Slashdot Mirror


Mars Images Reveal Evidence of Ancient Lakes

Matt_dk writes "Spectacular satellite images suggest that Mars was warm enough to sustain lakes three billion years ago, a period that was previously thought to be too cold and arid to sustain water on the surface, according to research published today in the journal Geology. Earlier research had suggested that Mars had a warm and wet early history but that between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago, before the Hesperian Epoch, the planet lost most of its atmosphere and became cold and dry. In the new study, the researchers analysed detailed images from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is currently circling the red planet, and concluded that there were later episodes where Mars experienced warm and wet periods."

128 comments

  1. Ohh so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars is just like my ex?

    1. Re:Ohh so by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your ex is over 3 billion years old? That must have chafed..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Ohh so by BESTouff · · Score: 0

      Don't think so. But maybe the Earth will be like Mars once we have completed our "pollute-everything-you-can" task.

    3. Re:Ohh so by Alphathon · · Score: 1

      Probably more like Venus

    4. Re:Ohh so by CRCulver · · Score: 0

      Don't think so. But maybe the Earth will be like Mars once we have completed our "pollute-everything-you-can" task.

      Or Mars will become more like the Earth once terraforming is initiated, even if it's just local changes under domes instead of the complete transformation of the planet portrayed in science-fiction like Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars . Now we can present to environmentalist-minding people a conundrum: what's better, an arid lifeless planet, or a planet that's polluted but life-sustaining?

    5. Re:Ohh so by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer a non-polluted life-sustaining planet.

      I am an environmentalist, but I don't think that we have to live in caves and grow our own food to keep Mother Gaia and all Her Creatures in something something, I kind of lose interest at that point too.

      If you consider terraforming pollution, then you and I have different views. Adding carbon dioxide and water to Mars to make it habitable for humans is perfectly acceptable. We require more earths to sustain our lifestyle, and we've only got the one tiny little blue marble.

      Adding CFCs, tetraflourohexine, formaldehide, PCBs, and any other alphabet-soup materials to a new planet is something completely different. Now that we know better, we can be responsible with our materials handling and stop shitting where we eat.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:Ohh so by natehoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Adding CO2 and water to Mars is going to involve industry. And energy. Shitloads of both. Industry is going to involve, by necessity, many of the chemicals you mention, either to run the machinery or as a byproduct of it. Therein lies the problem. Mankind isn't going to wait around for hundreds of years for a long, slow, low-energy terraforming system to work, so by the time we've turned the dial to 11 for enough years to have reached a semi-breathable atmosphere, it'll be polluted.

      Now add in your comment about "maintaining our lifestyle". If you typed your post on a computer while wearing clothing in an enclosed space with heat, congratulations, that requires all the chemicals you mentioned above and more.

      Even if the Earth's population stopped growing right now, we likely cannot maintain the lifestyle we enjoy now in the US and Europe, and there'd be no way in hell we can extend that same lifestyle to the rest of the planet. Add in the resources necessary to start terraforming Mars and the time it will take for it to complete, and we'll be loading Mars up with more people than it can sustain during the entire process. As soon as Mars has an atmosphere that can grow a few crops and support 50,000 people, we'll dump a half million there in the false hope it'll relieve the population pressures on Earth. And both planets will be overpopulated continuously until we figure out how to overpopulate another planet.

      Robinson's "Mars" series, mentioned in the post you replied to, is an excellent read. Robinson has an interesting and thoughtful, if just a tad hopelessly optimistic at the end, view of how terraforming might play out. It's a relatively well-researched (or seemingly so) series, with a lot of interesting theories on approaches to terraforming, and plays out a very human approach to it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    7. Re:Ohh so by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I wondered about that as I was posting. Where would we get all this water and CO2 from? We can't really export it from Earth because that'll fuck up our ecology here.

      We'd have to make it on site once we get to Mars, and that means industry, like you say. I've never had a problem with industry -- I like the fact that I don't have to spend all day every day growing / chasing food and finding water. You're conflating environmentalism with Ludditism. Technology and industry are fantastic. However, we can be more responsible with wastes this time around. We know we can't dump industrial waste into the ocean and have it magically disappear. (Fire it into space! ;) )

      Red Mars is on my list, but I can only read so many books at a time. (It's bought, on my shelf, and ready to go.)

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    8. Re:Ohh so by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Mars has frozen water at its north pole and possibly subterranean aquifers that can be brought to the surface with shaped nukes. Diverting comets is a way to add water to the atmosphere. Again, read KSR's trilogy, it's well-researched.

  2. We'll Never Know For Sure by Dr_Ken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until we go there and see. Interesting idea though.

    --
    "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
    1. Re:We'll Never Know For Sure by carlhaagen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The images speak pretty clearly for themselves, and have done so for a long time. We already know since forever what formations liquid deposits create over time on malleable surfaces.

    2. Re:We'll Never Know For Sure by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      3.8 billion years is a long ways for humans to time travel and see. guess we'll just have to continue to make educated guesses off the data provided by the rovers and current orbital observers.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:We'll Never Know For Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If u think the sun as a dimming candle, the region around mars could holding life back then, when the sun was hotter.

    4. Re:We'll Never Know For Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ESL fail

    5. Re:We'll Never Know For Sure by FreeFull · · Score: 1

      The Sun is actually outputting more energy right now than it was back then

      --
      No ascii art.
  3. Confusing headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought it was another one of those "AMAZING NEWS! MARS HAD WATER!" which I've been reading for years now.

  4. At the risk of being serious... by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Europa may well be warm and wet under the layer of ice. In fact Europa probably is, and might in fact harbor life. Can we please forget about Mars? Mars sucks because we keep going there and not really finding anything of importance. I am tired of Mars, there are other, more interesting places to explore.

    1. Re:At the risk of being serious... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1, Redundant

      All these worlds are yours, except Europa, attempt no landing there...

    2. Re:At the risk of being serious... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Even if Europa does contain such life (and that is still a VERY big "if"), the effort to pinpoint it and drill down to it would be a helluva lot more trouble than sending any little probe to Mars. That's *way* beyond NASA's budget or ambitions. Admittedly, it would be no more or less pointless than any of their other money-sinks, but don't hold your breath.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:At the risk of being serious... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And we can't explore both...why exactly? (plus mission to Europa is being worked on; though it will be not an easy feat)

      As a matter of fact, why do you want to limit us to Europa? Why do you dismiss Mars outright? (there are still those weird methane emissions we have to sort out; and possibility of subsurface water) Also, what makes you think Europa is more likely to harbor life than Ganymede, Callisto, high atmosphere of Venus or even Enceladus?

      Mars has one big advantage of being relatively easy to get there too.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:At the risk of being serious... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No, we can't forget about mars, because we still have a crap-ton of stuff left to learn about it. So much so that just about everything we do there results in us learning something new. Hell, just a day or two ago, I learned that the Spirit rover trying to work its way free from some sand had revealed sulfate deposits. And that was quite literally just scratching the surface.

