Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the dr-neukum-forever dept.

FireFury03 writes "The European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft has spotted an icy feature which appears to be a young active glacier. Dr Gerhard Neukum, chief scientist on the spacecraft's High Resolution Stereo Camera said 'We have not yet been able to see the spectral signature of water. But we will fly over it in the coming months and take measurements. On the glacial ridges we can see white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice'. Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 — 100,000 years old."

26 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission? by Dr_Banzai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This might be a good place to land a Mars mission because you could use the ice to create oxygen, water, fuel etc.

    1. Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission? by CrackPipePls · · Score: 5, Funny

      and more importantly, to cool beer :-)

    2. Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission? by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, to MAKE beer, then cool it. Dried malt extract and hops pellets are far more compact than bringing lots of extra beer. Mars homebrew!

    4. Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission? by Urkki · · Score: 2, Funny

      When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing. Yes, because, you know, repeated artificial reprosessing of waste will wear out the water molecules. The electrons get all fractured, H-atoms may te twisted to wrong angles, little feces and urine particles may get stuck between the two H-atoms, and so on. Natural prosesses are much better because then the power of the Gaia (in this case the Martian Gaia) will be able to heal the damage in water molecules. And healthy water molecules will have the energy and will to keep themselves clean too, just like cats do.
  2. Sweet! by scubamage · · Score: 5, Funny

    The doctor in the article is named Dr. Neukem. If his first name is Duke, I would not want to be the one to contest his theory.

    1. Re:Sweet! by Fx.Dr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why is that? It's not like he'd ever find you. Worst case scenario is that every six years he'd pop his head up to remind you that he's still around.

    2. Re:Sweet! by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, his full name is; Dr Gerhard Neukum

      Actually, his name is Gerhard Neukum. His title is Dr...

      I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips ... can only be freshly exposed ice"... There could be a number of other explanations, and I'd hope the team would consider those as well.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    3. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips ... can only be freshly exposed ice"...

      Agreed 100%. Perhaps now my "Mars is made of meringue" hypothesis will finally be taken seriously!

    4. Re:Sweet! by AJWM · · Score: 4, Funny

      You misunderstand (or somebody did).

      It's not Duke Neukem, it's Doc Neukem.

      --
      -- Alastair
  3. Here comes the Martian penguin movie... by gumbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you thought Hollywood was out of penguin movie fuel (after March, Happy Feet, and the other animated one that I can't remember the name of), this is just the thing they've been waiting for. Cute green Martian penguins dancing around on an iceberg. Fun for everybody!

  4. Not a surprise. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We've known there was ice on Mars for a century or more. It is visible from Earth through any reasonably good telescope. You know, those white things at the poles?

    Sure, in winter they get bigger from frozen out CO2, but there's a year-round permanent cap of water ice. Glaciers, permafrost, pingoes and other signs of ice should not be a surprise. Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).

    Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Not a surprise. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the pleasure out of this finding is yet more evidence that Mars is an *active* planet. We've known for over a century about Martian seasons, for quite some time about the vast dust storms, and recently there have been some tanatalizing hints of ongoing vulcanism, and now an active glacier. For a glacier to be active, it means there has to be some sort of hydrological cycle to replenish the ice.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Not a surprise. by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).
      its location is at 47.5N, 28.4E so yes, very odd indeed.

      Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.
      yeah, a large percentage of the solar system's material consists of frozen water, no surprise by that account that water exists on Mars, what seems to be interesting here is how young it is and I presume the position as well. although if we were to find say liquid water anywhere nearby *that* would be far more interesting but no luck on the surface [confirmed that is] yet.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Not a surprise. by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars.

      Leaving aside the (in my opinion) intellectual dishonesty of ID, a cool (and admittedly fictional) creationist take on the idea of life on Mars: Out of the Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis.

      Nothing I'm aware of in creationist canon explicitly excludes the idea of life elsewhere in this universe. It's just not mentioned. Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Not a surprise. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

      Well maybe this is just me, but I tend to be surprised or excited whenever the actual scientists involved are surprised or excited. Seems like they are the ones who would be best equipped to know what the significance is.

      I'm pretty sure they are already aware of the Martian ice caps, so maybe there's something more significant to this then? Naw, you're right, it's better to use hindsight to say "that was obvious!" and brush it off.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Not a surprise. by Shadowplay00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!". Unfortunately that describes far too many these days. Even if you were to argue that's a small proportion of active Christians in the US, it's enough to affect attempts to teach science. Look at all the controversies over teaching ID in public schools: do you really think these schoolboard members are terribly open-minded?
    6. Re:Not a surprise. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, 47.5 N is hardly equatorial, but it is further south (by about 8 degrees) than the typical maximum winter extent of the north polar cap, so I'll grant you "odd" but perhaps not "very odd". (We have equatorial glaciers here on Earth at sufficient altitude, although they're disappearing rapidly.)

      I wouldn't be surprised if significant traces of water (ice) are found all over Vastitas Borealis; if it was once a sea bottom (and it bears characteristics of such) there could be a lot left just under the surface (which would help preserve it).

