Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Gypsum Find Clear Evidence There Was Water On Mars

First time accepted submitter RCC42 writes "The Opportunity rover has found evidence that liquid water once flowed on Mars, through the discovery of gypsum — a mineral that can only be formed in the presence of water. Though other evidence in the past has suggested highly acidic water on Mars, this is the first evidence for water with a pH suitable for life as we know it."

45 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Now we HAVE to go. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can no longer ignore the need now to send people to mars to establish a base and mine. With this discovery, Mars can now supply all of our drywall needs for the next several centuries!

    --
    This space available.
    1. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

      But if NASA finds a sentient life lathe-and-plaster-using civilization underground, such advanced technology as drywall would violate the prime directive.

    2. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want oil, go to titan.

      Lakes of liquid ethane.

      Transport cost might be a bit more than you bargained for... what with operating a tanker in orbit of a gas giant and all......

    3. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by ae1294 · · Score: 2

      There is no o2 which is why titan doesn't burst into a huge fireball...

    4. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Humans can do in an hour what would take a robot a month.
      Humans can make judgements.

      There is strong scientific, and techical breakthgrough that send a person to mars will bring.

      And yes, also send robots.

      Send some humans and some backhoe to where we think the deepest water would have been. Dig some bigas ass holes and see what we can find.

      See if there is an evidence of large species about 200 meters down.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by poly_pusher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just can't go along with that idea yet...

      I want to clarify that I can't think of anything more important to our species than the ability to leave this planet indefinitely. What we have learned about our universe and the geological history of this planet is that eventually something will destroy Earth or at least alter it so drastically that it cannot support human life any longer. The big questions are when and how that will happen. Maybe a giant asteroid will hit us, Yellowstone may blow it's top again, or we damage the current ecosystem so badly that Earth becomes inhospitable. So I really want make clear, I am very pro space travel.

      However, that is why we need to be reasonable. We need to gather more information on space in general, test materials that can withstand the extreme conditions in outer space, and research advanced propulsion technologies. This kind of research can be done without human beings physically present. The cost of keeping a sack of meat alive on a 9 month trip to Mars is absurd. If we ever consider spending that much money it should all be spent on research and development until the actual trip to Mars is no longer costly and what is then based on old and reliable technology.

      Besides, if we began planning a trip to Mars right now, by the time the actually went, we would likely have some very sophisticated Rovers. Just imagine what they could do if the whole budget was spent on launching advanced rovers and probes instead of on keeping people alive.

    6. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Informative

      A human would die in two minutes on mars. oh, you mean with TONS of supplies send humans? forget it, robots win.

      The energy requirements alone of a human compared to the robot are fearsome.

    7. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by guruevi · · Score: 2

      The thing is that funding our 'terrestrial matters' (by which I think you mean the wars and bailouts) has been way more expensive than all the space programs put together.

      Space research creates jobs and develops new technology which we can then use to further an economy. War simply destroys economies to profit a very limited set of people (those selling weapons and weapon systems) and although they also develop new technology, they do so by cannibalizing actual scientific research.

      The terrestrial matters we know about and we can handle them, we just need people knowledgeable and honest enough to do so. The extra-terrestrial we don't know about but finding out about them is highly educational and progresses us much further than politicizing science and reverting back to teaching creation. That IS what will happen if we cancelled all space research a decade ago - the religious nut cases would say that we haven't found any evidence of extraterrestrial life or even planets like ours therefore $deity must have put us here. In the last decade we have found evidence of not only planets like ours but whole solar systems like ours and also "extraterrestrial" life in our own backyard (the arsenic-based life form and what seems like remnants of early seeds on passing meteors).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frontiers need powerful symbols, and robots don't cut it. Pragmaticism is all well and good, but you need to keep people motivated enough - and not just scientists, but all those others that feed and clothe them.

    9. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Even so, humans would be more efficient per kg of payload than the robot would.

      I don't think you understand how much payload would be required just to support the human. For example, the rovers produce less than 1 kWh/day even under optimal conditions. In the winter when it goes into hibernation it's down to less than 0.16 kWh/day or like a 6-7 watt light bulb. How many solar panels do you think it'd take to sustain a human?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Now we HAVE to go. by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think you understand how much payload would be required just to support the human.

      It's on the order of 100 tonnes per person. More mass will be needed overall, but that can be obtained from Mars itself.

      For example, the rovers produce less than 1 kWh/day even under optimal conditions. In the winter when it goes into hibernation it's down to less than 0.16 kWh/day or like a 6-7 watt light bulb. How many solar panels do you think it'd take to sustain a human?

      3000 calories (for a very active person) corresponds to roughly 3.5 kWh/day. The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) generates about 2.5 kWh/day and about 45-50 kWh/day of waste heat (with half life of almost 90 years).

