like we're just creating a bunch of steam."

      "Because we terraforming it's ass!"

      "Uh, yeah... But after we're done, you know, 'terraforming it's ass,' will that really, uh, make any difference?"

      "Man, you just a hater! We terraforming this mofo and then we terraforming that mofo! Pretty soon, we terraforming so many mofos that even you get yourself a hot ass!"

      "Well, uh sure, just seems like it might take awhile."

      "Damn straight! You been cold since your mother squeezed you out. Like an ice-dispenser!"

      "Uh, right. Hey, uh, listen, I'm gonna go in for some coffee."

      "Sure, you go in for your coffee or whatever, but, remember, 'we terraforming it's ass!'"

      "I'll, uh, be sure to keep that in mind."

      --
      Misa no botha with yousa.
    10. Re:When do we start terraforming? by zardo · · Score: 1
      Oh Yeah, Russia too. Sure. China may not have much technological know-how, but they have a rapidly growing economy which they could contribute to the effort.

      Now in terms of technology, there is no technological hurdle, you just need heavy, heavy, heaaaaavy lifters to bring a lot of equipment over there. Start producing methane or something.

  17. New raffle -- Mars Rover Lake Thaw Drop by gearmonger · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK, taking entries now for when the rover will drop through the ice during the Spring thaw. Please format entries to indicate specific time, day, month and eon.

    1. Re:New raffle -- Mars Rover Lake Thaw Drop by Madoc+Owain · · Score: 1

      But there's no kobolds on Mars.. that we know of! note to mods - "American Gods", Neil Gaiman.

    2. Re:New raffle -- Mars Rover Lake Thaw Drop by gearmonger · · Score: 1

      Excellent book...excellent.

    3. Re:New raffle -- Mars Rover Lake Thaw Drop by gearmonger · · Score: 1

      This post was moderated "Off-Topic"? Wha?!? Wait...what website am I on again?

  18. Quick way to colonize by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now that we know there's ice there, we can tell the Canadians and they'll get a hockey team up there ASAP.

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:Quick way to colonize by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Funny

      No! We must not contaminate Mars with the neutral zone trap!

      Tell the scandinavian countries, they know how to play real hockey, not that canadian thug shit.

    2. Re:Quick way to colonize by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      I believe you are confusing NHL rules with international rules.

      NHL rules are not Canadian rules. We play both NHL and international hockey up here.

      We all know that NHL hockey sucks. It's designed to sell, which according to the money behind it apparently means more time hitting/fighting, less time playing hockey.

      Canadian thug shit, hardly. I'll show you some Canadian thug shit ;)

      Best Canadian hockey is World Juniors and Olympic hockey, without a doubt.

      --
      No Comment.
    3. Re:Quick way to colonize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell the scandinavian countries, they know how to play real hockey, not that canadian thug shit.

      Hate to break it to you, Sven, but that "canadian thug shit" *is* real hockey. Since, you know, they invented the sport and stuff. But, hey, that scandinavian pussy shit is great too.

    4. Re:Quick way to colonize by naarok · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      According to this link, the trap was invented by the Swedes. NHL teams like the Panthers, Ducks and Devils trap far more than say Edmonton or Calgary. In fact, I think the only Canadian team that traps is Ottawa. So no, trapping isn't a Canadian thug thing, it came to the NHL when expansion diluted the talent pool and brought a bunch of useless US teams into the league.

    5. Re:Quick way to colonize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's designed to sell, which according to the money behind it apparently means more time hitting/fighting, less time playing hockey.

      WTF? Designed to sell? My family has been playing "thug" style hockey every winter for the past 60 years. It has nothing to do with selling or the NHL and everything to do with simply being a fun thing to do when you're out on the pond, insulated like the Michelin Man, and looking to take out some of the winter depression with agressive physical activity. It's a beautiful thing. And yes, we play outdoors (usually) as that is also the traditional way to play hockey (though it's sadly practiced that way anymore because of all the groomed-ice pussies).

    6. Re:Quick way to colonize by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trying to skate in low gravity would definatly be an interesting concept! Hiting would be fun too! Booooooing Booooing!

    7. Re:Quick way to colonize by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      Do any of you assholes have a sense of humor? Geez.

    8. Re:Quick way to colonize by zx75 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh great! Lots of sand, some ice that we thought shouldn't have been there... now MARS is going to have an NHL before we Winnipegers get our back!

      --
      This is not a sig.
    9. Re:Quick way to colonize by blincoln · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll show you some Canadian thug shit ;)

      Funniest thing I saw when I was going to university in Canada:

      A mall store selling shirts and baseball caps with "South Central" embroidered on them in that gothic German "gangsta" font.

      Yayuh, I'ma V-town SOLDJAH, foo. Straight outta South Central Richmond, rollin' up on tha Commercial Drive crew. Ready ta drop like a Quebecois separatist on yo ass. Chillin' wit a Molson in one hand, butta-tart inna othah. Yo.

      offtopic, no karma bonus.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    10. Re:Quick way to colonize by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      If you're that desperate for hockey, you could always move to Atlanta, or Raleigh....y'all.

  19. Maybe. by doughrama · · Score: 0


    Thought I'd turn it into a poll.

  20. Well... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    ...if nothing else that is one cool photo, definitely worthy of a place on my desktop.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  21. What if we're being baited by the evil martians? by zardo · · Score: 1
    Now everyone is going to want to land right there, and then the evil machines rise out of the ground and vaporize us!

    Seriously, doesn't it look a little strange? This perfectly round circle in the middle of a hostile desert, and in it is this nice clean chunk of pure water.

    Or maybe thats left over from the last people who visited Mars.

    Just throwing out wacky ideas here...

  22. Obl. Futurama reference. by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

    Just move to Utah.

    --
    Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    1. Re:Obl. Futurama reference. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Mr. Wong: We own whole Western hemisphere. That good hemisphere.
      Prof. Farnsworth: It's the same way on Earth.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  23. NAUSEA by krell · · Score: 0
    ' If we combine NASA and ESA, and maybe China '

    The National Aeronautics United Space European Agency?

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  24. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our, um... Aquatic martian overlords?

  25. Why is this important? by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't get it. The BBC article says:

    The existence of water on Mars raises the prospect that past or present life will one day be detected.

    ...

    It also boosts the chances that manned missions can eventually be sent to the Red Planet.

    Large reserves of water-ice are also known to be held at the poles on Mars.

    We've known for a long time that there was water ice at one of the poles. We also know there's ice underground at lower latitudes. If there's surface ice in crater at a slightly lower latitude, why does that say anything about past or present life on Mars? It's not obvious to me that this has any serious implications for human exploration either. If the idea is to get drinking water and/or hydrogen from local supplies, then is it really that significant that it can be done at a slightly lower latitude? And if the goal of the mission is to look for past or present life, then the equator is clearly where you want to visit, not high latitudes. Likewise if humans were going to set up a permanent presence on Mars, they'd probably want to do it near the equator, where the cold wouldn't be so devastating.
    1. Re:Why is this important? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Likewise if humans were going to set up a permanent presence on Mars, they'd probably want to do it near the equator, where the cold wouldn't be so devastating.

      Hmm, I would think that a difference of 50 degrees (-50 C vs. -100 C) would not be as much of a problem as being near to vs. far away from your life sustaining ice supply. Which is why everyone has been thinking that the first base should be at the south pole. However, craters like this would certainly expand the possibilities and make a base near the equator more practical...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    2. Re:Why is this important? by Anthracks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it might be that the ice on the poles is frozen CO2 (like "dry ice"), whereas this is frozen H20. At least that's what I inferred fromt he article.

      --
      Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
    3. Re:Why is this important? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia article says they both have water ice, plus dry ice in the winter. I seem to remember that the caps were at least somewhat asymmetric in composition as well.

  26. Now I lay me down to sleep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now I lay me down to sleep
    I pray the double lock will keep;
    May no brick through the window break,
    And, no one rob me till I awake.


    Well, I guess we know on which side of the tracks you live!

  27. Re:What if we're being baited by the evil martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks more like an eye...
    Maybe they ARE watching! ::Tinfoils his roof::

  28. Millions of years? by wrast · · Score: 0

    "most of the water vanished millions of years ago"

    And they know this how?

