Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Where in the World is Mars' Water? (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares an Axios report: In the beginning, Mars was a water world. But at some point in Mars' distant past, much of that water disappeared, leaving behind polar ice caps and a complex geology. Figuring out just where it went has been a major priority for scientists -- life as we know it can't exist without water, and any future settlers would need a steady supply. A new study, published Wednesday in Nature, suggests that much of what remains might in inaccessible. Some went into space, but even more of it may have sunk into the ground like a sponge, only to become bound up in minerals deep within the planet. "Mars, by virtue of its chemistry, was doomed from the start," study author Jon Wade, of Oxford University, tells Axios.

102 comments

  1. No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, this would imply that we could never terraform Mars because it cannot maintain surface water.

    1. Re:No hope of terraforming by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, this would imply that we could never terraform Mars because it cannot maintain surface water.

      We couldn't with today's technology, nor tomorrow's. Long term? Who knows. There is lots of water out in space. Many comets and asteroids contain bunches of it. If you could harvest them and send them to Mars- you could probably create temporary surface water... over the millennia it will sink into the planet again- you'd need to keep "topping it off". Losing water to space is a big problem too... you'd need to try and keep an atmosphere- again, you could probably create one, but need to keep "topping it off" over the millennia by pumping more gas out.

      You can terraform Mars but it will revert back to it's current dead-state if you don't keep maintaining it. A bit like a field. You can plough a field and harvest wheat one year... the next it might self seed and have some coming back that you can harvest, the next a little less, the next a little less... eventually you're going to need to replough the field, rotate the crops, replant, etc, if you want that field to feed you.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a ridiculous idea. There is no way to transfer water to Mars from comets or asteroids that don't involve a massive transfer of kinetic energy at the same time as the comets arrive at the bottom of the Mars gravity well. It was a viable avenue to get water to the planet very early on in the planets history, but for terraforming purposes it's just not a solution. You'd be further ahead to send people down there with a thermos of coffee and a six pack of lager to piss all over everything.

    3. Re:No hope of terraforming by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      This is a ridiculous idea. There is no way to transfer water to Mars from comets or asteroids that don't involve a massive transfer of kinetic energy at the same time as the comets arrive at the bottom of the Mars gravity well. It was a viable avenue to get water to the planet very early on in the planets history, but for terraforming purposes it's just not a solution. You'd be further ahead to send people down there with a thermos of coffee and a six pack of lager to piss all over everything.

      You wouldn't have to crash them into the planet. Position them into close orbit and allow them to "burn up" in the atmosphere.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The atmosphere that is a hundredth of Earth's, where surface gasses evaporate?

    5. Re:No hope of terraforming by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      The atmosphere that is a hundredth of Earth's, where surface gasses evaporate?

      Anyone hoping to terraform a planet overnight would be disappointed. An atmosphere would have to be established before the water to prevent it all being stripped away in the first place. If you want water to stay put on the surface, you need an atmosphere first.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you could harvest them and send them to Mars- you could probably create temporary surface water... over the millennia it will sink into the planet again- you'd need to keep "topping it off".

      But there's only so much absorption before it gets saturated.

    7. Re:No hope of terraforming by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      So? Who is all that kinetic energy going to affect? If it makes the surface completely uninhabitable for a hundred years why does it matter- it's not inhabitable now. Unless we can make it habitable then there's really no reason to go there.

    8. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way to transfer water to Mars from comets or asteroids that don't involve a massive transfer of kinetic energy at the same time as the comets arrive at the bottom of the Mars gravity well.

      While others contend that your claim is false, I'll go a different way.

      Impacts can be useful.

      So, there are a few major issues with Mars on survivability terms. While water is one, that is a consequence of the light gravity.
      If we arrange for a non-trivial amount of the asteroid belt to impact Mars in a way that does not eject more mass than is added, it will increase the required escape velocity of the planet and retain more atmosphere.
      On a more outlandish idea, if the impacts can add enough energy to warm up the deeper layers of Mars, it may be possible to get its core spinning again and providing a more useful magnetosphere.

      So, if by directed rock-throwing, we can smash Mars into a larger and more active planet, it will become much more viable for inhabitation.

