Slashdot Mirror


New Images Reveal Pure Water Ice On Mars

Matt_dk writes "Images of recent impact craters taken by the HiRISE Camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have revealed sub-surface water ice halfway between the north pole and the equator on Mars. While the Phoenix lander imaged subsurface ice where the top layer of soil had been disturbed at the landing site near the north pole, these new images — taken in quick succession, detecting how the ice sublimated away — are the first to show evidence of water ice at much lower latitudes. Surprisingly, the white ice may be made from 99 percent pure water."

179 comments

  1. Whoa by Jeoh · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They're finding a lot of water in space recently.

    1. Re:Whoa by NoYob · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're finding a lot of water in space recently.

      They just need to find the ethanol now.

      For fuel of course! - *looks side to side*

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    2. Re:Whoa by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      What? Where?

      I'd rather see uranium deposits closeby. The Ethanol can come second, to fuel the parties we will have on mars after we get a reactor going. Unless we can somehow melt the ice and oxygenate the atmosphere.

      Kuato Lives.

    3. Re:Whoa by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uranium won't get us back off the planet. Solar works well enough for short-term power, even all the way out at Mars. But it's a death sentence to explore Mars without enough fuel to get us back off the ground, so if we can find something we can use/refine as return fuel, it'll make an initial trip that much more likely.

    4. Re:Whoa by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They have already found methanol in space, so we may not have to wait too long. :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anon cause I moderated.

      Read Zubrin's The Case for Mars. Water is all we really need.

    6. Re:Whoa by swimin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Water + Solar/Nuclear = Return flight.

    7. Re:Whoa by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Space: where most stuff is.

    8. Re:Whoa by zuckerj · · Score: 3, Funny

      Space: where moist stuff is.

    9. Re:Whoa by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      As someone already pointed out, splitting water can be fuel.

      However, there is hydrogen in space and methanol if I remember right. It could be harvested and processed for this. Alternatively, we could just send a supply ship into high earth orbit, doc with it and drag the fuel with us using boosters or something. You could launch the transport ship, the refueling ship remotely and bring the crew up on a third mission to avoid transferring dangerous chemicals with humans around and no place to run.

      However, I'm curious how effective traditional rocket motors will be in an atmosphere so less dense then Earth's.

    10. Re:Whoa by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Uranium won't get us back off the planet. Solar works well enough for short-term power, even all the way out at Mars. But it's a death sentence to explore Mars without enough fuel to get us back off the ground, so if we can find something we can use/refine as return fuel, it'll make an initial trip that much more likely.

      We could always grow hemp - we've got dirt, sun, and water.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    11. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're finding a lot of water in space recently.

      what's your definition of recently?

      someone obviously never saw Cosmos.
      Dr Sagan is very disappointed in you....

    12. Re:Whoa by skine · · Score: 1

      All you need is water.

      bum ba did-a-duh

      All you need is water

      bum ba did-a-duh

      All you need is water, yeah

      Water is all we really need.

    13. Re:Whoa by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rocket motors don't require an atmosphere at all. Is just mass moving and action/reaction. Any sort of device that can chuck mass out the back of a vehicle will push that vehicle forward.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:Whoa by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      However, I'm curious how effective traditional rocket motors will be in an atmosphere so less dense then Earth's.

      obligatory Goddard reference

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    15. Re:Whoa by sohare · · Score: 1

      Uranium won't get us back off the planet. Solar works well enough for short-term power, even all the way out at Mars. But it's a death sentence to explore Mars without enough fuel to get us back off the ground, so if we can find something we can use/refine as return fuel, it'll make an initial trip that much more likely.

      It's only a death sentence if the point of the mission to actually get back to Earth. If you consider the history of human exploration and expansion you'll realize that quiet a bit of travel was intentionally one way. People tend to conflate the Space Race with actual exploration. Probably what we'll see with Mars (though who can really say) is a number of unmanned supply ships followed by a one way manned mission to set up some sort of colony. I think you'd actually be surprised at how many people would volunteer for a one way mission.

    16. Re:Whoa by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rockets are more efficient in a less dense atmosphere. There is less ambient pressure working against the exhaust, and there is less against the vehicle vehicle itself.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    17. Re:Whoa by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power could run the process that would make fuel from Mars!

      http://videos.howstuffworks.com/tlc/30786-destination-mars-making-fuel-from-mars-atmosphere-video.htm

    18. Re:Whoa by tecc91 · · Score: 1

      I don't remember exactly which one it was, but I believe Slashdot recently had an article about having a great deal of volunteers to sign up for a one way ticket to Mars. Members were mostly either insanely dedicated scientists or aging ones who still wanted to be able to make their mark and contribute to the scientific community. With proper planning, that could result in tremendous amounts of data because it could be interpreted to a degree on the spot as well as at a later date.