    1. Re:Millions of years? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      because it's not there anymore, just like the happy pink floating martian elephants

    2. Re:Millions of years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geological studies have found that much of the wear and tear on planets surface was most likely caused by flowing liquid, and that said liquid was likely water.

      Generally accepted as the likely culprit.

    3. Re:Millions of years? by truckaxle · · Score: 1

      Only difference is that the happy pink floating martian elephants didn't leave there foot prints unfortunately.

      However there is strong evidence of water on Mars at one time and when you talking geologically time, millions of years is a good assumption. Look at some of the images and you can see tributaries whose structures are only known to form via a fluid based erosion.



      burn baby burn

    4. Re:Millions of years? by wrast · · Score: 0, Troll

      You didn't answer the question. The *water* "vanished millions of years ago". How do they know it wasn't 1000 years ago or for that matter 10 years ago?

    5. Re:Millions of years? by wrast · · Score: 1

      Why assume anything when you're exploring a planet you know very little about? Maybe erosion occurs must faster (or slower) than it does on Earth. Basing scientific conclusions on huge assumptions like this just tell me that some scientist is looking to get a gov't grant for some theory he's concocted.

    6. Re:Millions of years? by rebelcool · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you know so much more than people with phds in geology.

      Get a grip, man.

      --

      -

    7. Re:Millions of years? by wrast · · Score: 0

      I never said anything about being smarted than Geology PHDs. I'm simply asking the question. Are they basing their "millions" based on what the Earth does? That seems like a completely legitimate question to me. If you think it's not, tell us why and keep the personal attacks to yourself.

    8. Re:Millions of years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Yeah, because you know so much more than people with phds in geology."

      Sure! Just like the inteligent design people know better than the geologists that the Grand Canyon was cut not over millions of years, but by the great flood of Noah.

    9. Re:Millions of years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, sure! All their mountains of evidence are not to be believed because those geologists are part of the naturalastic/materialistic global conspiracy.

    10. Re:Millions of years? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      heh, a person with a PhD in GEOlogy has studied the history of EARTH as recorded in rocks and structures. Seems they might make some ASS-u-me-s about Mars.

    11. Re:Millions of years? by rebelcool · · Score: 1

      Yeah because on mars, the laws of physics are drastically different! Cats live with dogs! Gravity pulls you up instead of down! The dirt is full of magical mystery pixies that make it behave unlike anything seen on earth!

      --

      -

    12. Re:Millions of years? by erunaheru · · Score: 1

      'Cause we've ad probes there for more than ten years?

    13. Re:Millions of years? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      there's been some dramatic rethinking of the possible history of mar's structure in my lifetime, including in the past assuming mars at one time had plate tectonics and over a billion years of water shaping similar to earth. Not any more.....

  29. Can someone please enlighten me... by rootedgimp · · Score: 0

    ...as to, in light of this article, why there has been such debate about whether or not there was at one point water on Mars. I mean seriously, did we start forming "intelligent" theorys about the planet before we even had high res images of the entire planet? Sorry but to me this makes absolutely no sense. Have we taken high res images of the moon? Shit maybe there IS a portion of it made of cheese after all! (Sorry but this is just really mindblowing to me that we had not previously discovered this. Like, you know, 10+ years ago)

    1. Re:Can someone please enlighten me... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I mean seriously, did we start forming "intelligent" theorys about the planet before we even had high res images of the entire planet?

      Yes. In science you start out by forming a hypothesis, which is really just an educated guess. You then go forward to test this hypothesis. And depending on the results you reject or accept the hypothesis.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  30. Which begs the question by krell · · Score: 0
    ' No, just sustainable hockey and curling leagues '

    For that matter, is Canada actually a sustainable colony?

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  31. ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a lot of water also here. How about oil?
    Come on, if we can find oil on Mars we don't need to bother our islamic friends anymore.
    Also, if there is life on Mars, then we need to teach them what a democracy is with our nukes.

  32. So confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "although most of the water vanished millions of years ago"

    I love when we talk about things with such confidence, like we know what happened millions of years ago because we are so smart now.

    Maybe a little humility in our speech would save face later when a new "better" theory comes out.

  33. OT: IANA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK I'm getting fed up with this and I got off the wrong side of bed this morning so...

    IANAL and IANAD are fine, but if you're only using an acronym ONCE and you have to expand it anyway to make it useful, DON'T use the fucking acronym. Maybe you think it's funny to use "IANARS" and expand it (badly) with a footnote, but that joke became lame 2 seconds after it was first used. And these days, it's lame, lame, lame.

    Just say: "IANA rocket scientist", "IANA astronomer", etc and everybody understands and you don't have to say what you want twice, and nobody gets upset.

    BTW, rocket science has got nothing to do with this. So your attempt at cleverness failed twice, in a big way.

    1. Re:OT: IANA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, you got up on the wrong side of the bed, but IANATP*.
      I Am Not A Trained Psychologist

    2. Re:OT: IANA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAP* but what crawled up your ass this morning?

      *I am not a proctologist.

  34. Sod the life by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    "Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life"

    Bollocks it is. Our next responsibility is to sell rights to do whatever you like with the land.

    --
    Deleted
  35. Re:All of Mars beeing mapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haven't we already imaged most or all of the martian surface from orbit ...
    Well according to Principal Skinner on the Simpsons it's already been mapped yes. When she wins the spelling bee he gives her a scale model of the planet mars...
    Turns out, the surface actually looks like a to look red Kickball!

  36. Re:No by RickPartin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah because ice is impossible to melt. But maybe one day we will develope some sort of heat technology.

  37. CmdrTaco by fbartho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Always
    Never
    Sometimes
    Only with Hot-Grits

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  38. Re:What if we're being baited by the evil martians by zardo · · Score: 1

    What is that dark stuff on the edge of the ice? Maybe that is some sort of micro-organism growing...

  39. When NASA discovers oil on Mars by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1
    I'm curious about how long everyone thinks it will take before people are able to live on Mars.

    Truthfully, it will happen when the benefits outweigh the costs. That doesn't mean we can't explore. I just don't see a need to stay.

  40. Planetary acne cream by blankoboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fools, that ain't water! Don't they know an dab of Oxy5 when they see it? Poor Mars is covering up a zit and you got it on camera....he won't be happy now. NASA get photoshoppin' on those pics before Mars finds out! He'll be kickin' them rovers off it's surface!

    1. Re:Planetary acne cream by coke_scp · · Score: 1

      That's not CO2 or Oxy5, it's Ice-9.

    2. Re:Planetary acne cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool, that ain't NASA!

      Don't the Americans know that there are other countries in space?

  41. How many times can you 'find' the same thing?! by imstanny · · Score: 0
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but every time I see news about Mars, it's always a 'discovery' of evidence that there is either water or some kind of extinct bacterial lifeform on mars.



    How can you keep finding the same thing?! Either mars has water or it doesn't.

    1. Re:How many times can you 'find' the same thing?! by krell · · Score: 0
      ' Correct me if I'm wrong, but every time I see news about Mars, it's always a 'discovery' of evidence that there is either water or some kind of extinct bacterial lifeform on mars. '

      Well excuuuse us for the lack of stories such as "noseless pale freak charged with molesting children in Martian Neverland", "Alabama teen missing on Mars" and the ever-popular "3 troops died today on Martain desert". We will try to do better in the future to provide you news stories that present the vast panoply of human drama that takes place on the Martian surface.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
  42. You know what this means. by blair1q · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity sit on the Martian regolith listening to the news.

    They look at each other, then, after a beat, say, in unison, "ROAD TRIP!"

  43. Neat...a frozen lake... by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

    Cool beans. Let me find my swim fins and flame-thrower, and I'll be ready for da plunge. :)

  44. Meddling Fools! by popo · · Score: 2, Funny


    I see you've found the sliding roof of my Martian lair!

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  45. Of course Mars lost its water long ago. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    It was all sucked down to earth in a 75,000 mile long waterspout thousands of years ago.

    1. Re:Of course Mars lost its water long ago. by zardo · · Score: 1

      Didn't Larry Nivel write a good book about something like that, Rainbow Mars? I think they were trees that somehow flew into orbit and landed on earth, somehow, or something. Heh.