    9. Re:No hope of terraforming by Immerman · · Score: 1

      An interesting idea, unfortunately probably completely unrealistic - there just aren't enough asteroids to make a difference. The combined mass of the entire asteroid belt is estimated at only about 4% that of the moon, or 0.45% that of Mars. Not enough to noticeably alter it's mass. As for re-liquefying its core - you're applying energy from the outside, and heat can only flow form areas of higher temperature to those of lower temperature. So you'd have to liquefy the surface long before you liquefied the core. And while that might eventually be useful, you're likely talking multi-million cooldown period before the surface solidified again.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An interesting idea, unfortunately probably completely unrealistic - there just aren't enough asteroids to make a difference. The combined mass of the entire asteroid belt is estimated at only about 4% that of the moon, or 0.45% that of Mars. Not enough to noticeably alter it's mass. As for re-liquefying its core - you're applying energy from the outside, and heat can only flow form areas of higher temperature to those of lower temperature. So you'd have to liquefy the surface long before you liquefied the core. And while that might eventually be useful, you're likely talking multi-million cooldown period before the surface solidified again.

      Also, you would be enlarging the planet's orbit with the added mass, sending it a bit further from the Sun.

    11. Re:No hope of terraforming by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      The atmosphere that is a hundredth of Earth's, where surface gasses evaporate?

      Anyone hoping to terraform a planet overnight would be disappointed. An atmosphere would have to be established before the water to prevent it all being stripped away in the first place. If you want water to stay put on the surface, you need an atmosphere first.

      You'll also need a magnetic field to keep it there, which Mars currently does not have. Terraforming Mars is a fun idea, but I doubt it will be achievable for a very long time. We can barely get off our own planet, and are currently pretty bad at managing its resources. It will be scores of decades, if not centuries, before we can undertake something like terraforming another planet.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:No hope of terraforming by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That would depend entirely on the flight path of the asteroids.

      If you slowed them just enough to fall in to Mars' orbit, then you're correct. If instead you slowed them about twice as much, so the semimajor axis of their new orbit was the same as Mars', then there would be no net change in distance, and the eccentricity changes could be averaged out. Slow them even further and you could actually shrink the orbit of Mars.

      Of course we're still only talking a 0.45% change in mass, so the differences would only be apparent to extremely sensitive instruments.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a documentary that said otherwise:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/

    14. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be wonderful. We can now direct all out attention to the mess we've made 'here at home' and leave terraforming other planets to following generations. We could terraform Earth into what it used to be before we bred ourselves into the shit hole we have made of it. And, having grown up reading the SF masters of the 1950s and 1960s, it grieves me to say this.

    15. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no planetary scientist, but time and time again people ignore the obvious here..

      First you need a magnetic field, or shield, artificial or otherwise to protect from the solar wind, cosmic rays and other cancer causing nasties, otherwise you're doomed to be living 6+ ft underground on Mars - maybe not such a bad thing if you wanted an otherwise dead looking planet to hide on :-) Mr Musk also forgets the minor issue of deadly space radiation on Mars, or maybe he'll send a boring machine there to tunnel out an underground utopia?

      Once you've addressed that, the gravity might hold onto an atmosphere, once you have some pressure, water wont just evaporate and blow away into space..

      Ta-da!

    16. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we're still only talking a 0.45% change in mass, so the differences would only be apparent to extremely sensitive instruments.

      Maybe we need to steal one of Jupiter's moons.

      I can just see the new mythology formed.
      "Hey Mars, you need a little fattening up, so we're taking one of Jupiter's girlfriends and you're marrying her."

    17. Re:No hope of terraforming by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Even without a magnetic field the atmosphere would last a few dozen million years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:No hope of terraforming by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      There was a recent study about sticking something at Mars' L1 point to deflect the solar wind around the planet. Not easy to do but not impossible either at our current technical level.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    19. Re: No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part about people talking about future technology that we know nothing about are the people that claim others are idiots when talking about it.

    20. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention this documentary:
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/

      (Pro tip: <url> tag - learn it, know it, use it.)