      As others have pointed out, Europa missions are in the works, but are quite a bit harder to do than Mars, especially if you think the interesting stuff lies underneath the ice. Just think about the effort that went into the Mars rovers, then imagine working out how to design a lander that can drill through the ice, maneuver underneath it, and then somehow communicate with an orbiter through the ice. And then once you've designed and built it, it will still take a long time to actually reach Jupiter.

      In the meantime we've got the Mars Science Laboratory planned for launch in 2011, and if it's half as successful at its mission as Spirit and Opportunity were at theirs, we're going to learn a ridiculous amount about the red planet.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:At the risk of being serious... by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about limiting us to Europa, you did. It would be a very good thing to explore not only Europa but the other moons you list. The reason we keep going back to Mars isn't so much for the science because there is a hell of a lot of other and possibly more interesting science that could be better served by going to Europa, or maybe Enceladus. The reason I dismiss Mars outright, on its face, and with no reservations is that given our budget it would be better to let Mars rest for a time, while other missions could be given larger budgets and higher priority.

      In short Mars has received a disproportionate number of missions yet we keep sending rovers and landers to Mars! Have we found life on Mars yet? Have we found liquid water? Have the rovers found water ice? Sure the Mars Polar Lander found some ice, but the rovers aren't up there are they? Other than the pretty pictures what have we learned other than there are a lot of blueberries on Mars, and some dust-devils? What pray tell?

      We could learn a lot from Europa because Europa has a small iron core which is heated by tidal friction, and under the the 3km of ice there may in fact be 100-200 kilometers of salt water . Now it is odd, that our space agencies, that claim to be searching for life willfully have ignored Europa other than a few flybys. Of all the planets and moons of this solar system, Europa stands the best chance at harboring life, and a Europa orbiter that incorporated radar and more could have been built and launched 10 years ago. In fact Europa may have more water than all of Earth's oceans combined!

      We keep going back to Mars because it is relatively easy, yet as per John F. Kennedy, we should do the hard things, but we don't do we because Mars is just too easy, and the thumb sucking populace loves the pretty pictures. I say focus somewhere else for the next 10 years. Mars has had its time. We can always go back to Mars when we want right? Because as you say, it is so easy..

    6. Re:At the risk of being serious... by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 1

      *nod*

      We need to learn a ridiculous amount about a few other places too. But, yeah.. :)

    7. Re:At the risk of being serious... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Informative

      We could learn a lot from Europa because Europa has a small iron core which is heated by tidal friction, and under the the 3km of ice there may in fact be 100-200 kilometers of salt water . Now it is odd, that our space agencies, that claim to be searching for life willfully have ignored Europa other than a few flybys.

      Maybe they're put off by that 3km of ice. How exactly are they going to drill through that ice, when the best we've managed so far with remote probes is to launch a few wheeled rovers to a dry planet very nearby, and even those have problems with broken wheels and getting stuck in sand. We're nowhere near the point where we can launch a probe that drills through 3km of ice and maneuvers around in whatever's below, and then manages to maintain communication through that 3km of ice.

      Don't forget, our budget for space exploration is peanuts. Canceling the Mars missions isn't going to add enough to the budget to accomplish these missions you dream of, and we can't enlarge NASA's budget because we're too busy fighting oil wars and bailing out mismanaged private companies.

      Yes, JFK said we should do the hard things. He didn't say we should do the impossible things. You have to walk before you can run.

    8. Re:At the risk of being serious... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Mars is just too easy

      Your rant was actually doing pretty good until there. Check the mars mission failure rate... If Europa were say, a hundred times more difficult, then the odds of total mysterious failure in Europa currently approach 100%. But if we can improve our reliability by trying stuff in easier mars missions, maybe someday a Europa mission wouldn't be a guaranteed failure, and might even work, maybe.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:At the risk of being serious... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about limiting us to Europa, you did.

      Uh, you said "forget Mars", so it seems pretty clear that whatever unlimited space program you're imagining, it is limited to not-Mars.

      In short Mars has received a disproportionate number of missions yet we keep sending rovers and landers to Mars!

      Because we still have a ton of things to learn and it's low-hanging fruit. Relatively cheap missions with a relatively high measure of success and an enormous payoff in science. We will be sending rovers to Mars for a long time and still learning stuff. So why stop? Cus you're bored with science on Mars?

      Have we found life on Mars yet? Have we found liquid water? Have the rovers found water ice? Sure the Mars Polar Lander found some ice, but the rovers aren't up there are they? Other than the pretty pictures what have we learned other than there are a lot of blueberries on Mars, and some dust-devils? What pray tell?

      So because we haven't answered those questions, and because he current rovers aren't at the poles, we should stop sending rovers? Sounds like a good reason to keep going! And we've learned a shit-ton on Mars. But there's a ton more still to learn, too.

      We could learn a lot from Europa because Europa has a small iron core which is heated by tidal friction, and under the the 3km of ice there may in fact be 100-200 kilometers of salt water . Now it is odd, that our space agencies, that claim to be searching for life willfully have ignored Europa other than a few flybys.

      Um... I think you need to think a little bit more about the challenges just in the Mars lander project, then think a little bit more about that 3km of ice and 100km of salt water, on a heavenly body that on its surface receives 1/11th as much sunlight as Mars. "Willfully ignore"? Try "are fascinated by, but realize it's not feasible to dig under yet". The flybys are your clue that they are not ignoring Europa. There's interest in landing something on it, but that is a mission that is going to be in the pre-planning stages for a long time.

      We keep going back to Mars because it is relatively easy, yet as per John F. Kennedy, we should do the hard things, but we don't do we because Mars is just too easy, and the thumb sucking populace loves the pretty pictures. I say focus somewhere else for the next 10 years. Mars has had its time. We can always go back to Mars when we want right? Because as you say, it is so easy..

      Mars is plenty hard enough. "Relatively" easier than exploring the oceans of Europa is hardly easy. Why go back to Mars later when "we" -- meaning not you -- want to go there now? Because you're bored? So what, scientists aren't. I say bring on the MSL and a dozen other follow-on probes. And explore other bodies, too.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:At the risk of being serious... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's hard, but if we put an effort and money into it, I have no doubt would could solve those problems. Solutions have been proposed.

      Studying Europa isn't impossible, nor is it harder then Mars, just different.
      We can, and should study Europa, it has a strong likelihood of life, right now, not the possible of life millions of years ago.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:At the risk of being serious... by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 1

      Ahh, we can melt through that with a small self contained probe that is RTG powered. It could be designed it to melt its way in, and climb down the hole as it goes. I don't see that as hard.. It could then release a probe or a number of gliders to roam about. The gliders could even be powered by their own small RTG's which would allow them to be driven!

      As far as communications fhrough the ice well there is research in this area like this that utilize high loss. Take this article for instance: "Underwater communications gradually improves."

      The robots will talk - in effect, using ultrasound - at distances of up to 5km apart.

      Also, if you look at the Seagliders.. "Seaglider monitors waters from Arctic during record-breaking journey under ice."

      One operated for 25 weeks, spending 51 days and traveling more than 450 miles under the ice, before being collected Feb. 26 by the Danish Navy.