    2. Re:Of course Mars lost its water long ago. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      James P. Hogan, Cradle of Saturn. Saturn's only 4000 years old, spit out of Jupiter's core. Previous to that and the upheaval it caused, Mars was in some kind of co-orbit with the Earth, losing its water and biosphere to the earth. The features on it correspond to those found in hindu scripts describing a god. Supposedly, that's how the indians even knew the earth was spherical, for a time, they could see its reflection in the oceans of Mars.

      The deluge of water from Mars explains alot of flood mythologies around the world.

      Was a neat story, he writes well. You oughtta check it out sometime.

    3. Re:Of course Mars lost its water long ago. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Supposedly, that's how the indians even knew the earth was spherical, for a time, they could see its reflection in the oceans of Mars"

      The 'feats' of our ancestors always seem to astound modern man, sometimes even to the point where aliens are invoked to explain it (eg the great pyramid).

      In this case, it is in fact extremely easy not only to determine that the Earth is spherical but to get a fair approximation of things like the dimensions of the Earth or the distance from the Sun.

      You need only a piece of stick (techical term: 'gnomon'), a journey of several hundred miles and some basic geometry.

      All well within the capabilities of ourselves today, let alone our ancestors of several thousand years ago.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:Of course Mars lost its water long ago. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fool that thinks you need anti-gravity to build the Giza pyramid. Everything I said was regarding a work of fiction, and a compelling one at that. His story may be fictional, but at no point does he invoke bullshit soft scifi to explain anything. Check it out. He wrote another novel in the 70s, where Luna was a moon of planet #5 in between Jupiter and Mars... its destruction hurtled it sunward, and was eventually captured by Earth.

      In the appendix of a later edition, he tells of how a friend of his, a scientist, pointed out that we could prove that the moon was orbiting earth for millions of years... tidal stress records in the oldest coral reefs and so forth (this is before geology had proved common ancestry for the earth and moon ~ 4bil years ago). He took that to heart, and Cradle of Saturn is a better book for it... you'd be hard pressed to prove that what was in the story is impossible.

      Does seem to have a thing for stories in which the solar system keeps getting fucked up though. Haha.

  46. Re:No by krell · · Score: 2, Funny
    ' Yeah because ice is impossible to melt. But maybe one day we will develope some sort of heat technology. '

    This would almost certainly involve infrared radiation. We certainly don't want to get involved with radiation: it is deadly and it will turn us into mutants! Besides, I don't think you will want to transform this frozen lake with heat. This process typically produces a lethal substance known as dihydrogen monoxide

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  47. Where's the dust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so clean it looks like it could be recent. And what the hell is that black rock formation? The well head?

  48. Is this evidence of pooling of liquid water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anyone who knows whether or not this points to evidence of pooling of previously liquid water on the surface? Or could it be an aquifer bubbling water up to the surface instead? I sometimes find the claim that liquid water can't exist on Mars a bit spurious-- combine salination and the 1/100 of earth's air pressure, I don't see why that can't happen...

  49. Ahah, gotcha, Blofeld! by d3m057h3n35 · · Score: 1

    Come to think of it, this does remind me of You Only Live Twice. I never expected to find a reason to to colonize Mars starting with James Bond, but there it is.

  50. Perhaps that ice wasn't always there. by ZSpade · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't it possible that whatever made the crater is also what brought the ICE? I mean, if it was a comet it could have made a very large and localized ice deposit; since they already mentioned that most of the ice had disappeared years ago. Well, that's just my little hypothesis, who knows how old that crater is!

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:Perhaps that ice wasn't always there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A comet that made a crater that size would have been vaporized in the impact.

    2. Re:Perhaps that ice wasn't always there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The heat created by the kinetic energy of an incoming comet being released as it slams into the planet was sufficient to move a LOT of regolith to create a crater. It was certainly enough to evaporate all the ice in the comet. The winds in the atmosphere would have spread the water around the planet rather than allowing it to condense right over the crater. As a first guess the water ice in the crater was thawed from the underlying regolith by the impact and flooded up into the crater.

    3. Re:Perhaps that ice wasn't always there. by ZSpade · · Score: 1

      true that the winds would have moved it wround, but that even then there would be more water localized in that area from such an event.

      Take phoenix arizona for instance. All of the suburbs there have altered the local weather patterns, mostly do to their lawns. People water their lawns day and night, and most of that water evaporates, and while some of it spreads out, most of it stays rather close and forms rain clouds. This increases humidity, rain, and local vegitation. I can't imagine a comet dropping a lakes worth of water would be too much different. sure not all of the water would stick around, but it would certainly be more than likely that the majority of it would be near the crater. Well, just a simple hypothesis again. It's just as likely that the only reason it stuck around there is that the walls of the crater are sufficiently high enough to create shade during a long enough perioud in the day/year to keep it cool. It just doesn't look so much like that, as it appears the ice protrudes from the surface quite a bit.

      --
      Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
  51. Melted when astroid hit? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    I wonder, with all the ice frozen into the soil, if the pool we see here was created when the astroid which build the crater hit. (i.e. all the ice melted and pooled in the bottom of the crater, then froze) Rather then water that was left behind from the origional rivers and streams on mars.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  52. Re:Travel Advisory by vertinox · · Score: 1

    If the idea is to get drinking water and/or hydrogen from local supplies, then is it really that significant that it can be done at a slightly lower latitude?

    Hoo boy! Man, when the Martian tour guide said don't drink the water, they mean don't the water! I haven't had runs like that since I drank tap water in Mexico city! And even then it didn't try to crawl out of the toliet... That god for hotel plungers.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  53. Canadian Exploration Plans by airship · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meanwhile, the Canadian Space Agency today released an artist's rendition of their new planned Mars Explorer Vehicle.

    http://www.zamboni.com/machines/model700.html

    They also announced that the expedition will be fully underwritten by the Canadian Hockey League.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
    1. Re:Canadian Exploration Plans by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      Canadian Space Agency! Hah! Mod parent funny!

    2. Re:Canadian Exploration Plans by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 1

      The zamboni was invented in California, so the joke isn't as funny as it should be.

  54. Looks like a ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that thinks this looks like the largest toilet bowl in the universe?

  55. Green tendrils? by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Grab the high-res overhead shot, and look at the bottom left edge of the ice patch. There's what a faint green discoloration which look like some sort of "tendrils" creeping up the side of the ice. Anyone have any theory what those are? Could they just be some sort of color distortion introduced by the camera? Or is this possibly some sort of organism?

    1. Re:Green tendrils? by CdXiminez · · Score: 1

      Comparing with the upper left area near the black patch, I would say that the light green patches are places where the ice is shallow; where the crater floor is near the surface of the ice.
      But I think that doesn't quite explain the long straight 'tendril' halfway in the patch you indicate.

    2. Re:Green tendrils? by killerkalamari · · Score: 1

      Was just about to comment on the same thing: there are bright green patches near the upper right shore, and darker green ones in the upper left. There are also dark brown patches around the ice on the left ridge, maybe wet dirt? The upper right ridge doesn't seem to have these green spots, though... seems like it should if this were some kind of life form.

    3. Re:Green tendrils? by SpamJunkie · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're right! In all our excitement over finding more water on a planet we already knew had water we completely missed the MASSIVE LIFEFORM in the photo!

      Thanks for the tip!

      - NASA

    4. Re:Green tendrils? by Aeternal · · Score: 1

      Hah. They are just loads of little green men on holiday at the beach.

    5. Re:Green tendrils? by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, these are very interesting. At first i thought they might be an artifact of the camera or something but after some minor investigation.

      Im pretty sure those are there in the physical sense. Try loading the hi-res overhead shot into gimp or whatever your favorite gfx proggy might be. Invert the colors on it (turns the water black) and then using the brightness and contrast adjustments you can really bring out the shapes. What is particularly interesting is that on the topleft corner of the ice are what can only be described as oblong crystaline structures. The green tendrils (when processed reveal regions that look very fractilious in nature. Wheras around the top and right side the edges seem to be pockmarked splodges showing the kind of distribution one might expect of bacteria on an agar plate.

      here's a pic (you'll get better resolution if you experiment on the larger image)

      http://80.68.88.97/~poo/analysis.jpg

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    6. Re:Green tendrils? by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      Unless it says somewhere that the colors in the photo are faithful renditions, I wouldn't get to fixed on examining the colors to derive possibilities of matter. Even if the colors were faithful, there's a thousand ways to explain colors seen on ice.