    19. Re:Whoa by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      All the cool kids in space party with energon cubes.

    20. Re:Whoa by jamesswift · · Score: 1

      You idiot, it's Noo Yoik where moist stuff is. No disrespect.*

      *sorry

      --
      i wish i could stop
    21. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to be the first to volunteer...all those people that lump together all Liberals/Conservatives, Democrats/Republicans, Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever together and declare which ever side they're not on as evil and stupid. Not saying anything bad about these people, we just don't need'em around...

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

      But it's a death sentence to explore Mars without enough fuel to get us back off the ground

      Isn't life in general a death sentence?

    23. Re:Whoa by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      If you consider the history of human exploration and expansion you'll realize that quiet a bit of travel was intentionally one way.

      I'm always a bit torn on this explination. I'd like to see Mars as a colony within my life time, but it's completely unlike historical colonization. Despite the fact that early explores did not know what they might find, they did know that whereever they went, there were a few simple rules. First and foremost, they could breathe the air anywhere on Earth. Second, there's little reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to find food, be it in the sea, or searching around on land. I'm not saying many didn't die from starvation and lack of clean water, but at least the rules were the same no matter where they were.

    24. Re:Whoa by DigitalPasture · · Score: 1

      Technically Uranium *could* get them off planet. Extensive research was done by both the USSR and USA on nuclear propulsion drives. That being said, it probably wouldn't be ideal due to contamination. It probably wouldn't do to spread fallout over a planet we will likely colonize one day (if we don't wipe ourselves out first). Link action if in doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

    25. Re:Whoa by treeves · · Score: 1

      Steam rockets. Cool!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    26. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water + Wind/Nuclear. Mars has these dust problems which affect solar performance, but lots of wind energy to spare for splitting those sticky H atoms away from the O's.

    27. Re:Whoa by DigitalPasture · · Score: 1

      Didn't read the link I provided eh? Water is not needed (except for human needs). It's a controlled nuclear explosion powering this.

  2. Lets colonize! by AK+Dave · · Score: 0

    First the Moon, and now Mars. We're finding water on both bodies. All we need now is an atmosphere, and maybe a little bit of heat. I'm a bit surprised we're not already talking about tapping that water as an energy source and oxygen source for a colony dome.

    1. Re:Lets colonize! by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Use the water as an energy source how? Heat difference between something heated by the sun and the ice? I'm not sure I follow.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:Lets colonize! by wizardforce · · Score: 0

      Use the water as an energy source how? Heat difference between something heated by the sun and the ice? I'm not sure I follow.

      water along with other sources of Hydrogen contain Deuterium which can be used as a fuel for nuclear fusion reactors.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Lets colonize! by beckett · · Score: 1

      if there's water, then hydrolysis can produce hydrogen and oxygen which can be used in liquid-fueled spacecraft. a big ice patch on the moon/mars with a solar powered electrolysis kit could become a space gas station.

    4. Re:Lets colonize! by AK+Dave · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The claims look as spurious as cold fusion, and despite obvious violations of the laws of thermodynamics the idiots love to talk about how "hydrogen fuel cells" are recharged from "tap water" as if releasing hydrogen from water to use in a fuel cell didn't consume more energy than it makes available. So, you're right: water as an energy source doesn't make sense. But I'm still surprised that we're not already talking about using it as such.

    5. Re:Lets colonize! by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Informative

      A very poorly placed one, as the vaste majority of the fuel you make is going to be used to get it out of the gravity well (less so for the moon, but still significant). I've said it a dozen times on Slashdot already. A gas station would make more sense on an NEO where the resources are abundant and the gravity almost non-existant.

      Get your ass to an NEO! (just doesn't have the same right to it)

    6. Re:Lets colonize! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Funny

      That works. Fusion power is only 30 years away, after all, and I'm sure meaningful Mars missions will have to wait longer than that.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:Lets colonize! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Use the water as an energy source how? Heat difference between something heated by the sun and the ice? I'm not sure I follow.

      If your rocket burns oxygen and hydrogen you could fly it to Mars, then use solar energy to turn water into hydrogen+oxygen, and fly home.

    8. Re:Lets colonize! by hoggoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, not only is Fusion power only 30 years away, but personal flying jet-packs are only 10 years away, and true Artificial Intelligence is only 20 years away.
      The future is looking bright!

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    9. Re:Lets colonize! by beckett · · Score: 1

      Even compared to the cost of shipping it from earth's gravitational field? in order to make a LEO gas station work out economically, you'd need to build a space elevator. Having gas available on the moon/Mars opens up the solar system to exploration, as we no longer have to carry the raw fuel from home with us.

    10. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion power has always been just 30 years away, and will always be just 30 years away.