      Seagliders autonomously find shallow areas in ice in order to surface. Do we know if all of the ice on Europa is 3 kilometers thick? No. Maybe there are shallower, and warmer areas....

      And lastly again, we can do a Europa mission in which we first get an orbiter first to identify shallower areas of ice, then we land on surface with a lander and take samples, then in a later mission we try to melt down into the water. We can do this if we wanted to. The only problem is that our agencies would rather focus on Mars. Why is that again?

    12. Re:At the risk of being serious... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Again, "walk before run" applies here. We're having a lot of trouble just getting some simple wheeled rovers to operate reliably on a DRY planet that's only 30 light-minutes away. Don't you think we should figure out how to make our autonomous space hardware work a little better before we attempt to take on a mission involving a moon many light-hours away, which involves drilling through 3km of ice (a serious feat here on Earth), and then exploring what's most likely an under-ice ocean?

      And second is the money issue. We don't have it. This mission, even if we had another 30 years of expertise with Mars and Lunar landers and various probes to Venus, Mercury, etc., would still cost a fortune, far more than NASA's current budget. Where's that money going to come from? Sure, we could easily do it by gutting the DOD budget, but we can't do that while we fight these wars, and any new ones (we might be fighting in Pakistan, Iran, or Yemen soon, or maybe all three!) You might say we SHOULD stop these stupid wars and downsize the DOD, but Ron Paul said that too and he was laughed at, and America voted for Obama instead so he could send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan (the other main contender was McCain, who would probably have done exactly the same thing or worse). The American people have spoken, and they want more wars. We can't afford to wage multiple wars in the mideast and also pour money into NASA.

    13. Re:At the risk of being serious... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's a good idea about melting through the ice, though I do wonder if an RTG would generate enough heat to do that. But the rest of the things you're talking about are still fairly new here on Earth, let alone on another planet. Wheeled rovers are comparatively simple, and we're still having trouble with them on Mars with some simple dirt.

      I imagine the reasons they're focusing on Mars are 1) it's very close, much closer than Europa; 2) it's all dry land. It's much easier to operate stuff on dry land, for us humans, than in an aqueous environment. We still haven't fully explored our own oceans. 3) If we decided we wanted to establish a human presence somewhere, for any purpose, right now Mars and the Moon are the most likely candidates, because it's comparatively easy: dry land, no toxic/crushing/corrosive atmosphere, etc. All we have to do is set up some habitation modules to hold air in and that's all we really need to survive there. 4) If we wanted to try our hand at extraterrestrial mining, Mars might have useful minerals worth mining (then again, so would the Moon, and it's a lot closer). What resources does Europa have? Ice and likely saltwater? Sure, water is useful for sustaining a human mission, but a moon covered in ice doesn't sound very interesting for anything else, and mining anything below the ice and under-ice oceans would be extremely costly and difficult.

      Now, why they're focusing so much on Mars instead of the Moon, I don't really know. Maybe it's the cool red color, but it's probably the geology: the Moon is theorized to be a former part of the Earth that broke off early on, and is probably composed of the same materials. Mars, OTOH, is a separate planet, so it gives us a good opportunity to investigate another planet's geology close-up to see how it compares and differs with our planet's, without having all the problems we would on planets like Mercury and Venus (ridiculous temperatures on Mercury, crushing and corrosive atmosphere on Venus).

      I'm guessing that if they want to send landers to another planet or moon in the future, Mercury might be the next destination, since even though the average surface temperature is quite high, it ranges from extremely cold at the poles to extremely hot at the equator, and it stays this way as there's little atmosphere, so there should be many places that could be explored which have moderate temperatures. We could probably easily send rovers very similar to the Mars rovers there, without having to develop a lot of new technology.

    14. Re:At the risk of being serious... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Another interesting point: NASA and ESA (with JAXA and Roscosmos expressing interesting in joining in) are planning a mission to the Jupiter moons, with a focus on Europa, Ganymede, and Jupiter's magnetosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Jupiter_System_Mission

      So they're not completely ignoring Europa.

  5. Re:How do they determine those dates? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    What proof would satisfy you?

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  6. Why? by sidragon.net · · Score: 1

    What is so special about humans manipulating measuring equipment versus robots? This notion that we must send people into space is just romantic.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to bring back rocks, And if your going to send enough fuel to get off the surface, why not take a person along for the ride. Besides robots can't play golf

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is wrong with wanting to send people into space? When you take a vacation from work, why do you travel? You could stay home and look at pictures of the places that you want to see. It is human nature to want to explore and do it first hand. It is the same reason that people climb Everest, go to the north or south pole, dive deeper & deeper into the oceans and travel to all the most remote locations on the earth. Yes, we could just send robotic planes & subs to those locations, but then we would miss out on so much. I think that the day that the human race loses that urge to explore what is around the next corner is the day that the human race will start the decline to extinction.

    3. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is so special about humans manipulating measuring equipment versus robots?

      We do it better.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because people can wander around navigating the terrain a lot better and quicker. Now imagine the person is in fact a geologist. They can immediate analyze what they are seeing, move around looking for interesting things, all the time E.g. "Ooh, that's an interesting rock". WHACK. "Hmm, look at that...". Now compare that to an incredibly slow robot that has to inch around, take a picture, send data home, have it processed here, wait, wait, wait. Experts here decide to move the robot 2 feet to the left. wait wait... Robots can't jump into craters or climb hills without massive planning, analysis and Earth based simulations. That takes weeks. Geo Joe can just wander off and start his science work.

    5. Re:Why? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Because a robot can be powered down and require no resources for the flight there and back. They can also be stacked neatly into boxes. They also don't fight, or make little robots. They can stay at Mars forever, and no one will clamor to bring them back to Earth. And if your measurements are off and you kill one, you send another.

      Heck, you could fit Spirit, Opportunity, and probably a few hundred similar robots in the same amount of space and weight you'd need to provide a single human with food, water, and entertainment for the multi-year mission. And you'd get a LOT more science done. And there'd be plenty of space for an unmanned return module to bring hundreds of pounds of samples back.

      If your mission is to learn as much as possible about Mars, sending a human there is about the worst way you could go about it. You're going to stand a good chance of killing him/her, and the space and mass they take up will hobble your eventual effort into near-uselessness. They won't be able to stay for long, and most of your ship will need to come back in order to support them, which means you need a LOT of fuel.

      There's certainly the romantic/endeavor angle, and that can't be discounted. But if you really want to inspire people about space exploration, let's build a base on the Moon. With the lower gravity well, it would make a fantastic platform to launch a robotic mission to Mars, and would teach us a lot of lessons about living long-term in the kind of conditions an eventual Mars manned mission would experience. Think "Biodome" without the opportunity to sneak in candy bars.