    7. Re:Green tendrils? by blincoln · · Score: 2, Informative

      It looks like an artifact of either graphics compression or a glitch in the sensor data to me:

      - The shapes are very angular, unlike everything else in the image.

      - It's only there in the blue channel. If it were really present, there should be *some* trace of it in red or green, but if you remove the blue channel the shapes disappear.

      - If I re-compress the image as a minimum-quality JPG, the amount of green "tendrils" dramatically increases.

      My best guess is that it's a JPG artifact due to the extreme colour change at the rock/ice boundary.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    8. Re:Green tendrils? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You've discovered JPG compression artefacts.

    9. Re:Green tendrils? by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

      I've seen enough JPG compression artefacts in my time to know that these are not them.

      Aside from the fact that the image resolution and size being so huge. The size shape , orientation and localisation of the artefacts would suggest that JPG artefacts not to be the case. In actual fact I think its quite clear that you are making a statement regarding a topic that you know little about. Next time keep your mouth shut or comment on something which you actually have some knowledge!

      Did you actually attempt the transforms i suggested on the image? ... didnt think so.

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  56. APOD by Stonan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Was originally an Astronomy Picture Of the Day. (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050720.html) This is a good site or backgrounds!

    P.S. For other good/neat pics goto http://epod.usra.edu/archive.php3 (Earth Science Picture Of the Day)

    --
    The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
  57. Replacing what's there by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 0

    Mars operated very nicely on its own, but I'm sure we've managed to bring the lovely disease and other fun things over there in our rovers. Time will tell, but don't you think that we aren't supposed to be there for a reason?

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    1. Re:Replacing what's there by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      The rovers were sterilized to prevent precisely that from happening.

    2. Re:Replacing what's there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty incoherent - "don't you think that we aren't supposed to be there for a reason?".

      Where on Earth (or Mars!) did you get the idea that we aren't "supposed" to be there? Unless it says something in the Bible about it, in which case I'll just nod and back away...

    3. Re:Replacing what's there by Suicyco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very nicely? The damn place went and lost most of its water and atmosphere, has little or no volcanic activity (anymore) and is a desolate chunk of dirt. Remember, it had vast oceans, flowing water, etc. for some lengthy period of time.

      How do you know "we aren't supposed to be there" reason or no? If we weren't "supposed" to be there then why can be go there? Of course, you mean that by divine plan we "aren't supposed to be there". If your god makes things that we aren't supposed to do, then why can we do them?

  58. What is NOT mentioned, though... by jd · · Score: 3, Informative
    ...if you look at the photograph, you will see two small impact craters in the ice and one large one. There are no others.


    Assuming that meteorites strike Mars fairly evenly, it should be possible to guess how old the ice lake is. It is certainly newer than the crater it is in (duh!) and from the lack of craters on the ice or in the crater the ice is in, there must be a very definite upper limit to how old it can be.


    There are two possible sources for the water (an issue the ESA and NASA don't really discuss on their sites): We know there's an underground ice lake, for a start. It is possible that when the impact occured, it burst through to such a lake, melting the water temporarily. The water would reach the surface and re-freeze.


    The second possibility is that the surface has indeed been warm enough for liquid water, despite evidence from those with martian meteorites. This is possible, as the meteorites may well have been from a cold part of Mars. It could well be that Mars couldn't -sustain- warm temperatures, so warm regions were geologically active regions. Water takes finite time to freeze, especially when flowing, allowing for water-formed features even outside regions that would have sustained liquid water.


    The latter explanation would be great for those looking for life, but the ice-spray on the rim of the crater, along with the bulge of land under the ice, is more indicitive of the former. Rats!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Two impact craters are not enough to give any meaningful info on the age of the ice. Crater aging requires a large enough area that random events are 'averaged out'.

      Two impacts could easily have come in at the same time, from the same source --- etc.

      But yeah, I'm going to wager that the sibling to this is correct; the ice probably got there by being the cause of the crater. If we land it would be easy to tell for sure, and also to tell how old the crater is (I'm guessing rather young, in the grand scheme).

    2. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by pVoid · · Score: 1
      You don't seriously believe that the flaming ball of comet that created that impact crater very calmly deposited the water into that crater like pouring wine from a bottle...

      I think it is far more likely that if a comet had hit the surface, and created the crater:

      a) the water would have evaporized into the atmosphere due to the small thermonuclear explosion caused by said event.

      or

      b) if there was any way the water managed to condense fast enough after the explosion, the water would be spread out like frost on a field on an autumn morning. There is no way it just perfectly poured into that crater like that.

    3. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I am serious though. Also have a degree in orbital mechanics, so I can at least say that I am familiar with the energy involved.

      Very little atmosphere to break the comet up before impact. Could easily leave a bajilion little peices of itself buried all over the impact site. A few hundred thousand years of warming and cooling would cause the majority of the ice to sublimate, bounce around the 'hot' areas of the crater (those that get hit by sunlight) then, eventually, hit a cold, cold rock. And stick. Eventually all the ice in the crater would be located in one small area, minus that sublimated vapor which managed to escape over the top of the crater wall (the vast majority, I'm guessing).

      Your arguments are certainly valid. *shrug* I will toss out my strongest counter argument though: if you are correct, then *almost every single crater* should have an ice deposit. At the very least craters in that general area (if it is water table coming up from the impact), or at that general latitude and above (if it is simply water deposition into well shaded areas from a once-wet mars).

      Not saying that most craters don't -- not sure we have that data? Could be buried under a few feet of regolith I guess.

      cheers,

    4. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by coopex · · Score: 1

      Since you don't seem to know that a thermonuclear explosion is caused by fusing atomic nuclei, I think it's safe to say that your opinions on how the water got there are equally devoid of scientific merit.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    5. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Personally I took it as a turn of phrase. Really, I know this is slashdot, but it is ok to assume that not everyone is an idiot.

      Any significant impact can easily exceed a nuclear explosion in terms of energy released. Very easily, actually; the largest single warhead that can be created is around 20 megatonnes. The release from a significant impact can dwarf that.... just look at Olympus Mons -- possibly created thanks to a massive impact at the antipode (hold a globe of Mars, you'll see what I mean). Try and do THAT with a couple of nukes.

    6. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by pVoid · · Score: 1
      Yeah,I'm not asserting anything either.

      My gut tells me that it looks like the crater ruptured a phreatic layer and the water just seeped out and froze. What I find particularly indicative of this is that there's concentric marks emenating from the rock cluster on the top left. Almost as if the water spilled out, and froze over several cycles.

      The only thing I'm not sure about, and am too lazy to investigate, is whether Mars does currently have any time of day where the water phase could actually pass to liquid until it spilled over, and then freeze again. (Maybe, at dusk or dawn, the temperature and pressure is just right to allow for it?)

      Anyways, like I said, I'm too lazy to check.

    7. Re:What is NOT mentioned, though... by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      In direct sunlight the air temperature would be irrelevent :~)

      Not so much that I'm too lazy to check on stuff -- although that weighs heavily -- but also that no amount of checking I could do would confirm or deny any of the proposals we've made :~)

      I didn't attribute anything significant to the concentric marks. Hmm.

      Anyway, fun stuff :~)

      Cheers,

  59. Watch it by krell · · Score: 0

    Watch it before someone mods you "-1 scurvy knave".

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  60. They will need a nuclear reactor, regardless by zardo · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine any mission to mars that didn't involve a nuclear reactor, it is the only practical way of providing heat for long periods of time. Any mission that involved actually drilling or digging for water ice, and processing material which is mostly earth with a small percentage of ice sounds like it would be very risky. If the process was not successful, it would mean the explorers would be dependant on the supplies they brought, which would make a return trip urgent. In this case, a nuclear reactor would be the only critical factor, since they water ice is right there to be picked up right on the surface. Food is another matter, but I suppose a 2 or 3 year stockpile of food would be necessary, while they experiment with greenhouses on the surface.