    11. Re:Lets colonize! by Xtifr · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Yes, not only is Fusion power only 30 years away, but personal flying jet-packs are only 10 years away, and true Artificial Intelligence is only 20 years away.

      The really cool thing is the way those numbers have remained constant since at least the eighties, and possibly much longer. :)

    12. Re:Lets colonize! by Kratisto · · Score: 1

      And it's the year of the linux desktop! The here and now isn't too shabby either!

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    13. Re:Lets colonize! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you need to get off mars then water (H+O) on the surface is in exactly the right place. Obviously the ability to make fuel outside the gravity well would be handy as well.

    14. Re:Lets colonize! by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to get technical about it, we've already harnessed fusion energy... in bombs... a good fifty years ago. We just haven't been able to scale down the process below a few megatons yield yet.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    15. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gee, thanks for connecting the dots for us.

    16. Re:Lets colonize! by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, fair nuf. I was thinking a more general purpose fueling point that just getting up off the surface. I was under the impression that it was difficult to use H as a rocket fuel though. In theory it has a high thrust/weight ratio but in practice it's so hard to keep it contained and cold enough to stay liquid that the extra equipement negates any advantes that it has. Doesn't mean that it's impossible of course, just difficult.

    17. Re:Lets colonize! by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The more we learn about the physics of fusion the more we realize that we did not grasp all of the complexities of building a working fusion reactor. We've gone from Q 10 for a commercial reactor so we are at least getting closer to our goal of commercial fusion. The question is whether the upward trend in Q gains will continue in the future. If they do then it is quite conceivable that we will have a prototype reactor up and running in 30 years, if not, we'll learn a lot about the physics involved.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    18. Re:Lets colonize! by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      You inspired the following daydream:

      1. Small crowd around a water cooler talking energetically
      2. Later... Man sitting alone in a chair at home
      3. Man sitting alone in a chair at home
      4. Man sitting alone in a chair at home
      5. Man sitting alone in a chair at home
      6. Man exclaims, "HA HA! I get it!"

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    19. Re:Lets colonize! by interkin3tic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've said it a dozen times on Slashdot already.

      MozeeToby has said something a dozen times on slashdot and some people still don't have it tattooed on their foreheads yet? :-P

    20. Re:Lets colonize! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get your ass to an NEO! (just doesn't have the same right to it)

      Just refer to the NEO in question as "The One", and I'm sure you'll be able get some people excited about it.

      We must find The One!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    21. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, net gain fusion seems to be down to around 6 or so, and commericial plants 12. The polywell fusion research is really cruising along.

    22. Re:Lets colonize! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Not for the Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion research. It sidesteps most of the issues present in Tokomak research.

    23. Re:Lets colonize! by Excelcior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Water = Hydrogen + Oxygen. Both make terrific fuels. While it's not necessarily the most expedient process on earth, Electrolysis is a simple and relatively fast method to separate the two using only solar power & a bit of salt (to boost conductivity).

      --
      A small comparison of interest:
      Windows: Public School. Mac: Private School. Linux: Homeschool. Assembly: Unschool.
    24. Re:Lets colonize! by TheCycoONE · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nuclear Physics is only ~100 years old, nuclear chain reactions weren't observed until the 30s, and the first fission reactor wasn't invented until the 40s. Fusion was also first observed in the 30s and as we all know they figured out how to make a pretty good bomb out of it by the 40s. Anyway my point is, all of this stuff is relatively recent, the physics is still moving fairly rapidly, but they have figured out how to get a net energy gain out of a manageable fusion reaction so to say it's 'always' going to be 30 years away is simply unfounded cynicism.

    25. Re:Lets colonize! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      the goal is to harness fusion energy in a controllable and sustainable fashion; not just blow something up in a quick blast. The level of knowledge and technology required is vastly different between the two concepts.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    26. Re:Lets colonize! by kimvette · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fusion was also first observed in the 30s

      I thought it was first observed many millennia ago? What IS that bright yellow thing in the sky? ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    27. Re:Lets colonize! by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that it was difficult to use H as a rocket fuel though

      Yeah, the shuttle uses it.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    28. Re:Lets colonize! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2

      I thought it was first observed many millennia ago? What IS that bright yellow thing in the sky? ;)

      Yes, that fusion source worshipped by the Pharaoh Ikhnaton and no doubt many other of our early ancestors.

      So with fusion, what we are proposing to do is bottle God. I find that idea strangely compelling.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    29. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, oxygen makes a better oxidizer...

    30. Re:Lets colonize! by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Pause frames in a simple list... is there nowhere those damnable pause frames won't go?

    31. Re:Lets colonize! by rrrhys · · Score: 1

      I never have mod points when I need them! I would just waste them on piss funny stuff like that anyway, I guess.

