Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Enormous Amount of Frozen Water Found on Mars

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the or-at-least-way-more-than-before dept.

schweini writes "Space.com is reporting that the Mars Express probe's MARSIS (Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding) experiment has detected and measured an enormous amount of water ice near Mars' south pole, which would be sufficient to submerge the whole planet's surface underneath approximately 10m of water on average."

21 of 442 comments (clear)

  1. Let's add some heat! by PapayaSF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sounds like the idea of terraforming Mars just got a lot closer to doable. Wouldn't evaporating or boiling some of the water via nuclear reactors or orbiting mirrors increase the humidity and heat retention of the atmosphere, and eventually create a climate in which many earth organisms could thrive?

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:Let's add some heat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that water molecules are a bit too light and likely to escape Mars' gravity well (or be kicked out of it). Nothing like having an atmosphere just to lose it into space.

      The problem with Mars is that it's a little too small and has no magnetic field to keep the solar wind away. Oh well, not unfixable, but we'll need a little more technology to move it further from the Sun (perhaps in orbit around Jupiter?)

    2. Re:Let's add some heat! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Without addressing the fundamental flaws with the idea of terraforming in any form, no.

      The conditions that caused the loss of the original atmosphere are still present, and even presuming you could start melting the water somehow, and then put some sort of hardy organisms on there to make an Earth-like atmosphere, it would only last until you ran out of water, then you would be back in the same boat, except now all the water would be gone.

              Brett

    3. Re:Let's add some heat! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes. To start, let's de-orbit one of Mars' moons, and then bombard the planet with sufficient water asteroids (a chunk of water ice totalling a few million cublic kilometres would probably do, but you'd need a lot of smaller chunks) to both significantly increase the water on the surface as well as increasing the gravity. We can continue bombarding the planet with relatively large asteroids to work on the surface gravity while we move orbital mirrors into position and begin to eat the place up.

      As you say, not unfixable... just kind of difficult, especially with our currently-pathetic space programs.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    4. Re:Let's add some heat! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't evaporating or boiling some of the water via nuclear reactors

            Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...

            Seriously do you have any idea of the amount of energy involved to do what you propose? Here's a hint: multiply 1370 W/m^2 minus 590 W/m2 by the cross sectional area of mars (around 3.6 x 10^13 m^2) to give you 2.7 x 10^16 Watts.

            That's pretty much around the amount of energy you need to produce with your nuclear reactors to keep mars at around earthlike temperatures... To put this in perspective, a 1 Megaton nuclear device has a yield of around 4 x 10^15 Joules. You would need to be exploding the equivalent of 6 of these devices on the planet EVERY SECOND to generate enough energy. Then there's the problem of distributing the heat evenly...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Let's add some heat! by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, a ringworld can generate gravity by rotation (ok, it's not gravity, but you know what I mean).

      Never really got how you were supposed to do that with a dyson sphere though. I mean, surely you'd have 'high' gravity at the equator, some further out, but as you started to hit the axis of rotation, you lose/reduce your gravitational effects and air pressure.

      OK, so I appreciate it might be useful to have lowgrav, but I can't help but feel that you'd end up with most of your sphere (by volume) with not being especially habitable. Unlike a ringworld.

      Or did I miss something?

    6. Re:Let's add some heat! by julesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a hint: multiply 1370 W/m^2 minus 590 W/m2 by the cross sectional area of mars (around 3.6 x 10^13 m^2) to give you 2.7 x 10^16 Watts.

      From the source you cite:
      The average solar intensity at the orbit of Mars is 590 W/m2, compared with 1370 W/m2 in Earth orbit

      The figures you're citing are orbital figures. Most of that energy is reflected off or absorbed by the atmosphere. Energy reaching the surface of the Earth is more like 200 W/m2, with an additional 70W/m2 absorbed by the atmosphere. I don't know about the Martian surface, I haven't found any sources, but with a thinner atmosphere, I dare say a higher proportion of that energy reaches it. I'd guess you're probably looking at making up a deficit of less than 100W/m2, not 600.

