Slashdot Mirror
Water Flowed Recently on Mars
elfguygmail.com writes "According to to Space.com 'Small gullies on Mars were carved by water recently and would be prime locations to look for life, NASA scientists said today.' "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Is this another instance of "recently" meaning "within the last 1,000,000 years?" ...recently is since the last episode of Family Guy.
Stop making that big FACE!
Water Flowed Recently on Mars, NASA Scientists Say
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 24 August 2005
07:57 pm ET
Small gullies on Mars were carved by water recently and would be prime locations to look for life, NASA scientists said today.
There have been many studies of Martian gullies that concluded water was involved. But most of the features are ancient, or if they seemed modern then there were questions about how the water could stay liquid long enough to do the carving.
Scientists know there is a lot of water ice on Mars, locked up at the poles and beneath the surface elsewhere.
Water is a key ingredient for life as we know it, and other scientists have speculated that life on Mars, if there is any, could lurk just beneath the surface where ice melts in pockets.
A closer look
The new study suggests water may still bubble to the surface of Mars now and then, flow for a short stretch, then boil away in the thin, cold air.
The conclusion is based on computer modeling of the atmosphere and how water would behave.
"The gullies may be sites of near-surface water on present-day Mars and should be considered as prime astrobiological target sites for future exploration," said Jennifer Heldmann, the lead researcher from NASA's Ames Research Center. "The gully sites may also be of prime importance for human exploration of Mars because they may represent locations of relatively near surface liquid water, which can be accessed by crews drilling on the red planet."
Any potential long-term human presence on Mars would require a water source, both for drinking and to be broken down into hydrogen as fuel for return flights.
The claim that water carved the gullies is based on the shape and size of features spotted by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor.
Short gullies
"If liquid water pops out onto Mars' surface, it can create short gullies about 550-yards (500-meters) long," Heldmann said in a statement. "We find that the short length of the gully features implies they did form under conditions similar to those on present-day Mars, with simultaneous freezing and rapid evaporation of nearly pure liquid water."
Some of the gullies taper off into very small debris fields or leave no debris at all. That implies the water rapidly froze or evaporated.
Given the low air pressure on Mars, water would boil in a flash, the researchers say, so it is doubtful that ice accumulates in the gullies.
The findings will be presented next month at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences in Cambridge, England.
I don't think you understand.. if we get non-terrestrial life and it's genetic code, the results will be the biggest discovery of the last 100 yrs (leaving out quantum physics and atomic energy).. for instance.. we get to see if it also has a "handedness" in the formation of its molecules. check this:
3 408.html
" The crucial biomolecules of life - such as amino acids, RNA and DNA - are chiral. In order for these polymeric molecules to replicate themselves, their individual components have to be of one kind, either right- or left-handed.
"It is generally agreed that you need homochirality - either all left-handed or all right-handed - for life to get off the ground," Bonner said. "Therefore, a preponderance of one handedness must have evolved in prebiotic times."
The scientists, however, cannot explain how this happened because they have never succeeded in creating chiral molecules of only one kind in laboratory experiments that simulated prebiotic conditions.
Since chiral molecules are necessary to breed new chiral molecules, how did the first ones come about? "
from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/93/930210Arc
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
In other words, Scientists hope to find clues to abiogenesis from completely alien life.
Unfortunately, there's a good chance that "life on Mars" is just "life on Earth that migrated to Mars". Many years ago, I remember listening to a scientist who was absolutely certain that we'd find microscopic life on Mars. His reasoning was that with all the ejecta shot into space from Asteroids and other natural phenomena, there *must* be some Earth life that managed to make it to Mars.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm no expert but wouldn't even a simple amoeba be an important discovery? Assuming it could be proved that it did not come from Earth in some way, at the very least it would prove that life can and does exist elsewhere.
While a manned mission would be nice, I doubt that the public is ready to accept the risk and cost of such a trip, especially given the recent Shuttle problems. I hear people grumble about the amount of money being "wasted" on space as it is. That says to me that unless scientists can give people a strong reason to explore space (e.g. positive discovery of life on Mars), it's unlikely that there will be much support for a manned mission to Mars.
I'd say it would be the biggest discovery in recorded history. I'm not trying to belittle the significance of Atomic or Quantum physics, but lets step back and look at this.
If extra-terrestrial life were discovered, on Mars, or elsewhere, and there was solid proof for it, it would change the entire world. Many religious beliefs would be decimated, many scientific theories would be challenged or completely re-written, we would know that we are not alone in the universe, that we are an even more insignificant part of it that we already think we are, and importantly it would give a huge boost to those who want to see space exploration in our future.
It would have a profound effect upon every human on this planet... what could be bigger than answering one of our greatest questions about existance of life in our known universe?
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
I was a little disappointed to find no mention in TFA about what they meant by "recently". 1 year? 5? 10? 100? 1000? 10K?