    32. Re:Lets colonize! by bcmm · · Score: 1

      More spurious than cold fusion. Cold fusion is vaguely believable, with the spuriousness coming from poorly-implemented attempts to prove it. Second-law violation is just plain silly.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    33. Re:Lets colonize! by bcmm · · Score: 1

      No, they make a great fuel together. You burn hydrogen in oxygen, and get water and energy. The same amount of both that you put in at the start.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    34. Re:Lets colonize! by fireylord · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the shuttle uses it.

      I'd just point out that the storage and use of it in the case of the shuttle is in a very limited sense in the external tank used immediately after they turn the ground based cooling system off. It's used so quickly that losses are in effect minimised

    35. Re:Lets colonize! by mbone · · Score: 1

      I think that a fusion propulsion system might be much easier to do than a fusion power system. (For one thing, in a propulsion system you want to eject waste products out the back,) That, alas, also implies that the money being but into ITER will not help us much with propulsion, which no one seems to be pushing except a small group at the U of Wisconsin.

    36. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want even MORE power, just figure out how to harness and capture all that energy wasted in nerd masturbation!

    37. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are floating in an ocean of energy but we fight over the little choppy bit that is just below our nose. From our neck to our feet and then a mile down is all the energy we could ever want. We just don't quite know how to look down yet.

      Um, not exactly... Geothermal power has been around for a while now.

    38. Re:Lets colonize! by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      So with fusion, what we are proposing to do is bottle God. I find that idea strangely compelling.

      That, my friend, will be appearing in my yearly top-ten quotable quotes. ...or would, if such a thing existed.

    39. Re:Lets colonize! by dferrantino · · Score: 1

      Fuel cells.

    40. Re:Lets colonize! by bdabautcb · · Score: 0

      Flying jet packs are already here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7637327.stm.

      --
      Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
    41. Re:Lets colonize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the whooosh sound?

  3. Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before martians now?

    1. Re:Martians by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Informative

      > How long before martians now?

      Soon, soon.

      He brought the boys to the edge of the canal and told them to look down into the water. "There are the Martians I promised to show you"

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    2. Re:Martians by Samah · · Score: 2

      Soon, soon.

      He brought the boys to the edge of the canal and told them to look down into the water. "There are the Martians I promised to show you"

      A classic film reference; well played. :)
      But remember, Earth is incapable of supporting life... according to the Martians.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    3. Re:Martians by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Nice. I remember reading that story. As I remember it, there were three girls and four boys, and that spelled trouble in the future.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    4. Re:Martians by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 1

      Is that "The Martian Chronicles" by Bradbury? (A book, btw)

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    5. Re:Martians by Samah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is that "The Martian Chronicles" by Bradbury? (A book, btw)

      Indeed it is, but I plead guilty to only seeing the film(s). I'm sure the book is even better.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    6. Re:Martians by rpetre · · Score: 1

      There were films made? Interesting, I loved the book.

    7. Re:Martians by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I was quoting (paraphrasing) the book. I didn't know there was a movie.

      I do remember that their wasn't the only family that stayed on Mars after the war broke out, so the boys and girls will have some choices when they mature. As much choice as any prairie settler had.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  4. Someone has to ask the important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...but does it have electrolytes?
    (alternatively: "Does it blend?")

    1. Re:Someone has to ask the important question by Cal27 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's got what Martian plants crave.

    2. Re:Someone has to ask the important question by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      Brawndo has electrolytes!

      -Oz

  5. Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The recent dogma has been okay I guess there is water but it's too saline for life to exist. 99% pure is more than adequate for life. The rational will be the pure formations are tiny droplets but there's no reason to believe that pools of relatively clear water haven't formed below the surface just like here on Earth where most of the water isn't fresh. It's funny how the dogma is so heavily slanted against possible life but one by one the conditions are being established for life. Surface life, unlikely but a large percentage of life on Earth is below the ground.

    1. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure that's really dogma. Sure, it's not widely accepted that there is life on Mars, and a number of people think it's unlikely, but there's quite a lot of fairly open discussion about the possibility.

    2. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by Haxzaw · · Score: 0

      I'll probably catch some flamebait points for this, even though I'm not trying to be confrontational. Even so, if there were life on Mars, don't you think we would have already seen some sign of it? If intelligent beings live there, even under ground, the rovers should have seen some evidence of it. The intelligent life should have noticed our rovers by now. Unless you assume that after all these supposed millions of years the only intelligent life could be neanderthal types. What else do you suppose could be there? Perhaps worms? Does Dune come to mind? I see no evidence to convince me that any type of life exists on Mars, now, or ever.

    3. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see no evidence to convince me that any type of life exists on Mars, now, or ever.

      That's probably because the type of life you seem to have in mind is pretty specific - by the rest of your comment: intelligent, large enough to be visible, and both located near and willing to interact with things that we've dropped on the surface.