      Better yet, build a permanent, self-sustaining space station at a Lagrange point. If we can do that and keep it running for a decade without outside support, we are ready to send a ship to Mars and keep people there for a while. Maybe even make it a one-way trip and make the ship a space station that can become a permanent orbital settlement over Mars, as a base to start the terraforming process.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Why? by natehoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The limitations of our current robots were based on space, cost, and durability. A geologist might be able to search the terrain faster, but they won't be able to be there for more than a few days or weeks at best, and each geologist could really only search one general area. In the same space as your single geologist and all the food and resources he/she will need, we could explore multiple places on the surface of Mars with a generous handful of Spirit-type robots, and they could all stay there for years collecting data.

      The reason Spirit and Opportunity are so slow is because they operate on a small solar array, that generates (at peak) 140 watts for the 4 hours of daylight they get in a Martian day. That's about 560 watt/hours an m-day at best, and that's all the energy they need to do what they do. That's a lot of science packed into that amount of energy. They are currently getting a fraction of that due to dust on the arrays, and yet they are still collecting good science, six years in.

      If you want enough energy to support a human being there, you're talking nuclear engines. If you're going to make that kind of energy available, you might as well power the robots with nukes - they will then be able to move faster than a human could, and there could be hordes of them for the same cost and resources expended sending one human. And they could stay for years.

      To get a single human to mars, on the surface, and back to Earth, you'll need about a half ton of dehydrated food, enough water to recycle so they have a continuous supply, and probably a few thousand watt-hours a day minimum for the entire trip for heat, light, etc. You'll also need radiation shielding (likely tons of it) for the multi-year trip, room for them to exercise, many tons of fuel for the two-way trip, etc.

      Spirit weighs about 400 pounds, or a little over twice the weight of a human. But you save the half-ton of food, the water, more than half the fuel (no return trip, no need to re-orbit it), and almost all the energy needed to sustain life during the voyage. The ship is simpler, since you need almost no shielding, no living space - just strap a few (or a few hundred) robots around the outside of a rocket engine.

      Take a science team of a dozen, and you could probably have at least 50, maybe 100 robots take their place. And those robots would be able to work there for years. Each could have its own nuclear plant and probably have power and functioning instruments for decades (energy starvation from the solar cells is what is slowly killing off the current robots).

      Plus, robots can make a one-way trip. No need to store fuel to bring them all back, just enough for a few dozen of them to send a sample back to a central ship in orbit, which can then pack up the samples and send them back on a relatively small rocket that weighs a few hundred pounds.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    7. Re:Why? by shurikt · · Score: 1

      Because a robot can be powered down and require no resources for the flight there and back. They can also be stacked neatly into boxes. They also don't fight, or make little robots. They can stay at Mars forever, and no one will clamor to bring them back to Earth. And if your measurements are off and you kill one, you send another.

      Which is really suboptimal, because it takes a lot less cost to manufacture humans.

    8. Re:Why? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Now compare that to an incredibly slow robot that has to inch around, take a picture, send data home, have it processed here, wait, wait, wait.

      Yeah, but if you sent a human with enough food and resources for a 3 month mission, what do you reckon the chances are that they will still be around doing the same thing six years later?

      Robots might indeed be slower, but on a cost and support basis, they utterly hands down smash any human in a support scenario. Also, the rovers touched down in a module around the size of a small car from memory. Also the support habitat didn't need to move with the robot.

      Lastly, why do you think really makes something better just because it's faster? A lot of things take many sets of eyes to notice. The slow "move left, move left" scenario you mentioned allows a multitude of people to look at data while it's moving left. That gives a lot of time for a lot of people to say "No, wait, what's that?". With one person rushing around like a crazed excited scientist, just how much of that do you think will be missed?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:Why? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      LOL. True.

      Unfortunately, it takes a lot more to get a human to Mars in a condition where it can be useful. And then they expect to be able to get back, which is even costlier.

      I wonder how much it costs to get a ton to Mars?
      Let's say we have a payload of ten tons on a one-way rocket.

      In ten tons, you could fit:

      5 humans at 200 pounds each = 1/2 ton.

      Food for all ten humans at 1/2 ton each = 2 1/2 tons.

      Water for all five humans, spacesuits, control instruments, bathroom facilities, water recycling plant, personal supplies, medical supplies, etc, call that another half ton at least.

      Buggy to carry a couple of humans around on the surface = 1/2 ton.

      Scientific instruments for use on the planet = 1 ton (that assumes each of the 5 crewmembers is as well-equipped with gear as the robot).

      Power plant to run the water recycling and keep the humans warm, with enough fuel to run it for several years = 1/2 ton (small nuke?).

      Oxygen scrubbers for several years, has to be about 1/2 ton at least.

      Rocket to get all 5 back up from surface, with fuel, at least 2 tons.

      Shielding needed to keep the humans alive (not necessary for robots), at least a ton I'd assume.

      I'm not even sure what the additional fuel for a return trip would weigh. A ton? Probably more.

      In that same ten tons, you could fit 50 400 pound Spirit/Opportunity type robots, and they'd take up less volume since they could all be crammed in. Put a small nuke plant and bigger wheels on each robot and you might be talking about 25 of them, each capable of operating for years at or above human walking pace, with few or no stops. In the course of 2-3 years, if you spaced them out correctly, you'd be able to sample all of the major landscape types and have covered a LOT of ground.

      We could probably have a detailed surface map of Mars with information on what landscapes have what soil types for a significant portion of the planet by the end of the decade if we started building them now. Plus, we'd have a bunch of working nuclear plants on-site and some working scientific instruments that could be used by the eventual human colonists.

      Heck, we might even find a way to repurpose some of the robots to give the terraforming process a boost someday.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    10. Re:Why? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Heck, you could fit Spirit, Opportunity, and probably a few hundred similar robots in the same amount of space and weight you'd need to provide a single human with food, water, and entertainment for the multi-year mission. And you'd get a LOT more science done.

      Until the robot gets stuck in a hole and is unable to figure out how to remove dust from solar panels.

      The problem with a robot, vs a human, is that one is depressingly static while the other is highly adaptable. For known and/or repetitive tasks, robots can't be beat. For exploration... I'm unconvinced.

      If there were a human on Mars, Spirit would likely have all of its wheels working.

    11. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Take a science team of a dozen, and you could probably have at least 50, maybe 100 robots take their place.

      No, you couldn't. My view on this is simple. A human presence on site is superior to sample returns which in turn are much superior to probes controlled remotely from Earth. We only need to look at how we do science on Earth to see that. Most of it is done directly by humans. In a sufficiently large project where the overhead of using humans (and the cost of putting mass on Mars) is reduced greatly by economies of scale, I see humans occupying the same research and exploration roles they take on Earth.

      Further, as long as you are solely dependent on space probes, there will be considerable information you simply cannot obtain or can obtain only in a vastly inefficient and slow manner. For example, what was the mystery substance on the legs of the Phoenix lander? We don't know though we can make educated guesses. A manned mission with the flexibility of humans would have answered that quickly.

      There are at least two issues slowing robotic exploration. First, control is severely lagged for anything beyond the orbit of the Moon. That more than the limited power available constrains how fast the Mars Exploration Rovers could move. There was no reason to build a lighter, faster rover because in addition to cutting some capability, they couldn't drive it faster except in the unusual circumstances when there were no obstacles for the rover to run into.