Many will be thinking, water == life!. Let's say this improves the possibility, but if most water on Mars is (and especially, was) mostly locked up as ice and/or only very ephemerally available, then I'd say it's much less likely that the "long shot" of evolution that led to our existence on Earth could have taken place similarly on Mars. Our planet spent millions of years two-thirds covered in water and under a dense methane-ammonia atmosphere. In contrast, it seems Mars had far less soup under far less atmosphere at (average) somewhat lower temperatures. I guess the only thing Mars might have had more of, sans an atmosphere of effective sunscreens, is ionizing (and hence mutagenic) radiation.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
I dont see the point of a mission to mars, you would need to live indoors, ship/generate oxygen, ship/generate food, ship/generate water, ship/generate power, etc etc
All that is true, but you forget the fact that the necessity for those technologies would spur research and development in those areas. That could mean vastly improved efficiency in how we live on Earth. The problem is motivating people to strive for that goal which also requires moving them past short-sighted views on how we need to "learn how to live on earth first."
6. And then we'll have those people that don't really care what the topic is, but like to show how long they've been around /. by making pointless generalizations about what everyone else will say. They won't actually add anyting to the discussion, or make any relevant points or provide any insights, but they will feel good about themselves because, umm, they posted something.
7. After that, another group will come in, pointing out the pointlessness of the above group's post, in posts that are, if possible, even more pointless and off topic. But then, just before the end of their posts, this last group will throw in some almost-related-to-the-topic bit, like "maybe it was glaciers!", so that they can preted that their post was in fact on-topic.
I think it is more likely that life on Earth originated on Mars that the other way around. Mars cooled faster, and it's easier for ejecta to get from Mars to Earth. Either way, life that has evolved separately for such a long time would be very important scientifically.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Which part of you, the stupid part or the apathetic part? (I realize this comment may get moderators panties in a bunch, but it had to be said)
I'm not flaming, rather frustrated. I mean if we already *know* (or have a strong feeling) there is water/ ice on Mars, then lets get the plans going for a Manned space mission in-the-works. They need to excite the public, not continue the ho-hum exploration for the elusive "Martian Single-Cell Alien." The public wants Buck Rogers or Star Trek, not another Mars rover. Bleh!
Then why don't you go watch MTV or E! or other drivel that can just barely keep you interested for the entirety of your 2 minute attention span. Yeah, let's not have another Mars rover, one of the most fantastic scientific achievements in space exploration in recent history. I am not even going to go into WHY that was such an amazing feat, it would be lost on you.
Your attitude is part of the problem with this country. I am starting to believe that old myth that some people only use 10% of their brains.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
There is also the possibility that life on Earth is just life that migrated from Mars.
Perhaps at one time the very beginnings of life were on Mars but due to its conditions the life couldn't sustain itself. However, with all the ejecta shot into space from impacts the life found a very comfy and hospitable home here on this blue planet.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Truly colonization is a worthy goal. Our desecration of the Earth will necessitate seeking resources elsewhere in our solar system! Of course, burning fossil fuels to send vehicles into space is counterproductive, so insted I propose a space elevator constructed entirely of carbon nanotubes!
...but ultimately the triumph of the human siprit will, as always, provide us with our every need, fending off the previously-believed impending doom of our culture, and eventually allow us to explore and conquer the vast reaches of space!
However, that sort of thing costs money, and we have people starving in our own streets! We need to take care of our imediate needs first.
And yes, it's true that we have things like microwave ovens, teflon, and the 4-day work week today because of the tireless efforts of NASA...
What was the article about again?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The conclusion is based on computer modeling of the atmosphere and how water would behave
In other words "Nothing for you to see here, move along".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Why caves? Two reasons:
- Here on Earth, there's some pretty "alien" forms of
life in caves that exists in very different and harsh conditions.
- On Mars, an ecosystem in a cave would be sheltered from the harsh solar radiation that bakes/sterilizes the surface since there's no protective ozone later.
Even though Mars is smaller than Earth, the land area is about the same as Earth, so it will take a long time to explore Mars fully.I agree that continuing to explore the surface won't lead to much, but there's probably lots of interesting stuff in caves.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Unfortunately, there's a good chance that "life on Mars" is just "life on Earth that migrated to Mars".
Well, that's one of the exciting things the data will tell us! If the genetic code is the same, then we know life didn't evolve seprately - by one means or another it migrated from one place or the other.
If Martian genetics is built off of molecules other than U/TAGC, then we know for sure that it evolved seperately in both places (and that there are multiple building blocks that work, which would be an interesting discovery in its own right).
If the chemicals are the same but the code is different, then that probably means independent evolution, but if there's some similarity scientists can argue about it for centuries! Won't that be entertaining?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I dont know. I find it frustrating that the article provides just about no details. However, I did a quick Google search, and came up with this:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/
And:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_ice_signs_010614.html
The first page is dated in the year 2000! I wonder if this is really news after all! The second page is dated 2001. It states basically the same thing as the article the submitter linked to, however it says how long ago "recent" is--10,000,000 years!!