    21. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't need to terraform the whole thing. Create a network of massive enclosed subterranean biospheres in the caves, link em by transport tunnels, mine for water and needed minerals as needed. Its kind of a crappy existence but a little better once you get some kind of ecosystems going and artificial skies. You might be able to run solar tubes down (filtering out radiation of course) if its near the equator you might even pipe in enough natural light during the day through radiation filtered solar tubes (it gets up to 70 degrees sometimes although down to -100 at night).

    22. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the feasibility of producing aluminium oxynitride on Mars? How large of a dome could be built from panels? It has some properties stronger than structural steel and is also transparent. Could an atmosphere be maintained within?

    23. Re:No hope of terraforming by Psion · · Score: 2

      Venus doesn't have a magnetic field, either. Various space probes have measured the magnetic fields of the planets in our solar system, and both Mars and Venus share an immeasurably low value, suggesting no molten core. The solar wind impacts directly upon Venus' thick atmosphere, creating a very weak ionosphere, but it's effectively as weak as Mars'.

    24. Re:No hope of terraforming by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      This is a ridiculous idea. There is no way to transfer water to Mars from comets or asteroids that don't involve a massive transfer of kinetic energy at the same time as the comets arrive at the bottom of the Mars gravity well.

      Let us do a little arithmetic here.

      Say we want to add 1 kg of volatiles per square centimeter of Mars' surface. This is the equivalent of an atmosphere as thick as Earth's, but in this case would be split between gases and water. So, 10,000 kg per square meter. The orbital velocity of Mars is 2.1 km/sec, which means that 10,000 kg mass starts with 2.2 x 10^10 J. Insolation at Earth's orbit is 1367 W/m^2, so this is equivalent to 16.1 million seconds of sunlight hitting Earth's atmosphere at zero obliquity, or about 6 months of sunlight on Earth.

      I think Mars can handle it.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    25. Re: No hope of terraforming by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      It is as "non-existent" as Earth's atmosphere at 35 km, where some fixed wing aircraft have flown, and 40 km below where meteors typically burn-up.

      To deposit comet material on Mars you would probably put the comet in a low circular orbit where drag becomes significant, and start breaking off small chunks to de-orbit and mostly vaporize in this "nonexistent" atmosphere. This should be an easily controllable process. If you blast material off the trailing side you could give the main body small boosts, while immediately de-orbiting the material ejected.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    26. Re: No hope of terraforming by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      you'd need to try and keep an atmosphere

      Re-spin the core, fire up that magnetic field; voila! Atmosphere contained. I believe there's a documentary where they did something like this.

    27. Re: No hope of terraforming by Alypius · · Score: 1

      There was another documentary about shoving an unshielded nuclear reactor into the polar ice and making the atmosphere that way.

    28. Re: No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create teleporter technology on Mars or its moons, powerful enough for instant travel of humans. Accidently connect to Hell. Use Hell as a heat source to heat up the planet. Slaughter and enslave the demons.

    29. Re:No hope of terraforming by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Don't need to terraform the whole thing. Create a network of massive enclosed subterranean biospheres in the caves, link em by transport tunnels, mine for water and needed minerals as needed. Its kind of a crappy existence but a little better once you get some kind of ecosystems going and artificial skies. You might be able to run solar tubes down (filtering out radiation of course) if its near the equator you might even pipe in enough natural light during the day through radiation filtered solar tubes (it gets up to 70 degrees sometimes although down to -100 at night).

      Like on Total Recall before Arnie restarted the blowy things?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re: No hope of terraforming by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      you'd need to try and keep an atmosphere

      Re-spin the core, fire up that magnetic field; voila! Atmosphere contained. I believe there's a documentary where they did something like this.

      If they've made a documentary about terraforming Mars, I am at a loss as to why Mars isn't, um, terraformed.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atmosphere that is a hundredth of Earth's, where surface gasses evaporate?

      Anyone hoping to terraform a planet overnight would be disappointed. An atmosphere would have to be established before the water to prevent it all being stripped away in the first place. If you want water to stay put on the surface, you need an atmosphere first.