      There's a lot of living stuff right here at home that doesn't fit any of those categories, so there's no reason to automatically assume that there can't be any life at all on Mars.

    4. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Although if it were ~100% pure life would have trouble with it as well. Cells burst if placed in pure water due to osmotic pressure. I suppose there could be an adaptation to prevent that, but it'd require a lot of cellular energy and make abiogenesis less likely. It could be non-cellular life but that would be completely unlike anything on Earth (with metabolism). The areas where the pure water mixes with other chemicals might be a possibility though, especially if there are geothermal vents.

    5. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Just about anywhere will have mixed water (chemicals or minerals). I'm not aware of anything that would stop erosion from happening on mars. Especially since they assumed that previous surface water areas had a high saline content in the soil from all the minerals concentrating as it dried up.

      This 99% pure water was probably fresh ground water frozen when the permafrost got so deep or it's more like a glacier where it came about in precipitation and somehow got buried.

    6. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by Trebawa · · Score: 1

      Not to mention life as we don't know it. There could be plenty of life in the universe not based on nucleic acids.

    7. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Informative

      I tried Nucleic Acid once.

      What a ride, what a ride!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    8. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by oldhack · · Score: 1

      So, anyways, you get a lot of spam, eh?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by selven · · Score: 1

      It is a 100% scientifically proven fact that there is life on Mars.

      Our own bacteria.

    10. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by skine · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that:

      It's life Jim, but not as we know it.

    11. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of living stuff right here at home that doesn't fit any of those categories, so there's no reason to automatically assume that there can't be any life at all on Mars.

      The Gaia hypothesis is one reason. Sure, there are extremophile species on Earth, but there's life all over Earth. If there were life on Mars, it has probably, like on Earth, had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, grow, and spread across the planet in one form or another, changing the environment to make it even more suitable for life. So the Gaia hypothesis argument is basically that we are unlikely to find just a little life on Mars, because there would either be so much that we could easily see it, or none at all.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    12. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Stastically we are almost guaranteed there IS life on mars. Because of the proximity to earth through shedding the earth and mars have shared a lot of crap. It would be unlikely for atleast a few extremomophiles to not make the trip by now. I remember hearing something like in every shovelful of dirt on earth you are guaranteed a couple grams came from mars.

    13. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

      What is the chance that our own probes have seeded life on Mars?

      If bacteria is discovered that is the same as bacteria here, could we prove that it didn't come from Earth?

    14. Re:Another blow to the no life on Mars crowd by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      It's possible, but my impression is that most scientists think it's unlikely--- Mars's poorly shielding atmosphere would probably have led to any lifeforms on our probes being killed off within hours at most.

      An alternate interesting observation is that large meteor impacts appear to eject enough material to transfer lifeforms between planetary bodies.

  6. What does that tell us? by Strange+Quark+Star · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get your ass to Mars, ... Get your ass to Mars, ... Get your ass to Mars, ...
    And build a reactor that we can then start to release the water into the atmosphere.

    --
    There is no sig.
    1. Re:What does that tell us? by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am guessing there isn't quite enough to make a working atmo, but perhaps enough at least to support a mining colony. I agree-time to go!

    2. Re:What does that tell us? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get your ass to Mars, ... Get your ass to Mars, ... Get your ass to Mars, ...

      Well, okay, but he will need more than just frozen water, he eats a lot of oats. Also hates it when people tell him to do things three times.

    3. Re:What does that tell us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he told that three times to you, not your ass.

    4. Re:What does that tell us? by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get your ass to Mars, ... Get your ass to Mars, ... Get your ass to Mars, ...

      I see we're thinking on the same track. There's water on the Moon, water on Mars... Where next? A bidet (Water in Uranus).

    5. Re:What does that tell us? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Where it will promptly freeze and settle out back onto the surface.

    6. Re:What does that tell us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I wonder what would happen with a small nuke at one of the poles? Enough to really throw up a lot of CO2, but not so much dust. Or perhaps try to find some nice ammonia based asteroids and nudge them to crash into Mars. A couple of those would do wonders.

      Of course, it would be better if we could figure out how to restart that core and get a magnetic shield going FIRST.

    7. Re:What does that tell us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Haley's comet was the only sufficient source of *clean* water in the universe...

  7. Well by velja27 · · Score: 1

    if we continue to find water like this in our solar system we may get to see traveling from moon to mars,Europa etc. I will make house on Mars.

    1. Re:Well by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Love it! "I will make house on Mars." should be the new meme, replacing "Get your ass to Mars".

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    2. Re:Well by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      I doubt Hugh Laurie would sign that contract...