      Second, a cycle of the scientific method (collecting observations, forming a hypothesis, testing it, etc) is far slower for unmanned missions than it is for an on site manned presence. Namely, if your space probe finds something interesting, but it doesn't have the tools on hand to figure out the problem, then you are stuck until someone sends a new probe to check that very thing out later. For example, the labeled release experiment on the Viking missions has yet to be rechecked. Supposedly there's a space probe that will do that in maybe a few years. So we have about a 35 year lag between unexplained observation and the subsequent followup (and the followup has to work else we'll be in the dark for a few more decades). The results may even end up being unexplained until someone opens up the Vikings and studies them directly.

      In comparison, an on site human can come up, on the spot, with alternate ways of studying the problem. They might be able to answer that unknown question in minutes or days instead of decades.

      To get a single human to mars, on the surface, and back to Earth, you'll need about a half ton of dehydrated food, enough water to recycle so they have a continuous supply, and probably a few thousand watt-hours a day minimum for the entire trip for heat, light, etc. You'll also need radiation shielding (likely tons of it) for the multi-year trip, room for them to exercise, many tons of fuel for the two-way trip, etc.

      So what? Aside from the power source, that stuff is just mass. You're thinking mass has to be expensive. If you're already contemplating an exploration strategy with dozens or hundreds of active space probes, then that is no longer the case.

      Take a science team of a dozen, and you could probably have at least 50, maybe 100 robots take their place. And those robots would be able to work there for years. Each could have its own nuclear plant and probably have power and functioning instruments for decades (energy starvation from the solar cells is what is slowly killing off the current robots).

      Ignoring that the science team would do more than 100 robots (I consider the actually level of improvement somewhere between two and three orders of magnitude better than near future space probes), there's little advantage to a space probe that operates longer than two years on Mars in this strategy. You can always send another wave of robots when the delta v window opens up, every two years. But there is synergy between a human presence and missions that require high power.

    12. Re:Why? by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 1

      Food for all ten humans at 1/2 ton each = 2 1/2 tons.

      I'm guessing that's a typo, and was meant to read "Food for all five humans at 1/2 ton each = 2 1/2 tons."

    13. Re:Why? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Which is really suboptimal, because it takes a lot less cost to manufacture humans.

      It would take somewhere in the ballpark of half a million dollars to manufacture a human suitable for the mission. Do you really think the price of a mass-produced robot is going to be that high ? Not to mention building the robot will take a few weeks, or maybe months, whereas building the human will take 25-30 years.

    14. Re:Why? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Yup, sorry. I started with 10 and quickly realized that a 10-ton payload couldn't possibly accommodate ten people.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    15. Re:Why? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      If there were a human on Mars, we wouldn't possibly have had him/her there for 6 years. Not with our current technology. Not with our current resources.

      For the cost of one human on mars for 6 months, we could have 10 Spirits there for years. Or more. And if one broke, it would be disposable.

      Eventually, we want humans there. But to learn about the terrain, the most efficient and effective way is to send robots. When humans go there, our target should be a one-way trip.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  7. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow, you seem terribly defensive over what is a pretty reasonable question. This is slashdot, you are allowed to ask things here...

    Anyways, from what I understand (and this is in no way my field), they usually date these sorts of things by observing what kind of geological features are on top. If a crater has numerous smaller craters in it, then you know the larger crater is older. With the crater distribution they can make pretty reasonable estimates about the age of something. Similar methods techniques could use other forms of erosion.

    Dating like this obviously isn't exact, and you'd have to ask a geologist for more details on the accuracy and techniques. For that matter, I haven't read TFA so I don't know that this is exactly how it was done. If you are really curious, I suggest you RTFA, and read any papers these scientists have/will release on their findings.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  8. Terraforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So.. Mars is the best candidate for terraforming tests?

    1. Re:Terraforming? by phrostie · · Score: 2, Informative

      any effort to seed the martian atmosphere would at best be a temporary(ok, a few million years) improvement. Mars lacks the gravity to hold the atmosphere. what's more, the warmer the atmostphere the faster it will disipate off into space.

      in the 3 billion years since the lakes existed, mars has reached an equilbrium.

    2. Re:Terraforming? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      any effort to seed the martian atmosphere would at best be a temporary(ok, a few million years) improvement.

      A few million years would, of course, be more than enough time (by a factor of 10000 or so) for colonies to flourish and grow. And presumably, if we figured out a technique that we could use to do it once, our many-times-great-grandchildren could repeat the process if the air started to get a little thin.

      Mars lacks the gravity to hold the atmosphere.

      Okay, here's something I've always wondered about: Venus has a surface gravity of about 0.9g, yet manages to hold on to an atmosphere over ninety times denser than Earth's (and it does this closer to the Sun, too.) So while there's clearly an upper limit to the atmospheric density a planet with a given surface gravity can maintain, Venus suggests to me that Earth is nowhere near this limit ... and that Mars with an Earthlike atmosphere wouldn't be either. Am I missing something?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Terraforming? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something?

      The Earth's magnetic field protects the atmosphere to some extent, and Mars and Venus don't have much of one. Venus has lost most of its original water (or rather the hydrogen that was in the water) to space.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    4. Re:Terraforming? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Lost its water, sure, but not the rest of its atmosphere. What I'm wondering about is the overall mass and density of the atmosphere which a planet of a given size can maintain, and again, based on the example of Venus, it seems like neither Earth nor Mars can be anywhere near the upper limits for those numbers.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Terraforming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, you're not missing anything. The "not enough gravity" explanation is completely bogus. Titan is a lot smaller than Mars, hell it's only half as massive as Mercury, and holds on to an atmosphere with a surface pressure 50% greater than earth. In fact, the atmosphere is so thick and the gravity so low, that a human could strap on a pair of wings and easily flap their way to self-powered flight.

      The real culprit behind Mars' lack of atmosphere is twofold.
      1. no magnetific field
      2. the sun

      The Solar wind is not being defelected by a magnetic field, so it's slowly been stripping away the atmosphere for a couple billion years, a little bit at a time.

      With some localized global warming, there may be enough water ice trapped under Mars' surface to start chainreaction greenhouse effect. Get some Water Vapor and C02 into the atmosphere, warm up the planet a few degrees, get some more melting/released from under rocks, until it's all up there and we've got a workable atmosphere around the planet. As another poster pointed out, you DO eventually lose that atmosphere for the same reason Mars lost it's original atmosphere, and you won't be able to replace it the same way as you've already used up that resource... BUT, you don't have to use the same method. I'd think that with a couple million years (realistically, more like a couple hundred years at the rate our technology advances), Human beings would have figured out how to manipulate asteroids and comets on a molecular level, and be diverting some asteroid belt and kuiper belt objects towards mars to replenish the atmosphere from time to time.

    6. Re:Terraforming? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Mars once had a much thicker atmosphere, so it must have gone somewhere. A mechanism for its loss to space has been proposed, but this is not settled science. Still, there is no obvious place on the planet for most of the old atmosphere, presumably mostly carbon dioxide, to be sequestered (carbonates or what not).