    7. Re:Let's add some heat! by magarity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      most of your sphere (by volume) with not being especially habitable. Unlike a ringworld. Or did I miss something?
       
      You didn't miss anything except that it's OK to be like that. The point of a Dyson's sphere is not to provide habitable area. It is to capture the entire energy output of the enclosed star. So all the uninhabited parts are just banks after banks of solar power collectors.

  2. Global warming beat us there by patio11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

    Its always fun saying "Mars has global warming" to a room full of people who consider themselves "educated enough to know that global warming denial is an unscientific crock". You first get a bit of laughter, and then about 15 seconds later the implication dawns on them, and they'll say the satellites were busted, the protocols unscientific, and that whatever boring astronomer produced the result must be a stooge for Big Carbon.

    --
    Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
    1. Re:Global warming beat us there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You should investigate the provenence of Real Climate before you believe it too readily. It was set up to defent Mann from the anti-hocky-stick brigade.

      Given that Mann's hockey-stick has now been shown to be so false that even the IPCC no longer use it, I would say that Real Climate was founded on a lie, and is a shill for Mann. Take a look at Climate Audit

    2. Re:Global warming beat us there by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Regardless of the whether or not it only applies to Earth, my point is that the so called "global warming" of Mars can't be concluded as "global warming" as we know it because we don't have nearly enough data to conclude that, or at least there wasn't enough data when the article that the GP linked to was written. 2 years worth of data is not enough to say that Mars is going through a phase of global warming, as I said in my post. I probably shouldn't have thrown the comment about the dictionary in there because it leaves the post open for someone to come in and attack that one point as if the other points don't exist...

      We don't just have to years of data. We just have two year of data that isn't measured by proxy. Proxy measurments are how we know the level of Co2 or temperature the earth was 200,000 years ago. It is taken several different ways. But more closley one of the important ways is the UV and IR emittance and reflectivity of the atmosphere. It is the same basic way we measure the temperature of earth from Space.

      Of course the rate for error could be higher. The actualy amount could be differen't but any flaw in the formula should transpose itself thoughout the formula so the effect of global wamring will be visible.

      But the problem doesn't come from temperature alone. You have glacier that normaly melts (and melts for reasons other then the earths temperature) being passed on as proof of global warming. When we see the same things occuring on mars, it is somehow not connected and means nothing. We have Al Gores movie showing us this as a direct result of global warming and all the polar bears are going to die.

      And of course an article isn't going to explain a complete study or show every piece of data. It is an article ment for the masses to digest not a study in itself. Almost every article where you read about terestrial global warming only presents a portion of the facts. Why are we even contemplating the discounting of something being worked on because they didn't present you with all the facts in some article a random user pointed to because it was writen to a level that he could understand? (yea, a couple of commas, maybe a period or two would have help that runon sentence.) Because it doesn't fit with what we were forced to believe and it doesn't support humans as the cause.

      Did you miss the part in my post where I said that warming of the earth occurs naturally? I really don't think that most people who believe that humans are causing the current global warming also think humans are the only cause of global warming. There is plenty of data to show that the temperature of the earth has fluctuated significantly over many, many years (hundreds of thousands?). I really haven't heard anyone say that only humans can raise the temperature of the earth. I'm not sure where that idea is coming from.

      lol.. No i didn't miss that part. What I missed is that part were natural occuring global warming was a problem. It apears that everyone thinks natural occuring global wamring cannot be the problem because Humans are. So yes, Not everyone who thinks humans cause global warming think humans are the only cause, but they think they are the contributing cause to bring the temperature abive what they consider a natural level. The global warming problem being presented isn't that the earth is warming, the problem being presented is that the earth is warming because we use Fossil fuels and put too much Co2 into the atmosphere. The sun increasing it's strenth is discounted as being behind hte problem. I've read report were Scientist were claiming since 2000 that we didn't account ofr the solar activity corectly and need to adjust it's value by as much as 30%. Yet the humans are the cuase crowd so increased solar activity only acounts ofr a fraction of a percent of the increased temperatures. Also, I have spoke with several self proclaimed global warming experts who claim increased watervapor which would be a di

  3. ok, where was I when... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It seems like the last time I heard of this topic the scientists were trying to find any evidence of water on Mars.
    Now, they've found a massive amount and the F article states:
    1. Discovered in the early 1970s, layered deposits of ice and dust cap the North and South Poles of Mars.
    2. Scientists have long known that Mars' north polar cap is a massive storehouse of water ice...

