MESSENGER Probe Finds Strong Evidence of Ice On Mercury

The Bad Astronomer writes "Just in time for the holiday season, the NASA space probe MESSENGER appears to have all but confirmed the existence of ice at Mercury's north pole. Ice has long been suspected to be hiding in permanently shadowed areas in deep craters at the planet's pole, but new data show several converging lines of evidence (thermal and visible light mapping, radar, neutron emission) that as much as a trillion tons of ice may be buried just centimeters deep under the surface. Scientists also see evidence of organic (carbon-based) molecules as well. That's not life, but it's more of an indication that volatile compounds can exist on the solar system's innermost planet." Further, astroengine writes "New results from the MESSENGER spacecraft not only confirm that the planet closest to the sun has ice inside shaded craters near the north pole, but that a thin layer of very dark organic material seems to be covering a good part of the frozen water. Both likely arrived via comets or asteroids millions — or hundreds of millions — of years ago."

Comments

Number One Priority . . .

[StefanJ]

It would be expensive, because of the high delta-V required to match Mercury's orbit around the sun, but we should really get a lander down there.

One that can take core samples, and that has a sophisticated chemistry lab.

Or perhaps several landers / core samplers, with the ability to send samples to a central lab module.

The ice, and the carbon material covering it, would contain a history of comet impacts, captured dust samples, and other events.

Re:Number One Priority . . .

[Baloroth]

That would be tricky. Mercury's gravity is a little more than 1/3rd Earth's, so you'd have to hit the surface pretty damned hard to get the debris high enough to make it worth doing. Worse, the kickup would scatter debris all over the surface, contaminating other craters and interesting locations with debris, some of it from the Earth missile. The last part alone would make it a rather terrible idea.

Re:Number One Priority . . .

[compro01]

We've used the "hit it with a heavy object at high velocity" method to analyze a comet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact (spacecraft)

Re:Number One Priority . . .

[ColdWetDog]

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Human Colonies

[Tablizer]

The article focuses on life, but perhaps ice also means Mercury could harbor human colonies. Most people think of Mercury as big oven, but there are probably Goldilocks areas near such "ice craters" where the temperature is just right, and near water sources to boot. It could end up being a better place for colonization than Mars because Mars' ice is mostly in cold areas only.

I just wonder about solar radiation.

Re:Human Colonies

[Indy1]

Mercury is in a nasty gravity well. It takes a LOT of energy per pound to land anything there.

Not going to easy to land significant mass there.

Re:Human Colonies

[Tablizer]

But there may be spots at mountain or crater peaks/edges that get roughly even portions of sun both night and day. The sun would stay low to the horizon, lighting only half the peak at any given time. Perhaps the colony would have to live mostly under-ground to even out the temperatures.

Re:Mercury? MERCURY?!!!

[MyLongNickName]

You mean the promise that they would announce it at a conference in December (I believe the 8th or so)? You'll have to chill a few days as we are still in November.

magnetic field

[slew]

It is (minus radiation concerns) theoretically doable.

A couple things in Mercury's favor. First, Mercury has an "earth-like" magnetic field (unlike venus and mercury). Second the "tilt" is pretty small so, near the poles you could probably reasonably straddle the day/night region.

The big down side, (that others have mentioned), is you got this big gravity pit near you and no atmosphere for braking, so getting stuff from Earth to Mercury is gonna be much more expensive than other places in the solar system.