  61. Nope by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "
    Our next responsibility is to try very very hard not to contaminate Mars with Earth-life, if we haven't already with our probes."

    wrong, our responsibility is to expand the species.
    By definition that means we must contaminate it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  62. Two words by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    a few years after we find some way to make money by doing so Martian pr0n.

  63. That's not ice lake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Thats a friggin giant egg.

    I for one welcome our giant egg dwelling martian overlords!

  64. Re:No by blatantdog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you proposing some sort of "heating machine"?

  65. Pressure is a factor by Dr.+Zed · · Score: 4, Informative

    When you decrease the atmospheric pressure, you change the freezing and boiling point of water. Under pressure, water favors being a liquid. Without such pressure, the melting point and boiling point would come closer together.

    For more info see this PDF (in particular, figure 5.1). It illustrates the triple point.

  66. Re:What if we're being baited by the evil martians by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


    What is that dark stuff on the edge of the ice?

    That's Mars.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  67. Lifting up my tin foil hat for a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the dark "bubbled" area at the top left (NW) corner of the lake, there appears to be a rectangular object. Its at about 6 O'Clock halfway between the border of the lake and the centre of the bubble area.

    It's visible in both the overhead and oblique hi-res shots, it looks for all the world like a building.

    Yes, I am no doubt nuts, but that's what it looks like to me.

    Wanna go a step further, it looks like a geo-thermal power station, like you'd see in Iceland.

  68. Only with Hot-Grits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ummm...love them grits.

  69. Quaid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start the reactor quaid....start the reactor

  70. The head on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if they could take a picture of the "Mars face". Combined with altimeter data it would be very cool, you could have a 3D model of it.

  71. Google Mars? by gamer4Life · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for them to reveal that, under extreme closeup, Mars is nothing more than Swiss cheese with some rust on it.

  72. Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    living on mars??

    get real.. we cant even send a shuttle into space to the ISS without foam coming off and jeopardzing the crew, not sure where thats gonna lead. the old shuttles are done for -- they arent going to build new ones. they are using these until the new "capsules" are built to go into space and even these wont be for humans.

    we've got at least 50 - 60 years before we even START to think about talking about sending humans to mars for anything.

    In the nine months it takes to get to Mars, Mars moves a considerable distance around in its orbit, about 3/8 of the way around the Sun. You have to plan ahead to make sure that by the time you reach the distance of Mar's orbit, that Mars is where you need it to be! Practically, this means that you can only begin your trip when Earth and Mars are properly lined up. This only happens every 26 months. That is there is only one launch window every 26 months.

    After spending 9 months on the way to Mars, you will probably want to spend some time there. In fact, you MUST spend some time at Mars! If you were to continue on your orbit around the Sun, then when you got back to where you started, Earth would no longer be where you left it!

    Just like you have to wait for Earth and Mars to be in the proper postion before you head to Mars, you also have to make sure that they are in the proper position before you head home. That means you will have to spend 3-4 months at Mars before you can begin your return trip. All in all, your trip to Mars would take about 21 months: 9 months to get there, 3 months there, and 9 months to get back. With our current rocket technology, there is no way around this. The long duration of trip has several implications.

    First, you have to bring enough food, water, clothes, and medical supplies for the crew in addition to all the scientific instruments you will want to take. You also have to bring all that fuel! In addition, if you are in space for nine months, you will need a lot of shielding to protect you from the radiation of the Sun. Water, and cement make good shielding but they are very heavy. All together, it is estimated that for a crew of six, you would need to 3 million pounds of supplies! The Shuttle can lift about 50,000 pounds into space, so it would take 60 shuttle launches to get all your supplies into space. In the history of the Shuttle, there have only been about 90 launches, and there are less than ten launches per year... So with the shuttle, it would take six years just to get the supplies into space. For this reason, you would probably need to develop a launch system that could lift more than 50,000 pounds into space. Even with a better launch vehicle, it is unlikely that you could launch the Mars mission all at once. You will have to launch it in several pieces and assemble them in orbit.

    Second, you are going to be in space for an extended period of time, and there a physiological consequences of being weightless for long periods of time. For one, your muscles do not need to work as hard. In response to being used less, your muscles begin to shrink or atrophy. Remember, your heart is also a muscle, and pumping blood around your body is easier in the weightless environment of space, so your heart gets weaker as well. On an extended space voyage, your muscles might become so weak that it would be difficult for you to stand upright once you return to an environment where you are subject to gravity.

    Just like your muscles have to do less work to move you around in space, your bones are not needed as much. The main function of your skeleton is to support the weight of your body. When you are weightless in space, your body realizes that the bones are not being used as much and they begin to lose calcium, and become more brittle. These are serious effects which may impair the ability of the astronauts to carry out experiments and tasks when they get to Mars, where they will be subjected to gravity again.

    In order to study these physiological effects of

    1. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, i guess all those rocket scientists who said it's possible never realized just how far it was! or that mars moves! First of all, there are ways to cut that trip time in half, using sails or ion engines. Second, russia has alot of experience with long term weightlessness. Didn't they have cosmonauts do 500+ days in mir?

      Gravity can be faked. Just launch 2 ships with a tether between them and spin the whole thing.

      Fuel doesn't need to be carried for the return trip, it can be manufactured there. You just send the machinery there ahead of time to start manufacturing it and it'll be waiting when you get there. Water too. And food might even be able to grow in martian soil with proper preparation.

      Oh yeah... 60 shuttle launches? You know the saturn V could carry 260000 lbs, and we've learned alot since those days. Why would we use the shuttle for heavy lifting?

    2. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Take a look at Robert Zubrin's book The Case for Mars as a counterargument. It's a bit dated, and he gets a bit personal in attacks on NASA, but the facts are that much of what you stated above is wrong. Zubrin knows what he's talking about (fomrer engineer for Martin Marietta).

    3. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get real.. we cant even send a shuttle into space to the ISS without foam coming off and jeopardzing the crew :') The Russians are taking tourists up there. Why don't NASA guys just licence the technology of Russians? It's just plain ego. Russians even have better rockets, Energia-2, which can put more than 100 metric tons in space.

      What's NASA's cargo capacity? 20-40 metric tons?

    4. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by jdunn14 · · Score: 1, Troll

      So where did you snag this gem from? First off, like NASA can't plan ahead for a freaking launch window. You act like hitting the launch window that would allow for travel to and from mars would be a miracle. It's hilarious, almost like when the landers just happened to head to Mars at the time it was closest to earth in line 100 years. News agencies reported as if this was some kind of happy coincidence, not like people have been plotting planetary movement into the past and future for hundreds of years (thousands in some cases, but we're a bit more accurate these days). I like the quote near the end:

      snip...Currently the Russian Mir space station is one place where astronauts can stay for extended periods of time, and research into these effect is ongoing...snip...it will probably be necessary to construct a larger space station to be used as a staging ground for the mission to Mars....snip

      Love to know how they're doing continuing research on MIR. Or that the construction of a larger station is just an idea... not like we have people staying on one. Nice job, try reading all the stolen text first, maybe bringing it a little more up-to-date than just tacking a line about shuttle debris on the front. By the way, shit *always* fell off the shuttle. If we look for that problem we're going to find it, but someone ranted about this recently here so I'll skip the discussion.

    5. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      i meant to put the link on there and noticed that i forgot to...BUT since we cant edit our posts(why not??) i was unable to..i thought i had until i read your post..here is the link.. :) enjoy!

      trip to mars?

    6. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by ShoobieRat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Without going into length, I think the poster both has little understanding in the amount of progress that can be made in just 10 years, the difficulties and politics involved that have lead to the current state of the space program, and, oh yeah, no understanding of any of the work done regarding getting to Mars.

    7. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by goosetheforce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Humans to Mars is completely realistic. Here's why all your showstoppers don't hold up.

      Yes, launch windows are only every 26 months and you have to spend over a year on mars before returning, but that's not a bad thing. You want to maximize the amount of time you spend studying the planet.

      No, you don't have to take fuel for the return trip. You produce it on Mars by extracting carbon from the CO2 atmosphere and combining it with a small store of hydrogen you bring with you. Then you have methane, a perfectly respectable rocket fuel. The oxidizer gets extracted from the CO2 atmosphere as well. You bring a smallish nuclear reactor with you to power all this.

