Despite Clay Minerals, Early Mars Might Have Been Dry

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Despite Clay Minerals, Early Mars Might Have Been Dry

Posted by timothy on Sunday September 9, 2012 @10:36AM from the but-omg-mars dept.

astroengine writes "Early Mars may not have been as warm or wet as scientists suspect, a finding which could impact the likelihood that the Red Planet was capable of evolving life at the time when it was getting started on Earth. A new study presents an alternative explanation for the prevalence of Mars' ancient clay minerals, which on Earth most often result from water chemically reacting with rock over long periods of time. The process is believed to be a starting point for life."

15 of 105 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They keep changing the narrative.. by tetrahedrassface · 2012-09-09 10:47 · Score: 5, Informative

This isn't new news, but the scientific establishment that gets the budgets to conduct space exploration is selling us Mars because they know it is doable within the context of current budgets and technologies. Mars is pretty much way too dry and has been. It also lacks a magnetosphere and despite *one lame little plate* any hint of past large scale plate tectonics. Mars is interesting for sure, but it would be nice to also have a real base on luna with which to assemble a vehicle to take us on to Mars and with which to test technologies with the intent of sending humans on to Mars. Europa and even Venus deserve attention as well, but it seems Mars is in our comfort zone so we keep going back....
1. Re:They keep changing the narrative.. by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-09 12:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not much on the moon of any use. Mining stuff anywhere off earth is a long way from being practical. If you want to build a transfer station, do it in orbit (like LEO, just what the ISS is doing).
  Personally, I'd like us to spend more money and time on the Jovian satellites but then again, I'd like NASA to get to spend more money - lots more money. At the current piddly rate we're funding space exploration, you really can't expect to be able to pull off any major exploration goal. Right now we're just doing simple and cheap things (relatively speaking) and hoping that the funding situation gets better.
  You can certainly argue all day about whether or not it's an appropriate goal for a country, but you're not going to get very far with the nickel and dime approach we're currently using. Not that JPL isn't doing neat science - and given the financial limitations that they work in, they've done a fantastic job, it's just to really answer a lot of the questions we are posing and to enable us to even think about pulling resources from space, we're not doing jack.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:They keep changing the narrative.. by fsck1nhippies · 2012-09-09 12:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I completely agree with the "nickel and dime" approach. I was not suggesting that we mine the moon for resources. My use of the moon is to give us a stable structure to build a base on.
  The ISS is an awesome idea, but we limit our exposure to space by just sending supplies and equipment to the same spot without ever reaching further. The shuttle program was definitely a success if you are willing to limit your goals to just looking down on the earth in awe. Had we spent those 135 missions pushing toward the settlement of a body outside of earth, we would be further along. Hell, just 20% of them could have built an outpost on the moon.
  Don't get me wrong, I am glad we invested in the shuttle program. I just wish we used it to expand our capabilities instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
  Yeah, we are definitely underfunding the space program... I can draw similarities between our handling of the space program and our approach to education.
3. Re:They keep changing the narrative.. by khallow · 2012-09-09 13:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  2) It currently costs tens of thousands of dollars to put a single kilogram of mass into space. If you're going to get any kind of industry up there, it's going to cost trillions of dollars.
  It's currently around $5,000 per kg for the Russian launch vehicles. SpaceX threatens to halve that cost.
4. Re:They keep changing the narrative.. by Baloroth · 2012-09-09 13:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The advantage to the moon is assembly of parts can be done their under the effects of gravity. Assembling large projects from parts might sound easier in micro-gravity, but maneuvering becomes such a pain it's a lot easier for humans to work under gravitational effects (it's how we evolved to operate). It also has signs of ice for water, so you could potentially use it as a cheap source for that, and may well have other viable minerals usable in space exploration. We are a far way from mining the Moon for Earth use. Unless we find some extremely rare mineral there (like Platinum), most stuff we need is vastly easier to find on Earth. No, mining and manufacturing on the Moon would be as a staging ground for further exploration. Escape velocity there is ~1/3 Earth's, so it's about as easy to transfer from there to deep-space as it would be from LEO anyways.
  Not to mention it would serve as a nice test of our ability to establish a base on another world without being out of (relatively easy) reach of Earth, and there is a ton of Lunar science to be done on the surface yet.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
What about this? by RichardtheSmith · 2012-09-09 10:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry, when they taught me Earth Science they mentioned that stratification was caused by sedimentary rock, laid down by the action of water over millions of years.
How do you explain this without water?
http://i.space.com/images/i/20995/wS4/mount-sharp-1600.jpg?1346122345
1. Re:What about this? by cunniff · 2012-09-09 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, it could be sedimentary rock layers. But volcanos can also cause layering - consult the oracle about "welded tuff" (example image from Idaho)
2. Re:What about this? by wbr1 · 2012-09-09 11:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Those are scars left by martian strip mining and martian mountaintop coal removal crews.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
3. Re:What about this? by VortexCortex · 2012-09-09 11:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not that I disagree that water was the cause; However, all fluid is made of matter and can briefly suspend particles of other more dense matter thus providing the capability to form deposits and layering if said fluid is in motion. The Martian atmosphere is known to have Dust Storms -- I put it to you that these Dust Storms are such suspensions of matter having varied densities, and that the dust is, in fact, relocated. I believe that Mars was not always a solid rock because it shows evidence of volcanism -- Magma is also a fluid / matter suspension and is thus capable of forming layers of material. Unless we observe the actual layers and their material compositions we will not know how the layers formed.
No magnetosphere, no mass by udachny · 2012-09-09 11:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Mars has no magnetosphere, it's has 89% less mass, it is half of the Earth's diameter. Mars could never really sustain a breathable atmosphere with oxygen and nitrogen just because of those characteristics, those gases would simply fly off into space, there cannot be enough density and pressure on the surface of Mars to hold a breathable atmosphere.
Of-course living organisms can survive in various other types of atmosphere, for example carbon dioxide, but even that gas cannot be held by Mars in enough density for anything to breath it.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
1. Re:No magnetosphere, no mass by spaceplanesfan · 2012-09-09 12:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Titan disagrees with you.
Tunnel vision by Grayhand · 2012-09-09 12:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can argue minerals all you want but it doesn't change the fact Mars has massive water features. Also they keep finding signs of sedimentary rock. Even some of the first rover pictures have shown it. Taking the evidence as a whole there shouldn't still be a debate about water on Mars. It's a waste of energy and resources. They should be focused on what happened to it? Was most of it lost to space or is it trapped deep in the soil?
1. Re:Tunnel vision by AK+Marc · 2012-09-09 14:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is no proof that the water features were caused by water. Mars bears geology that would require water on Earth. But that doesn't offer proof of water, just a strong hint. Continuing to look at it is likely being done with an eye on confirming it and figuring out what happened to it, if it was there. At this point, there is no proof of water. Just because your mind is closed doesn't prove the issue is.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Re:Hmm by Third+Position · 2012-09-09 14:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not necessarily. We have plenty of civilizations on Earth that have barely left a trace, and the oldest of those is only a few thousand years old. If there were civilizations several hundred thousands or millions of years old, chances are pretty good we could miss them, even in our own back yard, let alone on another planet.

--
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Re:Good news by rubycodez · 2012-09-09 14:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

we don't have the means to increase Mars' mass by almost ten times! we can move mass on that scale, and the result would be an extremely hot molten mass that would take hundreds millions of years to cool off (your are essentially proposing the same process that formed the planets in the first place