      Of course, that does measure true power needs. Humans need to eat food, so there's going to be at least a factor of ten loss converting solar energy into food energy. On the plus side, that can be grown, say in a pressurized greenhouse or LED-lit chamber. Near Earth the rule of thumb is 100 square meters (m2) is roughly enough garden space to feed an active person (and ten times what area you need to provide oxygen for that person). Since solar intensity drops by half, then one would expect that 200 m2 probably would do on Mars and there are various tricks to drop that amount.

      In exchange for this modest mass and complexity, you get the best tools, that humanity has to offer. Keep in mind also that unmanned probes such as the MSL are increasing in power consumption. So it's reasonable to expect that power consumption over the mission will enter the range where manned missions are viable. And that's an additional aspect of manned missions. They have a lot of synergies with high power missions.

  2. Re:NASA's Gypsum? by medraut · · Score: 3

    Although read in context it makes sense. Oh well, mod me down appropriately! o_O

  3. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by maweki · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because they, contrary to the martians, shoot down unmanned probes.

  4. Re:In other news... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Persians first calculated the volume of the earth, as a sphere. Invented spherical trigonometry, and all kinds of things.

    Remember all that "Arab scientists and mathematicians" kind of talk? None of 'em were arabs. Mostly Persians, with roots in Khorasan - writing in Arabic.

    It's similar to calling Sir Issac Newton a "Latin Physicist" because of the language used in the "Principia".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  5. Re:frost piss by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Funny

    If that's the water source, I'd hate to meet the bladder's owner.

  6. Re:In other news... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Needless to say, Iranian civilization ain't what it used to be. This a major oil producing country with such inept leadership that they have to import refined fuels.

    Persia's high point was a long time ago.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:In other news... by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's similar to calling Sir Issac Newton a "Latin Physicist" because of the language used in the "Principia"."

    Ofcourse not.... he was a Persian physicist.

    --
    My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  8. how much gypsum? by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are we talking just a thin crust, or are we talking "gypsum quarry" size formations?

    The reason I ask, is gypsum contains absurd quantities of chemically bound water. If mars has a higher calcium ion concentration than earth does, and had liquid oceans at one time, it is possible that with the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere and lack of techtonic plate movement that a sizable quantity of the ocean turned into "concrete" rather than drying up.

    This would mean that much of the light elements (hydrogen, etc) might have escaped being blown off the atmosphere.

    This is exciting news for science fiction writers that like to dream about terraforming. Creating techtonic activity would create the geomagnetic dynamo the planet needs, and as a consequence of the subduction and volcanism, huge quantities of water vapor would be expelled as a volcanic gas.

    About all the planet would need would be ammonia, for the missing nitrogen. (Doesn't titan have an ammonia atmosphere? Wink, nudge.)

    This does not mean the planet would go from lifeless desert to habitable overnight, as the gasses relased would be inhospitable to oxygen dependant life like us, but certain algae species like chlorella can survive in 100% C02 atmospheric concentrations as long as there is sunlight and water. Chlorella is well researched, fully genomically sequenced, and already has engineered varieties. A strain intended to rapidly convert the atmosphere to something a bit less toxic would actually be fairly plausible.

    1. Re:how much gypsum? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was ice.

      This is gypsum. Gypsum is a conretion type sedimentary rock made of chemically bound water, sulfuric acid, and calcium ions.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

      It is mostly water by molar weight.

      If heated in the mantle by subduction, it would thermally decompose into calcium sulfide, sulfur dioxide, and copoius quantities of water vapor.

      If the formations are "large, and very deep", it would go a long way toward explaining where the ocean went.

    2. Re:how much gypsum? by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

      Creating techtonic activity would create the geomagnetic dynamo the planet needs

      I'll get right on that and let you know when I'm done so we can move to the next phase.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    3. Re:how much gypsum? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Reading comprehension is difficult for you?

      I said, the atmosphere would inflat *as a consequence* of plate techtonics.

      Plate techtonics is the result of convection currents in the mantle.

      Convection currents in the mantle create the geomagnetic dynamo.

      The geomagnetic dynamo creates a strong planetary magnetic field.

      Venus lacks a magnetic field because it is too hot at the planet's surface to have mantle convection. This, no dynamo, and no magnetic field.

      Mars lacks sufficient mantle heat to power mantle convection, thus no dynamo, and no magnetic field.

      Kickstarting the mantle of mars with some gogo juice (in the form of nasty dirty radioactive waste and or dirty uranium bombs in specific locations) would kickstart mantle activity, causing convection, causing techtonic activity, which releases the chemically bound water vapor, at the same time that the magnetic field appears.