      Yeah, you need a big heavy lift vehicle. We've made those before; remember Saturn V? Variants of the Space Shuttle stack can also be used. You can fit all the supplies and cargo and astronauts on one launch to Mars, and send them their return vehicle on a separate launch.

      Radiation in space can be dealt with perhaps by circulating water through the hull of the spaceship. For protection from the occasional solar flare, astronauts can cram into a small central heavily shielded area of the craft. Radiation on Mars isn't toooo much of a worry becuase it's got an atmosphere, albeit a thin one, and bags of Martian sand can be laid across the top of the habitat for extra protection.

      Yeah, there's a problem with the low gravity in space, but you're only in space for six months at a time. Astronauts recover pretty quickly from six month tours on space stations. Mars itself has over a third of Earth's gravity, so we're *hoping* that should suffice when combined with regular exercise.

    8. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by electronerdz · · Score: 1

      Yes, hitting a window wouldn't be hard. We've already done it twice.

      --
      Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
    9. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      First off, why do you have to develop a heavy lift capacity? One already exists (actually, two if you count the Saturn V), it is called Energiya and it can lift a lot. The shuttle is a general purpose space truck and does nothing well. A poorly designed truck at that.

      As for the physiological effects, we know what they are, they've been studied to death, including long term studies by the Russians. How much more study do we need? Sheesh!

      Back to your first points, we know all about the requirements for long term voyages. We know due to our deployment of ballistic missile submarines which stay out, completely submerged, for four to six months or longer, if there is a crisis, at a pop. They don't do hydroponics and with the exception of water, all other issues are well understood, including exercise. You just have to bring a big, reliable, power supply along.

      Which gets to one of your other points, fuel. Why do you ass-u-me that such a mission will use coventional fuels? I don't see any reason why it should at all. Actually idiotic, although I wouldn't put anything past NASA these days. A nuclear powered ion drive would be far more efficient, require tons less fuel (heck, you could use waste products even), and would at least give you the advantage of having microgravity. Furthermore, why do you ass-u-me that this will be a zero-g ship? It doesn't have to be. The lander would be but the actual ship? Come on!

      Lastly, for building materials for the ship, why do they all have to come from earth? The last time I looked there is readily available aluminum (and oxygen) on the moon. Strip mine it, refine it, ship it to orbit via magnetic catapult. That's not even an original idea ("Moon is a Harsh Mistress" R. A. Heinlein). The gravity well is a lot less steep.

      My point is that everything in this problem domain is known with two exceptions. Zero-g hydroponics and extreme, long term water recycling. The first we could start experimenting on now. The later would require some thought on how to simulate although apparently the Japanese are doing exactly this as I type.

      Hate to burst your bubble, but I've been looking at this all my life and I'd volunteer in a heartbeat even if it were a one-way trip.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    10. Re:Living On Mars? A Little Dose Of Reality by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      No, you don't have to take fuel for the return trip. You produce it on Mars by extracting carbon from the CO2 atmosphere and combining it with a small store of hydrogen you bring with you. Then you have methane, a perfectly respectable rocket fuel. The oxidizer gets extracted from the CO2 atmosphere as well.
      That's the theory anyhow.

      The reality is that processes have been only tested on the lab bench - they've never been tested under field conditions. (I.E. with dust/etc in the intake stream, trace gases, extremely long run time...) There are major concerns about filtration, I.E. how do you clean them? How do you clean them without contaminating your system? There are major concerns about creating a system that can operate for months/years with little maintenance. There are concerns about the impacts on the process from trace gasses in the atmosphere of Mars.... And on and on.

      Many major question - no answers.

  73. Water does not imply life by Solr_Flare · · Score: 1

    Water implies life *on Earth* but it does not imply life on other planets. To make assumptions based on our knowledge of a single planet is bad science.

    Now, based on all we do know, then yes, water being present there makes life, at least as we know it, much more likely to be found. But it is no garantee because we have no factual evidence(alien life). So, it is all speculation.

    For all we know, on some planet somewhere, water could be poison to life that developed on it. Until we find alien life, the truth is we just don't know. That's why we look everywhere.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
  74. I know of such a planet by krell · · Score: 0
    `` For all we know, on some planet somewhere, water could be poison to life that developed on it ``

    I know of just such a planet. Do some research here

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  75. Considering that it is more than 15 Miles wide.... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    if it has any depth (say half a meter or better), then yes. It will provide more than enough water/o2 for a small group for years to come if you assume recycling.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  76. Vanished? Hmmm... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    although most of the water vanished millions of years ago

    yeah, into the core of the planet.

    now get your ass to Mars. I saw a movie with some instructions.

  77. Lakefront property on Mars... by svtmunk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get it fast before rates rise and the bubble bursts....

    As an added bonus - you can ice skate all year round!

  78. Quaid, Start the reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Quaid, Start the reactor"
    -Kuato

  79. Dude by krell · · Score: 0
    '' There's what a faint green discoloration which look like some sort of "tendrils" creeping up the side of the ice''

    Dude, you've got to stop watching so much hentai.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  80. First thing first. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We need a reliable way to get to space. Then we have to quit switching from the Moon to space stations back to the Moon , etc.. Finally, if we really want to get there in the next 10 years, we need to get over the idea of trying to bring back the crew back. If we send them there on a one way trip for at least 10 years, possibly the rest of their natural lives, then we will get there in the next 10 years.

    OTH, if we think that we are sending ppl there short trips, and back, then you have to deal with large amounts of radiation, food, O2, water all in several rockets. Basically, it becomes more difficult than simply building a stations there and leaving the crew there for at least 4 years ( ore more ).

    Basically, some nation has to have the same courage, drive, and vision that civilizations/nations such as Vikings/Spanish/Italian/French/British/French/USSR -Americans had at one time, but all seem to now lack.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  81. Not the only one by Ektanoor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well at least I see that there is more than one lake in the northern hemisphere. Well, really what I saw is a lot smaller than this one. I would call it a pond. But what amazed me is that it showed that water could really keep for some time in open air (or more correctly "near open air"??). Moreover, the pond was getting water from a spring over the hill behind it. Considering this, I think there should be more places where water could gather.

    BTW, If I well remember, the borders of the pound showed some gradation suggesting it was drying up. And,and and if I really didn't mess anything, the pond was mostly covered by a wall. But it was not a crater. Probably a subduction as the shape was more similar to an ellypse over an highland. Yes, and what most critics may bash me was that the pond was in small highland. Yes pressure should a lot less there. But it was there...

    But please don't ask me for a proof. As I told once around here. I lost that frame. I hardly tried to pick it back but it was searching in a haystack as all my data went limbo back them. It is on one of MGS frames before Summer 2000. I worked with the original frames or with those processed by Malin's labs.

    Besides I am not here claiming first discoveries. Just leaving a note. Maybe someone finds it or catches something more interesting. Like underground rivers or something else :)

  82. What's CG, what's real? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They look like CG renders to me. One of the pictures has a comment pointing out that the depth has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 (not the anaglyph). So clearly at least one image is a fake. It's getting annoying just how processed images are these days without a suitable warning. Nowadays it seems acceptable, not just to apply filters or color transforms, but also use image based rendering to render from a new viewpoint.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:What's CG, what's real? by ytm · · Score: 1

      Of course they are CG. But they are based on real thing. Real data coming from the craft is not 'pretty' enough to be shown to the general public. Sending into space a camera that can do only visible light is a waste of money.

    2. Re:What's CG, what's real? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      1. You don't need to use a camera that can "do only visible light" to take photos that require visible light.
      2. Do CG as much as you like. But make it absoluetly clear what you are doing. I can't tell what is real in those pictures. For all I know the lake is the same color as the surrounding ground and the blue is false color. I have no way of telling from the 'popular' accounts. I'd like to know.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    3. Re:What's CG, what's real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's real, Quaid. Now get your ass to Mars!

    4. Re:What's CG, what's real? by kindbud · · Score: 1

      All science images are processed. All of them. Every. Single. One. Not just space images. All images. Not a single one goes without processing. You cannot read a CCD chip without performing image processing. Imaging without image processing produces just a human-unintelligible string of binary digits.