    So what gives? My vague memory says in the nineties they were still looking for any signs of water and now it's old news?

    --

    Liberty.

  4. Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? by thrawn_aj · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I feel your pain. But you should know that throught history, the people who really contributed to the advancement of the human race (many a time ignoring the flames licking their feet as they stood at the stake) constituted a tiny minority of humanity (at best). As such, innovation and the frontier spirit has remained the domain of a significant few, rather than the multitudinous drones that form the background noise on this lil rock we call home. If that sounds elitist, it really isn't. All I'm saying is that there is no pre-ordained reason why the human race should or shouldn't have a profound future. What is true (and what we should accept and move on) is that only a small fraction of humanity will ever recognize profundity when they see it :P. And please don't fel bad about your country, it is really a global phenomenon. Until a few centuries ago, the operative word was "anti-science" - i.e. active hostility against science. Then even the most retarded of the drones realized that science was the goose that laid the golden eggs and you didn't even have to acknowledge the goose! - just grab the eggs and praise god (I don't abuse my capitals thank you very much :P) for the bounty :P. So now we live in a period where anti-science has been replaced by apathy to science. It's a sort of knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the world owes the scientific community a heavy debt and is trying to welsh out of it ;-). No matter, no one's in a hurry. Time enough for us to evolve fully.

  5. What are the chances... by jordyhoyt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a couple bacteria could (accidentally) make it the whole way to mars on one of our probes? Is it possible we could inadvertently populate mars with our Earth-life? How funny would it be to "discover" life on mars when we actually put it there years before on a probe to one of the more life-friendly corners of mars... just a weird though i had while reading this

    1. Re:What are the chances... by Mr0bvious · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to this article http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05 -P13-00024&segmentID=7 the chances are high... Here is an extract

      BURDICK: It is surprisingly difficult. I spent some quality time with a microbiologist at the Jet Propulsion Lab out in Pasadena, and this guy works in the spacecraft assembly facility where they build, well they built the Mars Rovers that are now out there on Mars. And this guy, his job is to kind of inspect what's left over and to see well, gosh, did any microbes survive the incredibly kind of harsh decontamination process that we've devised to get rid of them? And to his great surprise they have, and he's found at least one microbe that not only thrives in the spacecraft assembly facility, but seems to have actually evolved in it. It's a tough little spore, it eats aluminum. He found it growing on the surface of one of the Mars Rovers. It forms these spores and then the spores kind of group together to form a little, what he calls an igloo. It looks kind of like a macaroon under a microscope and when he cuts it open and exposes it to the light detection techniques that NASA's developed to look for life, he finds no sign of life and then when he puts this little igloo back together, the microbe comes back to life amazingly. And I asked him, "So you know you found this thing on the Mars Rover when it was being built. Do you think it's up there on Mars right now?" And he said, "oh yes, I'm quite certain, I'm almost certain that it is." So you know, I mean, it's just indicative of how life wants to spread. Either they're moving around inadvertently with us or they're moving around intentionally with us, but they are kind of reflections of our ambition, our desire to reshape the nature around us in a way that makes us more comfortable. You know, we can kind of demonize these things, but in a way they're really kind of impressive little critters. They're sort of doing what nature permitted them to do. And in a Darwinian sense, I mean, they're winners. I mean you've got to be, even if you don't like aliens, and there is quite a number of reasons not to, I think it's worthwhile sort of stopping and at least being impressed by their ability to thrive in a world that we think that we dominate. So far as we know, Earth is the only planet with life on it and the wind is blowing outward. We may well be the dandelion in the solar system.