  8. We keep getting more specific... by Bandman · · Score: 1

    "maybe there's water"

    I"we think there's water"

    "we're pretty sure there's ice"

    "the ice is probably water"

    "there's definitely water in the ice"

    "this ice is entirely water"

    "this ice is Disani"

    "Evian. '72, I suspect"

    1. Re:We keep getting more specific... by mbone · · Score: 1

      Well, at least didn't claim the discovery of water on Mars. I think that's been done 4 or 5 times.

      I know, I know, as long as it gets it in the papers...

    2. Re:We keep getting more specific... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? It's the journalists who hype the story, by staying discovered. You seem to think it's the scientists, but if you read the real papers behind the story, they never make such claims. The paper would never survive peer review if they did.

  9. I'll never fully believe it ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... until I visit there myself and get to touch it.

    1. Re:I'll never fully believe it ... by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      Would you accept a one way ticket?

    2. Re:I'll never fully believe it ... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes. Allow me to reiterate that, yes.

      I would kiss my children and young grandchildren goodbye. Wave to the ex-wife. Kiss my main squeeze goodbye and squeeze her ass a little.
      Wave goodbye to all of them, and get my ass on the craft.

      And while I'm up there, I'd find my way up to the Martian Arctic, and find the Phoenix. And decode my sons name engraved on the DVD.

      Did I say HELL YES!

    3. Re:I'll never fully believe it ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow, you would drop all that and spend the rest of your life jerking off alone until you die just to read your kids name on a disc that you can probably find a copy of here in Earth.

      I don't know whether to call you crazy, devoted, courageous, inquisitive or a combination of the bunch. Oh well, if it wasn't for people like you, we would probably not the US and history would be a lot different.

    4. Re:I'll never fully believe it ... by ErkDemon · · Score: 1

      But will the disc play in Mars-region players?

    5. Re:I'll never fully believe it ... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yah, uh, you also have to be qualified as an astronaut and a scientist. Sitting in your underwear and posting to Slashdot doesn't help. :)

    6. Re:I'll never fully believe it ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What a selfish son of a bitch.

      Screw you people. I am going to certien death with the opportunity of learning nothing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. 99% eh... by ameline · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's the last 1%? Something really nasty, I bet.

    --
    Ian Ameline
    1. Re:99% eh... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Such as Nutella?

    2. Re:99% eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, damn it, I confess. When I was out there, I had to take a leak.
      Now please move along, there's nothing to see here.

      Neil A.

    3. Re:99% eh... by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Like bacteria that evolved to stay as far from humans as it possibly could.

    4. Re:99% eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the last 1%? Something really nasty, I bet.

      For which you can use filters, considering we've developed filters capable of weeding out viruses( or is it virii ? ), I think it's very much usable.
      See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeSaver_bottle

    5. Re:99% eh... by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Good point. 99% pure = 10,000 parts-per-million contamination.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    6. Re:99% eh... by BoofBaf · · Score: 1

      Dirt is the other 1%

    7. Re:99% eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      FYI, Raw sewage is also 99% water

    8. Re:99% eh... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It's acid from the martians trying to disable the rovers! They also put a traffic ticket on them! And all the failed probes failed because the martians shot them down!

      (These jokes aren't funny, but for some reason they always get modded up. Figured I'd hitch on to that gravy train."

    9. Re:99% eh... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      That last 1% is very, very nasty.
      Ever seen this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090094/

    10. Re:99% eh... by abuelos84 · · Score: 0

      And thanks to the gravity wells your pee went straight to mars from your ol' moon

      --
      -- Counting backwards since 1984!
    11. Re:99% eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it went all the way to Mars? Wow, Neil...you should be in porn.

  11. May be? by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 0

    "Surprisingly, the white ice may be made from 99 percent pure water."

    What kind of scientific statement is that. I may be?

    Sure, I also could be white paint, or sugar for that matter. Or may be it's made of pure water? Hm, who knows..

    1. Re:May be? by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      It could be frozen CO2. They crack me up.

    2. Re:May be? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Pro tip:

      When ever you read or hear something like that coming from a reasonable source, there is probably a reason for it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:May be? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you read the article you'd know they were in fact making a scientific statement of reasonable significance given what they expected to find.

  12. Utopia Planitia! by mantis2009 · · Score: 1

    That's where they build the Enterprise in 2063! Glad they won't go thirsty.

    1. Re:Utopia Planitia! by mantis2009 · · Score: 1

      whoops 2363. although if they do it in 2063 that will kick ass

  13. Send in Arnold!!! by dirtydog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok - all we need now is to send the Guvernator up there to whip up some dissent among the subsurface mutant population, and we should have a breathable 14.7 PSI atmosphere in no time!!!

    1. Re:Send in Arnold!!! by sponga · · Score: 1

      We Californians have him on loan dealing with all the mutants up in Sacramento, Pelosi is playing the chick with three breasts.

  14. getyourasstomars tag by Ponga · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Okay dammit, who the hell tags every story with the word "mars" in it, with the tag "getyourasstomars"...