      The real question is whether they find sodium ;-)

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Not a surprise. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your completely off the mark here. The problem isn't people thinking that "if it isn't in the good book it doesn't exist". It isn't even close to that.

      The problem with teaching science isn't anything to do with the bible. It is with how the science is being taught. It is being done in a way that excludes anything else. It is in effect calling religions wrong and to some extent, it (the people teaching it) specifically mentioned it being wrong. While that may be a true statement in your take on things, there is still this thing called freedom of religion and the separation of state.

      This freedom of a religion and separation of church and state is a concept that say the government cannot push a religion on people, can't favor on over another and they cannot prevent one from being practiced. You cannot argue that going to a publicly funded school and being compelled by law to attend isn't the government sanctioning what is happening there. So when the science is presented in a way that little johnny or little susy comes home and say god is a liar or doesn't exist, this didn't happen because we learned about it in school, then we have a problem along this freedom of religion and church and state thing.

      I personally feel that if the material is presented as a theory in the tradition sense with something saying simply that this is how science relates to things and so far it has been as accurate as we can test, things would be fine. I'm not impressed with these intelligent design ideas of teaching creationism as a philosophy course. Just don't make any definite statements and present it as it relates to science and there shouldn't be a problem.

      I understand that people think it is absurd to downplay something like evolution and the big bang theory because they incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven. The fact is, while it has become close to being shown as fact and it is generally accepted as true, it hasn't been proven to the extent some think it has. But your interpretation of something being the right way or the real way has just as much to do with this as some bible thumper's interpretation. You have as much freedom from religion as they have freedom of religion. You cannot claim their religion is anything as much as they cannot make you subscribe to their religion.

      That is what this boils down to, and that is why the problem is in America and not other free countries (the constitution). It isn't for the most part and outright rejection of science but a rejection of the way science is being taught and how that teaching is attempting to deny other people's freedom of religion. And just like in anything else, when the government endorses the view, it kicks in constitutional problems.

      I'm not saying that you won't find a few creationist who strictly think the bible is the only way, but you will find that the majority of people supporting ID or statements in science classes are the people who doesn't want the government going around claiming their religion is a fairytale or wrong and whatever else. If it wasn't for the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion, this wouldn't be a problem. But it is a problem and people are attempting to introduce ID as an fix.

      Ask me about science as a religion, it goes a little more into explaining the "incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven" I mentioned earlier. Of course people want to strongly deny religions convictions of scientific theories because then it would be obvious on the freedom of religion and seperation of church and state thing.

  5. Missing by Etrias · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh good! Glaciers on Mars. Nice for them to turn up because we're starting to miss a few down here.

  6. Mars Ice "Premium" Bottled Water? by Zymergy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Executive: "How can we get ahold of some of that Mars glacial ice? We could make a killing selling it to the bottled water crowd!"

    R&D: "We could make it a dilute 'blend' with filtered municipal tap water and disclose (in small print) that it is 'filtered for your purity'."

    Marketing: "The bottle cost should be just under $0.05 each (with printing) and we could put on its side in BOLD TYPE: 'Contains REAL Mars Water' and actual unit cost could be $1000 each. Then we could spread a rumor that it has aphrodisiac properties, it worked for the rhinoceros horn market!"...

    NASA Administration Plebe to NASA Director: "Sir, I think I have found a new way to raise REAL corporate money for our manned Mars missions..."

  7. Re:we must go to mars by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.

    Without it we'd have to wait tens of thousands of years, or more, while specially engineered plant life (very basic plant life) and such worked its slow magic on the atmosphere. With a bit of global warming technology (TM) we can shorten the time considerably. If oceans were brought back the process would be much faster.

    The question is how can it be acheived in a way that can be managed, so it doesn't spin out of control. Personally, since I won't be alive in either case, a thing I have in common with everyone reading this, I'd go for the slower option, or even go for the option of spending a few hundred years seeing if there were any remnant native organisms that could be helped back into activity and do the job for us.

    That there are active glaciers is fascinating though. What a shame that almost all of the current environment of mars would need to be destroyed or irreversibly altered in order to host our species. It doesn't bode well for our entry into the interstellar club. How ironic if the destructive aliens we worry about so much in fiction turn out to be us.

  8. More Martian Glacier Info by L3WKW4RM · · Score: 2, Informative

    More info and photos on the Martian rock-ice glaciers of Deuteronilus Mensae.

    Now that we've got glaciers and lava tubes, I'm packing up my crampons and caving gear for a Martian vacation!

  9. Estimate? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

    Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 -- 100,000 years old.

    They really meant "wild-assed guess", but it sounds more scientific to call it an estimate.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Not News. by notnAP · · Score: 2, Funny

    Possible Active Interplanetary Missile Complex Found On Mars


    Now that's news.

  11. Nasa already found water on mars by kvap · · Score: 2, Funny

    A couple of years ago:

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc_big.jpg