    4. Re:how much gypsum? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Titan is larger than earth's moon.

      Mars is smaller than the Earth.

      Smashing titan into mars would probably be a bad thing. (A very, very bad thing. That is, unless you like the idea of scattering huge chunks of rock into space. See for instance, the collision simulation for the hypothesis of earth's moon's formation.)

      Better, would be to go ahead and nudge the moon out of saturns orbit, have it fall into the inner solar system, sweep a wide orbit of the sun, then fall into orbit around mars.

      Best to use a trans ecliptic orbit, so that the falling body doesn't adversely effect other inner planet systems.

      Once in martian orbit, titan's gravity would cause intense mantle heating of the red planet. It is likely that titan's atmosphere would freeze and snow out after being dislodged from saturn's orbit, due to the lack of tidal heating while it transits. Mars' tidal forces would be miniscule compared to saturn's, though being in the habitable zone might be enough to heat titan enough to reconstitute the atmosphere. Unknown.

      It is concievable that with both bodies in the habitable zone, that both bodies could be actively terraformed.

      Titan is presumed to have a silicate core, and not an iron nickle one like mars and earth. This means that it wouldn't disrupt the new martian magnetosphere. (Like our moon doesn't.)

      Mars is more massive than titan, and if the atmosphere reconstitutes, mars might just rip it off titan.

    5. Re:how much gypsum? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Titan's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen. That would definitely not be frozen at Mars' distance from the sun. It extends a long way out though, so if you put Titan in a reasonably close orbit of Mars it would probably transfer. And there's lots of it.

      Moving the planet might be tricky though. Especially if you don't want to lose the atmosphere.

    6. Re:how much gypsum? by Zargg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are we talking just a thin crust, or are we talking "gypsum quarry" size formations?

      FTA: The gypsum vein — which scientists spotted last month and nicknamed “Homestake” — is approximately the width of a human thumb and about 16 to 20 inches long.

    7. Re:how much gypsum? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Also FTA: there are large dunes of gypsum sand in the north polar region. Possibly there are large pans of the stuff, as the sand had to come from somewhere.

  9. Obligatory XKCD by JStyle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now that it has finally done a good job, it can come home....

    XKCD

  10. As thing go... by no-body · · Score: 2

    runaway climate, oceans evaporate, a couple of million years later some beings from Europe may wonder, was there ever life on this desert planet? And a next round of silliness starts again.

    1. Re:As thing go... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

      Beings from Europe? Don't be ridiculous.

    2. Re:As thing go... by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Educate yourself about Jupiter's moons

      Not sure about the GP but when I went to school Europe was a continent and Europa was a Jovian moon. OTOH, geopolitical maps have changed quite a bit since the 1960's, so maybe France is obiting Jupiter now.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:As thing go... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      English makes the distinction, a lot of other countries don't. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany at least "europa" is both the continent and the Jovian moon. Took me a long time to get used to writing Europe...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  11. Drywall industry rejoices! by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 2

    Now I know who will be the first to industrialize Mars.

  12. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually, I think the drone malfunctioned, went into auto-mode and landed itself in the desert. Then an Iranian sheepherder stumbled across it and called authorities.

    It's an open question why Iranians graze sheep in the desert though...

  13. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    Actually, drones like the Predator, Heron, Reaper and Global Hawk need to be manually landed by a local pilot, not sure about the Beast of Kandahar.

  14. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

    If I built a drone like that, I'd have it track the jamming signal and "land" on it at full speed.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  15. Re:In other news... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3

    "Greeks" themselves were often native inhabitants of Asia Minor, Levant and Lower Egypt.

    They were also the recipients, refiners and extenders of numerical sciences with origin in Babylon and the Indus.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  16. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by inflex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From what I recall, goats will eat a lot of things but they -way- they eat the grass tends to leave it intact/alive to resprout, however sheep gnaw it down so far that it kills the grass.

  17. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's interesting how fast some of us forget the facts.

    First, in the release of Department of State memos a year ago, we read of several countries and the US government admitting to a belief in the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. While the Arab Spring protests have probably trumped it for a time, it's worth noting that several countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, viewed Iran's nuclear program as their most pressing foreign policy issue (over such things as Israel). They have since threatened to develop their own nuclear weapons.

    ' Second, Iran does indeed have sites that were built at great expense to resist known conventional weapons of the time. No civilian nuclear program justifies this expense.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency has assembled evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

    Finally, we have acts of sabotage and murder against Iranian infrastructure and personnel associated with this program. Nobody does that for a hobby. An easy counter for Iran would be to throw open its entire nuclear infrastructure to show it wasn't developing nuclear weapons. Didn't happen.