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  9. Global Warming? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    So would 'global warming' have prevented this type of disaster?

    1. Re:Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it would.

          Here is what the Pro Global Warming idiots seem to forget

      Earth Warm and Wet = Life

      Earth Cold and Dry = Absence or Retreat of life

      This of course applies to other planetary bodies

          So they will reply but Antartica blah blah

      But they forget, Antartica is a part of the large and warmer ecosystem of Earth in totality and if Antartica was the norm, its doubtful life would have taken hold.

    2. Re:Global Warming? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      So would 'global warming' have prevented this type of disaster?

      Uh, no. Or do you really believe global warming would've magically allowed Mars to hold on to its atmosphere?

    3. Re:Global Warming? by frith01 · · Score: 1

      No. The problem with mars is that it lacks the gravity to keep gaseous particles bound to it's atmosphere, such that the solar wind removes a really small % of it's atmosphere annually.

    4. Re:Global Warming? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if you were generating the same % of gas annually, would it not be in equilibrium?

    5. Re:Global Warming? by frith01 · · Score: 1

      Correct, which is why we can still breathe :) Realize that most of a planet's mass is not involved in the generation of the atmosphere, and that aside from Volcanos not much change occurs on a 1000 year scale unless biological processes are involved. Volcanic activity has also substantially reduced on Mars, which would have been the other major factor in producing atmospheric gases from minerals / rocks.

      The off-set of having a warmer atmosphere though is that warm things expand, which makes them easier to knock out of the atmosphere.

      Even the Earth though loses the lightest elements to space, such as Hydrogen, and Helium. The only net addition of those elements are through
      comets / asteroids that occasionally visit.

    6. Re:Global Warming? by al3 · · Score: 1

      Does the earth's magnetic field not also provide our atmosphere a degree of protection from solar wind that Mars does not benefit from?

    7. Re:Global Warming? by frith01 · · Score: 1

      From Charged particles, yes. Not all space particles are charged, or are slowed down by magnetic fields.

      Mars is lacking a magnetic field, which is also believed to be why volcanism has stopped. (molten core not large enough, or maybe fully solid )

  10. Re:How do they determine those dates? by mcatrage · · Score: 1

    Um questioning science honestly is something people like. Denying science or questioning science via misinformation would make you a heretic.

  11. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The article does address this:

    "The researchers determined the age of the lakes by counting crater impacts, a method originally developed by NASA scientists to determine the age of geological features on the moon. More craters around a geological feature indicate that an area is older than a region with fewer meteorite impacts. In the study, the scientists counted more than 35,000 crater impacts in the region around the lakes, and determined that the lakes formed approximately three billion years ago. The scientists are unsure how long the warm and wet periods lasted during the Hesperian epoch or how long the lakes sustained liquid water in them."

  12. Re:How do they determine those dates? by locallyunscene · · Score: 4, Informative
    FTFA:

    The researchers determined the age of the lakes by counting crater impacts, a method originally developed by NASA scientists to determine the age of geological features on the moon. More craters around a geological feature indicate that an area is older than a region with fewer meteorite impacts. In the study, the scientists counted more than 35,000 crater impacts in the region around the lakes, and determined that the lakes formed approximately three billion years ago. The scientists are unsure how long the warm and wet periods lasted during the Hesperian epoch or how long the lakes sustained liquid water in them.

    So to answer your question the moon is the reference point.

    It has large error bars, but it's the best we have until we can send radiometric dating to these areas. [Crater Counting]

  13. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Contrary to what the "internet" likes to tell you, many people question what scientists say because they want to see actual proof to support the claims rather than just additional layers of theories and educated "guesses".

    And the people who are legitimately intellectually curious rather than simply delighting in taking jabs at the "scientific orthodoxy" don't universally phrase their questions as "Do you know what you're talking about or are you making shit up that supports your preconceived notions?"

    "How do they determine those dates?" is a fine question, one I am curious about as well. "Gee, in the scientific method I'm used to, you have to have a known reference. Do they have one? Have they been following the scientific method?" kinda makes you sound like the kind of person you are implying you aren't. Maybe you're just being defensive, or using modding reverse-psychology. But really, just leave that part out.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  14. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Bruce+Dawson · · Score: 1

    This question got modded as insightful? I think the poster should have to read the article before having comments modded as insightful. From the article: > The researchers determined the age of the lakes by counting crater impacts They don't go into a lot more detail than that -- it's not a scientific paper -- but that at least answers your first question. Asking for more details is reasonable but asking those questions actually requires some effort. Questioning scientists intelligently is more than just speculating about their possible failures without reading what they've said.

  15. Re:How do they determine those dates? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0, Redundant

    --
    Universal health care is a good thing. It's not socialist. Get over it.

    Sorry to post off topic to your sig, but universal helthcare is socialist. whether or not it is a good thing remains to be seen.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  16. Yeah, that's great Mars by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    But what have you done for us LATELY?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. Re:How do they determine those dates? by edrobinson · · Score: 1

    The surrounding area may be quite old based on the crater count but it seems that the "lakes" must have come a some later time as they do not show any impacts. Does this make sense?

  18. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    You must be new here... ;)

    Unfortunately, not reading TFA is pretty par for the course here. Comments like this get modded up because often the moderators haven't RTFA either. "Playing a martyr to get easy modpoints" seems to be getting pretty popular as well. (note: I'm not accusing the GP of karma whoring... at least intentionally)

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  19. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Contrary to what the "internet" likes to tell you, many people question what scientists say..."

    It's just that many people are to lazy to go look for answers to those questions, and in many cases understanding the answers requires an education in science, or at least requires a lot of time spend reading background material (meaning the answers don't fit in the forum).

    Now if only many people would be so skeptical about politics as they are about science.

  20. Off Topic by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Continuing off topic...

    Your post reminds me of the day a coworker came into my office with a look of deep thought on her face, asking why we need to use money. Not getting where she was going, I started explaining that money is just an accounting system. That didn't satisfy her, so I started to explain how it evolved from barter.

    She stopped me, and saying that she understood that, followed by a but "Why can't we just go to work, and when we need something just go to the store and get it? Why do we need to keep track of it with money? That's what I think we should do."

    At that point I got what she meant, and told her that theoretically we could. And said "What you are describing is communism." She then puffed up and angrily said "YOU are a communist." and stomped out.

    1. Re:Off Topic by pleappleappleap · · Score: 1

      The proper response is, "And you are as dumb as a box of rocks."

    2. Re:Off Topic by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      At that point I'm not sure she would have understood what that meant.

    3. Re:Off Topic by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      At that point I got what she meant, and told her that theoretically we could. And said "What you are describing is communism."

      She is also describing a lack of scarcity.

  21. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Sure, but "Denying science" is defined by many as not taking a popularly believed theory at face value even when there is evidence to the contrary. And "misinformation" is defined by many as any evidence or questions that don't fully support the theories they have taken as fact.

  22. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Informative

    How are these dates determined?

    Basically, they're counting craters.