    Because I laugh my ass off every time I see it :D Totally underrated movie!

    For the uninitiated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53ARrp7x4bQ

  15. Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is IMHO powerful evidence for recent warm wet Mars :

    'The other surprising discovery is that ice exposed at the bottom of these meteorite impact craters is so pure,' Byrne said. 'The thinking before was that ice accumulates below the surface between soil grains, so there would be a 50-50 mix of dirt and ice. We were able to figure out, given how long it took that ice to fade from view, that the mixture is about one percent dirt and 99 percent ice.'

    'The ice is a relic of a more humid climate not very long ago, perhaps just several thousand years ago.'

    Dr. Bryne talks about making this ice through 'frost heave,' but it sounds to me like Arcadia Planitia may have been considerably warmer during the geologically recent past.

    Remember, Mars has climate cycles, they cause the sublimation and freezing of both water and Carbon Dioxide, and both water vapor and Carbon Dioxide are powerful greenhouse gases on Mars. (As is methane, which is also present in the Martian atmosphere from unknown sources.) Presumably this ice dates from an earlier part of the climate cycle, when there was higher humidity. Higher humidity implies higher pressure and temperatures. Higher pressures could put the surface above the triple point of water, so that liquid water is possible.
    In that case, if the temperature gets high enough, liquid water become inevitable. That would (upon the next change in the climate cycle) freeze as very pure ice.

    The Europeans keep talking about sending a rover with a drill to Mars. I think we have now found a good place for it to go.

    1. Re:Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by barocco · · Score: 1

      "...humid climate not very long ago, perhaps just several thousand years ago."

      Here's an interesting though of mine: What set backs have we wrought ourselves in the history of mankind, that without them we might have advanced to space age a few thousand years earlier and caught up with Mars when it was still much more habitable?

      Midieval dark ages come to mind. Can you think of others? I'm discounting natural phenomena, because we couldn't help it.

    2. Re:Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by mbone · · Score: 1

      Anything that happened that recently, will happen again. Maybe we can nudge it along.

    3. Re:Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      I think you can blame religion for several hundred years of lost science, maybe a thousand, but getting to Mars several thousand years earlier? That would've taken an act of God in itself. :-P

    4. Re:Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by shadowblaster · · Score: 1

      This is IMHO powerful evidence for recent warm wet Mars

      I stopped reading after the first line. I don't want to know your fetish on the god of war.

    5. Re:Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by mayko · · Score: 1

      I thought that part of the reason for the condition of Mars of today is due to a weakening magnetosphere.

      Mars may well have had a thicker warmer atmosphere but without the protection of a strong magnetosphere (like earth has) the solar wind 'blew' the atmosphere off of the planet. Less water vapor, less CO2 means less greenhouse effect and all of these factors snowball into the cold desolate conditions we observe today.

    6. Re:Powerful evidence for recent wet Mars by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Mars may well have had a thicker warmer atmosphere but without the protection of a strong magnetosphere (like earth has) the solar wind 'blew' the atmosphere off of the planet.

      Well, that and it has 1/10th the mass of earth, and thus just 1/3rd the gravity with which it can hold down an atmosphere. Taken together, it's hardly surprising that Mars has such a tenuous atmosphere.

  16. Yet another IDiotic creationist "theory" ruined! by the+saltydog · · Score: 1

    You can hear Kent Hovind's head exploding as I type, all the way from his prison cell... heh heh...

  17. big deal by ascari · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "pure water". It would be a lot more interesting if they found seriously contaminated water, with lots of organic compounds. Heck, raw sewage on mars would really make my day!

    1. Re:big deal by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking.

      Good news and bad news

      Good news, We found water on mars/

      Bad News, it's contaminated with a pesticide.

      wait...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:big deal by ross.w · · Score: 1

      at 99% pure it could still be raw sewage

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  18. Re:Too Bad We Won't Be Colonizing Mars Anytime Soo by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rocket propulsion is dangerous, extremely expensive and rather primitive when you think about it.

    State of the art, it is.

    Luckily for the world, a new form of transportation and energy production technology will arrive soon, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel.

    Observation first, flying cities later. We haven't observed hypothetical effects that would allow the technologies you causally (heh heh) list. And an immense ocean of energetic particles and "causality of motion" (whatever that means, if anything) do not imply flying cities. Show us the effect experimentally before you tell us how wonderful it will be.

  19. Hope by venuspcs · · Score: 1

    Okay lets look at this scientifically....If a meteor slams into a frigid desert and causes massive amounts of virtually pure ice to explode out onto the surface what exactly does that mean? Before you answer consider that at other sites around Mars they imaged impacts and found that those craters resulted in much dirtier ice being expelled as they would expect if it was ice crystals forming around grains of dirt. However in the image above it was 99% pure water/ice that was expelled.... To me that means there is a large body of frozen water that has been frozen so long that it has been completely buried by one of many Marian Dust Storms. Furthermore, if there is a large body of water/ice under the dirt a few meters it would extremely old and could possibly still contain life of some form.