      It's not so much that you need an atmosphere, but rather that any water you deposit on Mars will most likely turn into an atmosphere. But really, the first step to terraforming Mars would probably be to heat it up to turn the carbon dioxide ice into atmosphere along with anything that can outgas out of the soil. This is still only about 20% of what would be needed to provide for an atmosphere with pressure enough for humans to survive without special equipment (besides oxygen). Before or after, you could dump comets to deposit more ice then gases into the mix. Once everything is worked out, it might be best to deposit the ice first, and then heat the planet up. Atmospheric stripping is an issue but any process capable of terraforming Mars to begin with could deal with it even if it means upkeep after the many centuries it will take to do.

    32. Re:No hope of terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a massive impact event might be just what mars needs to kick-start the tetctonic processes that would allow the natural release of much of that trapped water, as well as sustaining a more habitable environment in general. Much of earth's habitability is rooted in plate tectonics and volcanism.

  2. Domes, close to the Poles... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 0

    Is really the only option then. Terraforming the planet would now mean bringing a LOT of resources with us.

  3. Anti-Mars propaganda by duckintheface · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Only 3% of Earth's water exists as fresh water that would have been consumable by humans in prehistoric times. Does that mean that Earth was not inhabitable? Humans don't need much water on a geological scale and there is plenty on Mars in ice at upper latitudes and in mineral salts everywhere.

    As far as terraforming, the ability to hold surface water depends on atmospheric pressure and that depends on getting all that frozen CO2 and water vapor into the air.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Anti-Mars propaganda by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That 3% fresh water is constantly cycled back to and from the ocean. If you only had the fresh water amount from Earth, and let it loose into the Mars environment, it would quickly disappear into the rocks. No plants would be able to grow, so no terraforming. Fresh water exists on Earth because the oceans exist.

    2. Re:Anti-Mars propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and keeping the CO2 and water vapor in the air rather than getting stripped away by the solar winds only requires melting the core of Mars to get a magnetic field going again (of course assuming the core is largely ferrous, which I'm not sure what the composition of it is).

  4. All about scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That depends completely on scale. We'll have to ask the xenogeologists, but it's not impossible to cook an amazing amount of water out of the rock if we can find a good pile of thorium. We don't truly "need" oceans, merely to be able to support some level of civilization.

  5. Geology? by Deadstick · · Score: 2

    Do planetologists use the term "geology" when they're talking about another planet?

    1. Re:Geology? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 4, Informative
      Technically, no, the proper term for the study of Mars planetary formation, mineral chemistry etc is areology. However, according to wikipedia, geology in the broader sense is still used for the study of solid planets in general. Using the more general term avoids having to coin a new neologism every time a particular planetary body becomes a significant field of study.

      Plus, geology is a much wider used and understood term. If I say I am working in the field of geology specializing in the mineral chemistry of Mercury, your average layman will understand me, but the term Hermeology might cause confusion.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    2. Re:Geology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Areology

  6. The Waters of Mars? by Thyamine · · Score: 2

    It's really for our own benefit that it's so inaccessible.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:The Waters of Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in Brazil

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waters_of_March

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxbdXrhfiw

    2. Re:The Waters of Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (And March and Mars are related, from the Roman calendar, month dedicated to the god Mars.)

  7. It evaporated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  8. Thought this was settled? by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought it was pretty much settled? Thin atmosphere, solar radiation disassociated water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen left, the oxygen combined with various minerals. At least, that's what I had learned...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Thought this was settled? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I thought it was pretty much settled? Thin atmosphere, solar radiation disassociated water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen left, the oxygen combined with various minerals. At least, that's what I had learned...

      For our lifetime, or our kids lifetimes, absolutely... 500 years from now... I'm placing no bets.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Thought this was settled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The article implies that while photo-disassociation of water after the collapse of the planet's magnetic field was one factor in the loss, another larger process was the sequestration into the planets mantle.