    The idea is that everything in the solar system is being steadily bombarded by random bits of debris. More craters means that something has been exposed to the elements for a longer amount of time.

    In this case... If you have a once-lakebed that's now covered with craters, it must have been a while since there was water in it.

    No, it isn't perfect. But it isn't too horrible either.

    And, of course, the numbers will be refined as more/better data and measurements become available.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  23. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with these remote techniques is they are what amounts to an educated guess. They are assuming a given frequency of impacts when we know they tend to come in waves and it's impossible to know the frequency difference between the Earth, Moon and Mars. Also it's always assuming that no global event wiped out the craters. Lets say atmosphere and oceans kept Mars from developing clearly visible craters until a billion years ago and being positioned where it is Mars got more impacts so the math indicates a date that would be billions of years off. Even established dating methods like carbon dating are often wrong. Generally for accurate dating they compare multiple sources like soil compaction, it's why pristine sites are important, as well as things like pollen and layers of volcanic ash from known events. The problem with Mars is they have to guess mostly based off one questionable technique. Until direct samples can be taken and tested it'll always be guesswork.

  24. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "universal helthcare is socialist. whether or not it is a good thing remains to be seen."

    Government employees seem to like it, including Senate, Congress (same ppl who say it's bad for us) and the army.

  25. Re:How do they determine those dates? by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry to post off topic to your sig, but universal helthcare is socialist. whether or not it is a good thing remains to be seen.

    NO. It's a social program, but it not socialist. Unless you consider the police, army, judicial system and public schools also to be socialist.

    Socialism is very different than social programs.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  26. Without romanticism exploration will stagnate by dragmyfeet · · Score: 1

    What is so special about humans manipulating measuring equipment versus robots? This notion that we must send people into space is just romantic.

    The romanticism of the adventure is one of the strongest motivators of exploration. Take that away, and it's just work.

    Besides, there are practical reasons for sending humans into space. One day, in order for the human species to survive, we will have to move off this rock and travel to other regions of our galaxy. We might as well start our baby steps now.

  27. Re:How do they determine those dates? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    It is Government-run healthcare that is intrinsically oppressive and untenable to freedom loving peoples.

    Just like a government run judicial system and military forces.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  28. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm probably going to get modded down or flamed for being a heretic for daring to question modern scientific orthodoxy

    Ah, the classic cry of the rebel without a clue.

    Listen up, kid: you are not an iconoclast. You are not boldly speaking truth to power. You are not Martin Luther nailing his theses to the cathedral door. You are not a special snowflake.

    Everyone who has ever worked in this project has thought of, and answered, every single one of your questions long ago. And those answers are easily available with a small amount of digging, which you would do if you had any interest in the actual answers instead of just self-aggrandizing puffery.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  29. liquid exchange between craters? by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

    the photo shows liquid exchange between craters. Couldn't this be something apart from water?

  30. Are we next by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, the aliens have successfully stolen all of the water from Mars (as reported in thousands of lousy science fiction movies and TV dramas). Is the Earth next on their list of planets to steal the water from? I mean, it's not like you could possibly manufacture your own water by taking a couple of common elements in the universe, like hydrogen and oxygen, and combine them using a stupid trick like fire.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  31. This nerd's theory by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

    Our ancestors were the original inhabitants of the Red Planet who seeded life here after determining their home world was doomed to destruction (massive asteroid impact is my guess).

    Sorry, too much Clarke and Heinlein as a kid I suppose.

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
    1. Re:This nerd's theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our ancestors were the original inhabitants of the Red Planet who seeded life here after determining their home world was doomed to destruction (massive asteroid impact is my guess).

      Speak for yourself. My ancestors were the original inhabitants of Krypton who seeded life here after determining their home world was doomed to destruction (a nuclear chain reaction deep within the planet's unstable Uranium core is my guess).

    2. Re:This nerd's theory by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

      That would explain the veil of anonymity you still insist on hiding behind.

      --
      /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  32. Re:the planet lost most of its atmosphere ... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where was the last place you saw it? You must have lost it somewhere between here and there. Don't forget to check under the sofa cusions.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  33. Re:How do they determine those dates? by vlm · · Score: 1

    It has large error bars, but it's the best we have until we can send radiometric dating to these areas. [Crater Counting]

    If you'd like a somewhat more detailed explanation, try Dr. Hartmann and Herres six year old explanation at:

    http://www.psi.edu/projects/mgs/cratering.html

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  34. Re:How do they determine those dates? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  35. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a Canadian, I have to quirk my eyebrow at that.

    You realize that we have supplementary coverage up here, right? Hear me out.

    The government provides basic health coverage. They cover almost everything, from emergency treatment to birth and annual physicals.

    We don't get coverage for private rooms, eyeglasses, Rx medication (unless you spend $3k a year or more, long story), massage, physio, etc. There's a long laundry list of things that aren't covered. Ambulance rides aren't covered, but that's because too many people were using it as a taxi service. It's $65, but when you need one, it's money well spent.

    I can go out and buy more coverage. My wife gets Green Shield from work, and that covers $250 in eyeglasses every 2 years, massage and physio, 80% reimbursment on medication, private rooms, dental care, etc. I have an HSA at work, but I use my wife's plan instead because it's a better plan.

    When my kids were born, it cost me $12 for parking each time. When they got hit by a car and rushed to the hospital, it cost me $10 for dinner and $65 for the ambulance. (For each of the above, there were multiple ultrasounds, xrays, blood tests, beds, bandages, etc.) That's all I had to pay.

    When it's critical, there aren't wait times, despite what you may have heard. My friend had a sharp pain in his head when he coughed -- he was ushered in right away, had an ultrasound, a CT scan, and a spinal tap within 30 minutes of arriving at the hospital. (The wait was because someone was in the machine.)

    I was having chest pains about six months ago, so I went to a drop-in clinic (not my regular GP) and had an ECG within about 15 minutes.

    This is all stuff that's just covered up here, and always has been. True, the system has faults, but that's because our politicians up here get really good secondary coverage so they don't feel any pain from cutting back on health care spending. (These are the same breed of jokers that brought Canada from the 3rd largest Navy in the world at the end of WW2 to the 3rd-div team it is today.) If they increased health-care funding, we'd be in much better shape and the Americans would have nothing to point their fingers at.

    By the way, my tax rate was ~15% in 2008. I haven't done my 2009 taxes yet. (It's not a directly fair comparison because we also have subsidized education up here -- my engineering degree cost me ~$0 net.)

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  36. Noah says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that all the water came from Mars to Earth - that's why it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.

  37. Re:How do they determine those dates? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    And here again you prove the anti-healthcare arguments. You're healthcare is up to the whims of a politician. Compared to how it should be, I buy the amount of healthcare I want. Something we mostly don't have in the US but should be working towards not away from.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  38. Re:How do they determine those dates? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

    its no more socialist than the police force is, even if you never need to use haelthcare (which is extremely unlikely) most rational people are happy to contribute in case they do need it.

    at least thats how it works over here in europe.

  39. Re:How do they determine those dates? by lessthan · · Score: 1
    I don't get why you said

    whether or not it is a good thing remains to be seen.