      If your data are reliable, you can transform it in many ways, like stereographic projection. Before computers, scientists would produce rectified images by projecting them onto spheres, and then re-photographing the image projected onto the sphere from angles other than the one from which the image was taken. Today, a computer can do this projection job much more efficiently and accurately.

      There is no slight of hand. There is no deception. The images processing was disclosed. The raw, unprojected and unenhanced images are available for download. You cited the descriptions of the image processing steps yourself. So what is the problem?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    5. Re:What's CG, what's real? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      All science images are processed
      Yes. It's what I do for a living (just not for science). At one extreme I consider doing a simple mapping of the color space to ensure fidelity of colors on our screens to be harmless. At the other extreme I consider a 3d rerendering described as "These images, taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESA's Mars Express spacecraft" to be a lie. The fact that some kinds of processing are acceptable doesn't mean that all forms of processing should be acceptable.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:What's CG, what's real? by ytm · · Score: 1

      Without extra colour these pictures are plain boring and not informative. With a bit of false colour it is possible to see the extra features. Note that this is not like using some Photoshop airbrush on the picture, but rather merging data from other instruments into visible image. The same thing is with Earth. For scientists false colour pictures, where colour enhances some geological features, are more valuable than photos from Google Maps. Can you guess what kind of crop grows on a field basing on Google Maps?

      Using my lack of mastering English language (foreign to me) as an argument in discussion is plain rude.

  83. Re:No by trentblase · · Score: 1

    That's almost as crazy as some sort of "re-biggifier".

  84. Spice by arkanoid · · Score: 1

    The spice will flow then?

    1. Re:Spice by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      The spice...will flow.

      But only in ittty bitty little tinny weenie cups.

  85. Not bad science, just bad statistics. by crovira · · Score: 1

    A single data point doesn't allow any extrapolation.

    I'm thinking that oxigen took a very long time to arrive on earth, being excreted by anearobic bacteria first. That there is any free oxigen at all on Mars implies some other process is at work.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  86. doom? by Alaskan+Snake · · Score: 1

    look, judging by what i've seen, mars is not a place i want to colonize. what with the gateway to hell and spawning demons. no thanks.

  87. don't minimize it... by erikus · · Score: 2, Funny

    when the picture is on the screen because when you open it up again it will scare the shit out of you because it looks like a giant eye.

  88. Keep the Catholics OUT of there! by crovira · · Score: 1

    And the Brits. And certainly don't let them give you any blankets.

    Come to think of it, any Martian life, if there is any, is screwed isn't it?

    Well lets try not to blindly repeat the same mistakes. Lets boldly forge on to new and better mistakes.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  89. Weird bright blob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is also a bright 2x2 pixel (30mx30m) thing at coordinates 2128x2636 in the 6 Mb shot. It's much brighter than the surroundings. Is it rock, ice, or camera artifact?

  90. ID4 by krell · · Score: 0
    ' So where did you snag this gem from? First off, like NASA can't plan ahead for a freaking launch window. You act like hitting the launch window that would allow for travel to and from mars would be a miracle '

    This is the post-ID4 world. Everyone now thinks that all you need to do to get into space is make sure the directions aren't upside down, point the joystick in the right direction, and pull.

    After that, when you get into space (45 seconds later), you can destroy alien civilizations merely by connecting your Powerbook into their network.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  91. Buried starship? by KendyForTheState · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else noticed what appears to be a Constitution-class starship http://www.shiporama.org/constitution.htmpartly buried in rubble at the top left of the crater? Part of the saucer section and warp nacelles are clearly visible.

    --
    ...I just came for the free beer.
  92. Maybe Planet X will crash into it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Now that would make a lot of nice powder to ski Mars on!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  93. So they send one up with really BIG panels. by crovira · · Score: 1

    They could be a target for distant or orbital cameras, and they could be used as wings on a glider (why roll across Mars, inching your way across a hard and harsh terrain [marsain?] if you could take really long hops?)

    They could provide shelter for astro/cosmo-nauts or become the roof of some base of operations.

    Of course, the airbags used for the landings would have to be really BIG which bwould definitely affect the duration and height of the bouncing.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:So they send one up with really BIG panels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they could be used as wings on a glider (why roll across Mars, inching your way across a hard and harsh terrain [marsain?] if you could take really long hops?)

      two words: dust. storm.

  94. Are you sure? by krell · · Score: 0

    Are you sure that is not a General Products hull, type 1? A salvage mission might be in order!

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Are you sure? by KendyForTheState · · Score: 1

      Too big for that... #1 is tiny. Maybe a #4 http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=399

      --
      ...I just came for the free beer.
  95. Newer than the crater by soupdevil · · Score: 1

    unless it caused the crater... like an icy comet or asteroid.

  96. Evidence for recent pooling of liquid water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anyone who knows whether or not this points to evidence of pooling of previously liquid water on the surface? Or could it be an aquifer bubbling water up to the surface instead? I sometimes find the claim that liquid water can't exist on Mars a bit spurious-- combine salination and the 1/100 of earth's air pressure, I don't see why that can't happen...

  97. Re:What if we're being baited by the evil martians by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

    That's not Mars! It's a space station!

  98. Most Important Discovery of our Time by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    This could turn out to be one of the most important discoveries of our time. Not only could this lake be a hot spot of fossilized life, which would be an earth shattering event (thinking of the religious and social impact), but it could be the keystone of extraplanetary colonization.

    Have no doubt, while this may be page 4 news in major newspapers, it could be more impactful to human civilization than the computer, internet, automobile, and airplane combined once fully investigated. They may not find fish, but finding an algae or bacteria would shake the world to its core, and could have profound changes to how we live, from education to law to commerce.

    If you are a religious fundamentalist, now is a time to be very afraid. If you are a Treky wanting to visit new worlds, and live on them, now is a time of great hope.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:Most Important Discovery of our Time by ByrneArena · · Score: 1

      Right now that are assuming it is water. Until it is solidly confirmed with real science rather than theories, then it is just that... a theory. Not being a naysayer here, but I want to see chemical analysis of this ice before we start going off the deep end.

    2. Re:Most Important Discovery of our Time by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Like the Boyscout motto says, though, be prepared (even if they are having a hell of a time dealing with the laws of electricity now over at the Boy Scouts... no joke intended).

      Society, all societies, must be prepared on some basic level to deal with such a discovery. While the fundamentalist can dismiss discovery of life on another planet as impossible (mainstream fundamentalism, not alien cults) and refuse to discuss the matter, the chance that we could find life elsewhere is higher than might have been previously thought if Mars has ice.

      Having the faith of millions of moderates broken could dramatically shift everything we know. And by the time the theory becomes fact, it'll be too late to prepare. And by prepare, I mean starting a real discussion with religious groups about what it would mean to them and their faith. Giving people a guided path, as opposed to pulling the rug out from under them. Even if that discussion takes place on cable news talk shows, it's a start.

      --
      I8-D
  99. How Dry I Am (And Cold) by Ranger · · Score: 1

    The preponderance of evidence is that Mars has been cold and dry for a long time. Erosion features on Mars were probably the result of glaciers, wind, and the rare outbursts of flowing water. Olivine is the key. Mars is covered in huge areas of olivine.

    Olivine degrades quickly in water, geologically speaking. The recent discoveries of Mars Express, Discovery, and Opportunity are tantalizing and beg for more exploration of the planet. Whether or not there was or is life on Mars and whether or not there was or is lots of water, it is still a worthy place to go. But it should not be contigent on life or water. I wish those who issue news releases would stop marketing Mars.

    Could Mars have had dry ice glaciers and flows of liquid CO2 to cause the erosion? Unlikely, but I'm not a Martian expert. Maybe Mars was colder in the past.

    I'm too lazy to provide Wikipedia links or otherwise. Google'm yerself.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  100. Re:Travel Advisory by linzeal · · Score: 1

    If you eat yogurt you can prevent">prevent montezuma's revenge. I suggest plain yogurt as anything with sugar in it will spoil much quicker.

  101. Don't be silly by nightsweat · · Score: 3, Funny

    The NHL has already proven there is no such thing as a sustainable hockey league.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  102. Dont worry... by MTO_B. · · Score: 1

    Dont worry...
    Opportunity will reach it by the time we have our first colony installed there.