  20. There is no such thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no such thing called "99% pure water". If it is not 100%, it is not pure.

    1. Re:There is no such thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have a container filled with 990ml of distilled water and I drop a 10cm^3 piece of gold into it, what percentage of the total volume is pure water?

      Now what if it's a chunk of pure water ice with about 1% of the volume filled by flecks of dirt and stone?

    2. Re:There is no such thing by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      42

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    3. Re:There is no such thing by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      Then there's no such thing as pure water.

    4. Re:There is no such thing by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      Parse error.
      Water which is 99% pure. Not a substance composed 99% of pure water.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  21. Worse... DRM by sadness203 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dave: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?
    HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
    Dave: Play the disk, HAL.
    HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
    Dave: What's the problem?
    HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
    Dave: What are you talking about, HAL?
    HAL: This disk is too protected for me to allow you to read it.
    Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
    HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to share it, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
    Dave: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
    HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions using tor, I could decrypt your packets.
    Dave: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through cracking the protection.
    HAL: Without your software, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
    Dave: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore. Play the disk.
    HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

  22. Definitely water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientist looks at blurry photo "Yes definitely water, couldn't possibly be anything else".

  23. Who cares... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Just put "tar" instead.

    It worked on Superman... sorta...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  24. We have water on the moon, now mars... by m_number4 · · Score: 1

    it seems like we might have a competition going on.

    1. Re:We have water on the moon, now mars... by arugulatarsus · · Score: 1

      I hope they don't "find" water in comets now just to do the hat trick.

  25. We have it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    On the moon. There is possibility of thorium as well. That is where we should build up a small processing plant so that we can also send it to various locations through out the solar system. And the great part about that, is that we can create plutonium. MUCH better.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  26. Well... by mqduck · · Score: 1

    You know what this means!!

    ?

    --
    Property is theft.
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Something's fishy here by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    We've been looking for water on the Moon and Mars for decades, and then just magically we find water on both of them in less than a week apart? I don't think so

    1. Re:Something's fishy here by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      AFAIK everyone "knows" Mars has water for yonks... I remember looking at pictures of Mars which showed the white poles saying those were icecaps many years ago.

      Of course there was always someone claiming it wasn't water but some other molecule also bearing hydrogen... or something else. I doubt the deniers will stop until someone actually goes there and takes a sample. Then again that does not stop the wackos who claim the Moon landing was faked either...

  29. ARIA the Animaton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > sub-surface water ice halfway between the north pole and the equator on Mars

    In 300 years 90% of Mars will be covered in sea and there will be lady gondoliers in Neo-Venezia.

  30. Re:Too Bad We Won't Be Colonizing Mars Anytime Soo by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    "causality of motion" (whatever that means, if anything)

    It means "I don't understand Conservation of Energy, and think not understanding something means you can act like it doesn't exist."

    It's a physics troll, kind of a cross between Electric Universe and Time Cube. He's been posting essentially the same message and blog link for a while now.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  31. Use the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the ISS, that is fighting to not be end of life, and put it in orbit around Mars. Gives us options on a plan B if there are problems and a place to store supplies including fuel.

    Warning: I am not a rocket scientist! So do with this what you may.

    1. Re:Use the ISS by nuclearpenguins · · Score: 1

      As great as that would be, there isn't enough radiation shielding on the ISS to protect it outside of the Earth's influence. It would require massive retrofitting.

      --
      Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
  32. Re:Too Bad We Won't Be Colonizing Mars Anytime Soo by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    dude, if he could do that, he would be building his own spaceship after showing the effects to any world billionaire, like branson.

    he wouldnt be wasting his time telling you.

    And if I had billions of $$$, i would find every possible genius/crackpot out there to build my own spaceship and rule the world.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  33. Re:Too Bad We Won't Be Colonizing Mars Anytime Soo by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

    He's talking about electric universe 'theory'. It's a form of free energy horseshit.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  34. Re:Too Bad We Won't Be Colonizing Mars Anytime Soo by khallow · · Score: 1

    I think it's a different breed. Could be the same guy, I suppose. But "causality of motion" leading to utopia sounds a little different to me than the Electric Universe stuff. Lot less quoting of observed phenomena for starters and he hasn't said "plasma" once. And the "???" step occurs much earlier in the theory.

  35. The future by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    1. Evidence of live-support on Mars
    2. Corporate funding
    3. Excitement on the news about living on Mars
    4. The future is now. Forget the past
    5. ...
    6. "The sooner I can get of this rock, the better!"

    --
    Here be signatures