    There are many first world countries with universal healthcare. Why are they not good examples of the effects? I am not arguing for or against. I simply stating that countries like Canada and Germany can serve as examples.

    --
    Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
  40. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is designed to make educated guesses and see if the data collected by a properly designed experiment bears them out. Science then describes the relationship of the data to the educated guess (us scientists call this guess a "hypothesis", by the way) in what's called "Experimental Results" or a "Conclusion". Proof is outside of the domain of Science. The word "proof" should only be used in relation to mathematics or formal logic.

    That having been said, I too am interested in how they determined the age of the lakes. It sounds like they used spacial density of meteorite impacts within the bodies of the lakes, compared that to the surrounding surface, and extrapolated from there. Not sure if that's correct, though, or the validity of the method they used.

  41. I love the way scientists talk... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

    "Channel connecting depressions in bottom right providing clear evidence of liquid exchange between depressions."

    Around here, we call that a "river"... XD Most lakes have one or two connecting them to other bodies of water.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  42. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I buy the amount of healthcare I want.

    That wouldn't change under a Canadian system or under the proposed changes to the US system. If you've got the cash spend away! The changes in the US are aimed at those who can't afford healthcare.

  43. 2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First It has to ignite Jupiter...

  44. Re:How do they determine those dates? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I agree, it's not because you have an engineering degree that you know so much about something that you have never had contact with, as well they are using earth type examples to template off of, thinking there could never be any similar thing that would cause water like patterns in the sand, so it must be water, what about liquid gasses...they are liquid too, but not water...anyways, I lost interest in what they were doing a long time ago....when I saw some of the presumptions they made about so many space things. Try asking about dark matter!

  45. Re:How do they determine those dates? by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

    You're (sic) healthcare is up to the whims of a politician.

    And it's fantastic! Healthcare is a major election issue. Politicians are spineless attention seekers who will do anything to get elected. You can't get elected on a platform of reducing healthcare, and every election cycle the opposition parties pick apart the performance of the health system and loudly promise to improve it. Then whoever is elected sets the health budget at the lowest they think they can get away with and lets the doctors get on with it. The doctors routinely overspend because they won't refuse necessary treatment, and then the new opposition parties complain about the budget shortfall and any shortcomings at the next election.

    The system is very focused on the best outcome for the lowest cost which is a much better climate for preventative medicine.

    Compare that to private health insurance, where a bean counter will approve as little care as will keep them from getting sued, and I'll take it any day.

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  46. I can see your boobs... by prometx42 · · Score: 1

    ...aaaaaaand...now we're safe from terror...

  47. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Don't forget: Firemen - The Red Truck Menace!

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  48. Iceteroids! by Goonie · · Score: 1

    In the long term, iceteroids in the outer solar system seem to be a reasonable source of replacement hydrogen and oxygen for a terraformed Mars.

    The nice thing about them is that, assuming you have nuclear rockets of sufficient size and durability, an asteroid made of ice is essentially made of reaction mass.

    Other places you could get hydrogen (or water - strip out the oxygen if you don't want it) include the gas giants themselves or some of their satellites. The inner Jovian moons are unlikely to have significant human habitation because of high radiation levels, but an automated ice-mining operation on Europa, say, isn't out of the realms of possibility.

    Assuming we don't get a large black monolith sending us warnings not to land there, of course :)

    Yes, all of this is well out of the realms of current engineering capabilities. But there doesn't seem to any fundamental reason why it's impossible.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  49. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    That was my point. In Canada, you buy whatever coverage you want. If you can't afford any, you get a base coverage of medically required procedures.

    To summarize Canuck Health Care:

    1. The basics are paid for.

    2. You can buy more insurance.

    That's all there is to it. If you don't make enough money, you get taken care of. If you make enough, you get the same care for the same price*, but you can buy more. I can get coverage that'll cover a massage every day and chocolate mints on the pillows in a private suite in the Mayo Clinic.

    *Some provinces, like BC, have extra MSP premiums. I pay ~$100 a month for a family of four.** If the household income was less than about $35k, then the premiums would be waived. Where this differs from regular (i.e. American) insurance is that I cannot be retroactively denied coverage. (Post-claim underwriting, I think you call it.) Also, if I don't pay, my coverage doesn't lapse.

    **This is actually paid via my wife's supplementary coverage from work.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  50. Re:How do they determine those dates? by ITJC68 · · Score: 1

    That is what they are. Educated guesses. The scientist gets some information and builds a consensus on a rough time frame. They could be off by a million years but close enough when you are talking billion years. Carbon dating probably couldn't work either because of the differences in atmosphere. It would be cool to send humans to Mars to say we did it and bring back tangible proof like we did for the moon in the 60's. NASA has been wasting alot of money on the shuttle these days and needs to get the next vehicle ready now. Relying on the Russians to transit to and from the ISS is inexcusable for this country. Then on to the moon and build a station on the moon. At first unmanned but eventually setup to be manned like we currently do with the ISS. The only issues would be meteor strikes or significant failure that would prevent astronauts from escaping if there was a life threatening issue.

  51. Re:How do they determine those dates? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    A) Most people question scientists because the conclusion from studies are different them the sacred cows.

    B) Most people wouldn't understand the data

    C) " based on supposition to support a hypothesis?" this seldom lasts long.

    D) Your question are all good one, the type of questions a 5 year old asks. That's not an insult, 5 year olds ask the best questions.

    Unlike a 5 eyar old, you could easily get the answers to those question, so I won't hold your hand.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  52. Re:How do they determine those dates? by dscaife · · Score: 1

    This is slashdot, you are allowed to ask things here...

    Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

  53. Re:How do they determine those dates? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    If my choice is health care up to the whims of a politician or up the whims of an insurance executive I'll choose the politician.

  54. Re:How do they determine those dates? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
    That was very entertaining but completely devoid of any information. You are accepting dogma because it makes you feel comfortable. The unknown or admitting that you don't know causes anxiety for people.

    If you read my other response, I'm suggesting that the dates are not based on anything other than a very limited time period of observation and scientists have extrapolated from that limited data set a rate of impacts. They then used that to provide an educated guess on the age.

    The problem with this is that is is very likely to be as accurate as a random guess. It has no basis in "fact".

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  55. Re:How do they determine those dates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contrary to what the "internet" likes to tell you, many people question what scientists say because they want to see actual proof to support the claims rather than just additional layers of theories and educated "guesses".

    If you were actually interested in those questions instead of perfecting your Giordano Bruno impersonation, you might have found the following information a single click beyond TFA:

    For further information please contact:
    Colin Smith
    Press Officer
    Imperial College London
    Email: cd.smith@imperial.ac.uk

  56. Re:How do they determine those dates? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    I'd much rather have health care up to my health care provider, and health insurance up to my insurance provider. Why should I be required to have maintenance and insurance in the same policy? It's these bundlings that really cause faults with any system.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  57. Re:How do they determine those dates? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    Kind of right I guess. Although it's not as much of a misnomer as calling the US's current system Capitalist.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.