You're referring to chirality (often called "handedness"). There are several kinds of chirality - for example, there is the question of why we only use a protein folded in a certain pattern instead of its mirror image, as well as the more fundamental question of why the amino acids that compose the protein are themselves a certain chiral form.
The "radiation" theory is interesting, but I find a much simpler theory quite sufficient: two dimensional boundary interfaces. Picture that, say, you have some organic molecule forming on top of a grain of quartz sand underwater. There are different forces acting on one side of the assembly site than the other. The side that forms next to the water will not be likely to form in the same shape as the side that forms near the quartz.
Boundary interfaces abound in the universe - almost every joint between grains in almost every rock, from the surfaces of those rocks, from organic deposits, to liquids and gasses. If a certain substrate acts as a catalyst for forming a given molecule, and the molecule is rarely formed otherwise, it's only natural to expect that chiral form to come into play. Once the more dominant form is incorporated into a lifeform, it is "locked in" - more of that form will be created to help the lifecycle, while the other form won't be renewed.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
No, the beliefs would just evolve to accomodate (or deny) the new discoveries like they always do.
You see, once there's a sudden change in the culture and the current belief system becomes unfit to propogate around the population, new amendments are inserted more-or-less randomly into the belief structure and whichever mutations are most fit to attract the greatest number of believers will become the basis for future generations of the religion.
This ability to adapt is really the cornerstone for modern day religion. It also provides us with a wide diversity and complexity of belief systems, yet which all have striking similarities.
Many religious beliefs would be decimated
Reduced by one tenth? Probably so.
If God can create one world, and all life on it, why not others? Just because Scripture is silent about life elsewhere in the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that it has nothing to do with His plan for Earth.
Blind militant atheism is as bad as blind militant fundamentalism. Open your eyes.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
because Mars has a lower escape velocity than the Earth. So its easier to throw rock from the surface of Mars to Earth than visa versa.
Ian
Now, I'm not the GP, but unfounded aggressive anti-religious statements annoy me as an agnostic: I'd like to perceive atheism as being a rational alternative to religion, and broad, sweeping statements like that aren't helping. Furthermore, seeing as I agree with the GP, you seem to by extension assert that I am under the control of organised religion. Being, as I've mentioned, an agnostic, I find this idea counterintuitive and would like to hear the reasoning behind it.
First of all, you do realise that ad hominem arguments are rather obvious fallacies? The AC hadn't even brought his personal beliefs - which, after all, were irrelevant to the discussion - into the matter. You really shouldn't try to attack people for their beliefs before you even give them a chance to state them.
As for the actual question: The Bible doesn't concern itself with the physical space that lies beyond the Earth, for reasons that should be obvious to both believers and non-believers. The book was written before its intended audience had any idea that such a space existed in as concrete a form as we now know it does.
From a secular viewpoint, this means that the people who wrote it couldn't discuss concepts that were conceived after their deaths.
From a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, it means that the existence of planets beyond our own would be a silly thing for a god to talk about to the human race. While I'm not very well versed in theology, I think it's safe to say that the Judeo-Christian god tends not to concern himself with scientific discoveries past, present or future, but rather with moral codes and prophecies of the future of humanity(in both the physical and the metaphysical spheres).
As far as I know, the idea that Christianity and extraterrestrial life are incompatible is a myth. (Christianity, of course, would hold that God, being all-seeing and all-powerful, is also the god that ultimately was the creator of whatever other planets and creatures that may exist - but this is not logically incompatible with the rest of the set of beliefs.) It may not have been so at one time - I daresay that Christianity at the time of Copernicus was generally hostile to all kinds of astronomy - but I've yet to find a single Christian who thinks that extraterrestrial life would invalidate his or her beliefs, and the Christianity of the present, like it or not, is defined by the beliefs of those who currently consider themselves Christians.
As for your closing paragraph: while a case can be made for the Marxist view of organised religion, you are approaching it far too naïvely. Saying that it was created for one thing only is simplifying the issue. Even from a thoroughly anti-religious point of view, you'll have to agree that religion throughout history has - to take a stunningly arbitrary example - provided comfort to believers who otherwise would have felt trapped in a world they had no chance of understanding, therefore causing them to cling to it. You can't simplify religion - or even superstition, which religion is indistinguishable from from a materialist viewpoint - down to a conspiracy theory.
(You can try, of course, but then you'll be playing "make believe" without even asserting that you have felt a supernatural influence - which is logically provably silly.)
I could go on and on listing atheist rulers and the attrocities they committed in the 20th century but I would hope you get the point by now.
I'm sick and tired of this blind hatred and bigotry towards religion on slashdot as well as the ignorance of our common history. This anti-religious zealotry and often quoted sterotypes is just as bad as racism and racial stereotypes. You fear what you do not understand.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.