  103. Define "green" by RedBear · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't get too excited about seeing a particular color in a space image. AFAIK every close-up image of other planets you see is a false-color composite. You can't really trust that the faint "green" discoloration you think you see is really green as it would exist here on Earth under strong sunlight and a thick nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere. Color is very relative.

    1. Re:Define "green" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposed to be nearly color balanced/accurate image.

  104. Crater Lake by ndansmith · · Score: 1

    I don't see what the big deal is; we already have one of these on Earth. In Oregon, to be specific . . .

    1. Re:Crater Lake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and we are going to have another one pretty soon in Utah, minus the water/ice!

  105. What about the Martian Poles by popo · · Score: 2, Insightful


    There's something I've never understood about this quest for water on Mars.

    First off, this "ice" thing doesn't seem like a big deal to me. When I was 8 years old I had a picture of Martian ice caps on my wall. (Yeah.. I was like that). So why is this a big deal? Because its at the bottom of a crater in a less than frozen area? How does that make life more likely? Clearly the bottom of that crater's pretty inhospitable too...

    Secondly -- I've never understood why we don't look for water in a place I would think is the most obvious: in the periphery of the ice caps. Wouldn't liquid water most likely be in the place where the caps melt? It seems highly likely that Martian ice caps perform similarly to Earth's ice caps -- sloughing off ice into a temperate zone.

    Why do Mars' frozen poles not get more attention in this quest for water?

    Anyone?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:What about the Martian Poles by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 1

      The "ice" caps in those early posters, were not water ice. That was carbon dioxide. Basically from TFA.

      --
      Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    2. Re:What about the Martian Poles by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      There's something I've never understood about this quest for water on Mars.

      Why do Mars' frozen poles not get more attention in this quest for water?
      Because the 'ice' in the Martian polar regions is dry ice (frozen CO2), not water ice.
  106. Water is the source of all life by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1

    Ripper: Mandrake, have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

    Mandrake: No, Jack. I can't say that I have.

    Ripper: Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?

    Mandrake: Well, I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.

    Ripper: On no account will a commie drink water? And not without good reason?

    Mandrake: I don't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.

    Ripper: Water. That's what I'm getting at. Water, Mandrake. Water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of the earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70% of you is water?

    Mandrake: Odd.

    Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.

    Mandrake: Yes.

    Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?

    Mandrake: Yes.

    Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you ever wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?

    Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.

    Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation, fluoridation of water?

    Mandrake: Yes, I have heard of that, Jack, yes.

    Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?

    Mandrake: No.

    Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous commie plot we have ever had to face?

  107. That's great, but... by Phoenixredux · · Score: 1

    How's the fishing? I'll bet there's some good Crappies in there. I'll be out in the back yard rigging retro-rockets onto my icefishing shack if anyone needs me.

  108. Posterization, JPEG compression by RedBear · · Score: 2, Informative

    After looking at the highest resolution color version I noticed that you can see the square patterns of the pixels, or more likely sets of compressed pixels. This happens often with JPEG images that have been compressed a little too much. Each square of X pixels gets compressed separately and some information is lost, so that when the same square is uncompressed it doesn't always blend smoothly into the surrounding squares with regard to color and lightness. I believe this is referred to as posterization, a loss of smoothness in the color transitions where it changes in steps that can be clearly seen rather than in tiny increments.

    If you look at the patterns of squares, the image seems to have been tilted counter-clockwise about ten degrees, so the vertical and horizontal lines aren't straight up and down or left and right. Oddly enough, the long green "tendrils" seem to line up very well with the lines of squares, especially the big one in the bottom left. Notice how the tendril is very straight. Looks like those areas were supposed to be slightly blue-greenish but because of the compression the color jump is a little too much and they appear to be somehow different than the colors that surround them. I don't think they were meant to be that color.

    You can see the posterization, or compression artifacts, most clearly in the transitions between light and dark colors. And you'll only see it when you view the image at 100% pixel-for-pixel on your screen. If you have Photoshop or Elements open the levels dialog and drag the black slider up to about 200. The green areas will turn black and it will become very apparent that they are perfectly straight in many areas. There are some horizontal ones and some vertical ones and some nice 90-degree angles in there. Life forms of course do not make perfectly straight patterns, especially on a large scale.

  109. Religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Book of Genesis is only one religion, Christianity which I assume you are a part of.

    The question becomes, what would it take to *disprove* Christianity?

    If everything in the bible is a metaphor, then it's up to human interpretation, which means that there is always *some* way to change the religious meaning of the Bible.

  110. Pressure, not temperature, range by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    I don't think it is at specific temperatures that things sublimate, I believe it is at certain pressures. So water at 1 atmosphere will never sublimate, at no matter which temperature. This can be seen on the state plots present in one of the other posts. You can see at certain pressures, the solid state touches the gaseous state, making possible sublimation, where at other pressures, the solid state doesn't directly touch the gaseous state, making sublimation impossible.

    1. Re:Pressure, not temperature, range by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      It's a combination of pressure and temperature. Consider: It's highly unlikely that there will be any sublimation going on at zero pressure and 1,000,000 degrees C as you can't have frozen water at that temperature, no matter what the pressure is.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  111. Zero craters on the ice. . . by mopomi · · Score: 1

    Having looked at the "full resolution" JPEG, I see zero impact craters on the ice. Which is good, because we KNOW there is water ice near the poles (which is where this is), and it'd be really darn surprising to find water ice old enough to have impact craters on it. It should be relatively stable this far north, but not THAT stable--i.e., it's probably very young, as in still being modified by deposition and sublimation.

    It's not news that water ice exists in north pole craters:
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/2026.p df

  112. lets build a dome over that thing! by laserawesome · · Score: 1

    We should totally go logans run here and build an awesome dome over the thing. We must make sure noone lives past 30 years old though... I know, we can use crystal indicators on their palms! ohlssonvox

  113. The water just vanished! by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Mars is covered with deep gorges, apparently carved out by rivers and glaciers, although most of the water vanished millions of years ago.

    Also known as evaporation, though not as dramatic.

  114. Pictures? by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

    According to TFA: The colours are very close to natural, but the vertical relief is exaggerated three times

    This would mean that they are computer generated images, probably combining radar and visual data.
    I would like to see some kind of symbol imprinted on (one corner of ) such pictures, to make it clear they are computer generated. It's getting harder and harder to distinguish them from real pictures. I know that the so-called NASA/ESA pictures of black holes and such are just artist impressions, but the media call them pictures, and ordinary folks don't know better. (Sorry for the rant, had to get that off my chest)

  115. You mean "water ice" by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "Ice lake" could mean anything. The article mentions water ice specifically.

  116. A Little Dose Of Reality indeed. Very little. by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    we cant even send a shuttle into space to the ISS without foam coming off and jeopardzing the crew...

    What's this "we" stuff, kemosabe? Last private space launch I saw didn't have any of this "foam" stuff you're talking about.

    Oh, you mean government space launches! Built by the lowest bidder, but only if they build it in a dozen different "marginal constituencies" as the Brits say, paying off campaign donors and other vote-generating schemes, making sure that various politicians get "in the pocket" for future votes, and other games of pork barrel politics which have absolutely nothing to do with actual space flight.

    Oh, that's right, the private space flight efforts have been blocked for decades by bureaucratic red tape. You might not have heard about them. Indeed, it does seem as if these absurd bricks called "shuttles" are the only spacecraft you believe exist.

    You might find two books quite interesting. _Kings of the High Frontier_ and _Net Assets_. The latter is available online I'm sure, but I don't think Pulpless.com where _Kings_ was available is functional any more. Bummer.

    As for medical research, well, get out of the way and let those who are interested go give it a try! Volunteers? $10K for anyone who will live a year in space, free tuition to online University of Phoenix while in orbit? What a great idea and CHEAP compared to a NASA astronaught.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  117. Melt the Ice... by Thesketchmaster · · Score: 1

    Seems to me if we could suck up the pollution we create every day using fossil fuels we could have a greenhouse effect large enough to melt the icein lets say, six months... Oh wait the H3 Hummer is out, more like 4 months. We are not all made of stars.