    I can't help but notice that the story you link to has a mind-numbing fallacy in it. Because the US had overflown Iranian space for four years and the author chooses to ignore the copious evidence in support of the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, then Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. That makes no sense.

  18. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The US Dept of State is a reliable authority of unbiased information and analysis? Christ! You would have made a great Soviet.

    Then there's the entirely discredited IAEA citing. This was shredded. Another sad, neocon fairytale, like Condoleeza's "Smoking Gun in the form of a Mushroom Cloud". Oh. She represents an example of State Dept. accuracy and lack of bias, herself.

    Unbelievable, fabricated distortions about "nano-diamonds"

    Why do you witchhunt Iran, when the US is the evil regime that kills children with airborne shrapnel, on an almost daily basis?

    he IAEA Confirms My Nanodiamond Analysis

    Dennis Ross Fired Over IAEA Dud

    No International Action Following IAEA Report

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  19. Clarification on Khorasan by astropirate · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Mostly Persians, with roots in Khorasan - writing in Arabic."
    "Needless to say, Iranian civilization ain't what it used to be."

    I just have to clarify that Khorasan is modern day Afghanistan - It was part it was part of Persia, but it isn't Iran. Its a common misconception that people think Persia = Iran. In fact, Persia included (at a time) a lot, of not all of, the ---istan countries. "istan" is the the Persian suffix meaning land. Analogous to Scotland, Ireland.

    My two cents of knowledge.. free for you!

  20. Re:Water Is Proof Of Water, Before Gypsum Is by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To think that it goes from solid to gas instantly without any liquid form on a planet (Mars) where there are dry river beds, would be logical.

    Pressure is below the triple point for water so yes, it is logical to not expect liquid water on the exposed surface of Mars under current conditions. Ice directly sublimates to vapor.

    It's also worth noting that liquid water could be a temporary thing maybe occurring when ice is melted by volcanism. That could result in the river valleys without any long term water presence. Or the river valley could be caused by flowing carbon dioxide. The presence of gypsum supports the your explanation that flowing water was present on Mars at some point.

  21. Re:link with minimal info by hoggoth · · Score: 2

    Wait, did someone say they found beer on Mars? Very interesting development...

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  22. Offsite backup Re:Now we HAVE to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I kind think we should focus or efforts on more terrestrial matters

    Uh... offsite backup IS a terrestrial matter.

  23. Re:Only in water? Are you sure? by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

    In other news, scientists discover a way to form gypsum in the absence of water.

    It's not common that you'll hear a scientist say this, but that is absolutely impossible. It is not possible under any circumstances to form gypsum in the absence of water. Gypsum is a hydrous mineral - it contains molecules of water in it's structure. So even if you took Feynman's trip "all the way to the bottom", you'd have to assemble an atom of sulphur and four of oxygen (to form a sulphate ion ; you're in Feynman territory, so don't worry about the charges), then add a calcium atom (now you can balance the charges if you want. Then add two molecules of water (as atoms, or as molecules ; it doesn't matter) ... and that's your anhydrous synthesis contaminated with substantial quantities of water. And we haven't even got onto getting the ions and molecules into the right positions (also essential for it to be "gypsum" and not anything other mineral).

    Where is my packet of dehydrated DHMO? Ah, under the tin of tartan paint.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  24. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2

    How do you provide evidence that you're not doing something?
    How do you provide evidence that something someone claims exists in fact doesn't?

    Logic fail.

    Even if they COULD, you still wouldn't believe it because clearly this evidence of non-existence couldn't be trusted, coming from Iranians, who you KNOW are just hiding something. When they deny it, it confirms it!

    Set the skin-seeking missiles to brown! (Leave them on default, IOW.)

    --
    This space available.
  25. Re:We Can Find Water on MARS, But NO Nukes in Iran by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2

    If Iran decides to accuse the US of stocking illegal weapons (chemical whatever) and cites the lack of proof that we don't as proof that suspicion is warranted, do they get to say that our denial is not enough, that we must allow in outside inspectors?

    We in the US seem to demand an awful lot from others that we would rather kill than submit to ourselves.

    Kill Japanese for the torture of waterboarding, then waterboard others ourselves and say it's not torture.

    Overthrow democratically-elected leaders and install dictators instead because we want to? We've done that.

    Oh yeah, like in Iran for example.

    Gosh, I wonder why, after that, they don't feel like climbing in our laps like puppies and learning to respond to our commands?

    We have nukes. Iraq didn't have nukes. Iran trying to get them might be the only way they can protect themselves from an unprovoked US attack.

    I am anti-nuclear, but I don't think we, as the only power ever to nuke cities, and still with the largest arsenal, have much moral standing to act like the global good guys.

    --
    This space available.