      Interesting...

      --
      Never happened. True story.
  6. Too bad we can't ship our CO2 to Mars by BlackSabbath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's see. By all accounts we're producing too much CO2 on Earth, meanwhile our closest neighbour is just begging for some CO2 to trigger a bit of global warming and make the planet nice and cosy.

    OK. A bit simplistic, but you can't help wondering...

    1. Re:Too bad we can't ship our CO2 to Mars by kyknos.org · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MArs atmosphere is 90% CO2 but the atmosphere is extremely thin. So, it really needs more CO2 to become warmer.

      --

      SHE does throw dice.
  7. Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As such, innovation and the frontier spirit has remained the domain of a significant few, rather than the multitudinous drones that form the background noise on this lil rock we call home. If that sounds elitist, it really isn't.

    Two comments on this:

    1. If you constrain "innovation" to "technological innovation" you are right, in a way, but probably not in a way you think: While people doing technological advancements are few as a fraction of the population, technological "breakthroughs" are hardly done by the single, lonesome genius in his basement. Innovations are often developed independently and in teams and even if you hear of a single name, there's often more than one person behind it and even that team massively builds on other published scientific work done by others. So, yes, technological advancement is done by a small portion of society but it's hardly done by "one-in-a-century" figures.

    2. I'd argue that social progress is as important as technological one. Yes, I do complain about the social sciences, too (esp. since some do look more like proto-science), but without social progress we end up having (for example, the nuclear bomb) but lack the social framework to deal with it, resulting in catastrophic consequences that are proportional to the technology's power.

  8. Boring ! by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I can't wait to surf Mars. With moons that close, there ought to be tidal swells that one could ride forever.



    Bah .. surfing is such an Earth-bound sport. I can't wait to strap on a pair of wings and fly through the atmosphere on Titan. Low gravity + fairly thick atmosphere = lots of fun.

  9. Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Your attitude reeks of elitism and a rose-tinted nostalgia for "the good old days." You say an astronaut is "risking his life every second of the way in a manner that no other man or woman on the planet could even comprehend"? Please. The risk is certainly there, but don't try to pretend it's somehow fundamentally different from all the risks "regular" people take every day in pursuit of less glamorous occupations. Yes, exploration is a noble goal, but you are fooling yourself if you think that's why people used to care more about the space program.

    You know what? You're not going to listen to what I have to say, anyway. You're off in your imaginary space-ship, looking down on all of those closed-minded little people who can't see the obvious importance of your personal obsession; and you whine that they won't spend as many of their tax dollars on the space program as they used to in the "glory days." The only thing I can tell you is that you're not going to have much success convincing people with that kind of condescension.

  10. the case for (terraforming) Mars by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read a lot of critics about the terraformation of Mars like this one: "The conditions that caused the loss of the original atmosphere are still present"

    That is far from certain. It seems many people are going with the assumption that the theory that the gravity-field of mars is too puny to hold the watermolecules (and thus the atmosphere dissapeating into space in a copple of thousand years), is a fact. However, this is only one of many theories existing to explain the lack of an (considerable) atmosphere on Mars. Another variant of that theory to explain it is that the atmosphere got largely blown away by meteor-impacts in the first half-billion years of the existence of our solarsystem (there was a period of a large amount of meteor(hits) then, as proven by craters on the moon and other planets).

    Now, if that's true, and seen the fact that fase is long since over, then, if we were able to revive a useful atmosphere, it could well be that it could sustain itself, or at least last for millions of years. No more mass amounts of impacts that blow the atmosphere away, after all. (BTW, all atmospheres lose molecules to space, but it gets more then enough back from tiny (and bigger) particles falling down to earth; this may be true for Mars as well, EVEN if the atmosphere dissapeates faster).

    I'm not saying this IS true, but it's one of the many theories out there that try to explain the current state of Mars. Untill we know the actual truth about the matter, it's far too soon to claim terraforming isn't possible on Mars. Depending on the cause for Mars' thin atmosphere, and the level of replenishment, it might well be a viable option.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---