    3. Re:Thought this was settled? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      No magnetic field either

    4. Re:Thought this was settled? by gnasherspants · · Score: 2

      Theres a lot of debate about the efficiency of atmospheric stripping and hence water loss. It apparently depends on a lot of modelling assumptions and there's also a fair amount of evidence for water locked up in the cryosphere of Mars. However, what we're saying is that irrespective of atmosphere loss or potential water stores, Mars was doomed from the off by virtue of its mantle chemistry. Liquid water would simply react with its surface rocks, forming dense hydrous minerals which then allows a transport mechanism of water to the mantle. This ain't good for the prospects of the evolution of life on Mars and has implications for life on extra solar planets.

  9. one planet over. by bonedonut · · Score: 2

    earth. thats where.

  10. Forget the water by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    A new study, published Wednesday in Nature, suggests that much of what remains might in inaccessible.

    Maybe they should invest in a sleepcheckers instead.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  11. Sorry, I drank it by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Funny

    but in my defense I was really, really thirsty. But at least I didn't blame it on Albino Nameks (too obscure?).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Sorry, I drank it by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      It's never too obscure for /.

      But just in case it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  12. Where? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Underground in a structured form like H2O3, H3O4 or some other derivative.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  13. Too bad by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    If Mars had a Racnoss ship as its core like Earth does it might have been better at sustaining life.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Too bad by judoguy · · Score: 1

      If Mars had a Racnoss ship as its core like Earth does it might have been better at sustaining life.

      Until the children are awakened!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  14. "Water-sculpted" landscape? by ve3oat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have long thought that much of the "evidence" for water on Mars, that is, the sculpted features of the Martian landscape, were due simply to the action of the thin wind there over thousands and millions of years. Living in Canada and having over the decades often observed the sculpting of snow by the wind here, it seems to me the parallels are obvious. The wind does surprising things to snow, both light and heavy snow, and I see many similarities in the thought-to-be-water-sculpted features on Mars.

    It ain't the long-gone water, it's the thin but ever-present wind.

    1. Re:"Water-sculpted" landscape? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

      Although there are also aeolian features on Mars, wind doesn't carve the particular kinds of features in the Viking images that are the ones mostly attributed to water, e.g., http://solarviews.com/cap/mars...

      Geologists argued for a long time, though, about whether the fluid that carved the features was actually water, or some other fluid. But now that we have ground truth measurements from the rovers, the case for water is pretty well established.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:"Water-sculpted" landscape? by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      Your theory does not explain why the northern hemisphere has less visible craters than the bottom hemisphere. An ocean preventing impact craters would explain it pretty well.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    3. Re:"Water-sculpted" landscape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the wind causes features to mimic the downward flow of water from gravity with delta regions where tributary remnant are 90 degrees from each other over and over again? Amazing wind that is.

    4. Re:"Water-sculpted" landscape? by gnasherspants · · Score: 3, Interesting

      author here. Some cross bedding features could be wind generated (ha! geography!). But theres also a lot of evidence of hydrous minerals - clays, etc - and evidence of frozen ice, especially in the Northern basin of Mars.

    5. Re:"Water-sculpted" landscape? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...

      Wind doesn't produce branching riverbeds filled with rounded stones.

  15. Did you check Uranus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did you check Uranus?

  16. Where do you think? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    All the water was used to fill Waldo and Carmen San Diego's pool. Find them and you find the water.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  17. There is no viable alternative to Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any thoughts that settling another planet is easier than dealing with the solvable issues on this planet are absurb. Establish a colony on Mars in the name of scientific exploration? OK, maybe it is feasible. But to view Mars as a new Earth with large human populations? Not feasible with foreseeable tehnology! The energy required is huge the likelihood of long-term success is small. We will never have a self sustaining settlement that is not vulnerable to a cascade of mechanical failures that lead to disaster. We can't escape fixing our problems here on Earth with fantasies of colonizing other planets.

    1. Re:There is no viable alternative to Earth by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

      One of the concerning things about it as well due to the failure of mechanical systems, it would seem such colonies would be constantly dependant on imports from earth to maintain it. Earth already has its own resource problems without supporting colonies on other planets. unless a colony can be completely self sufficient, it would damage earth's resources.

      At best, it might be able to host a small scientific colony but the idea of any large scale population is really, really far fetched.

      The absurdity of mars colonization can be shown that how much easier it would be to colonize antartica.

      Since without magnetic field to protect from solar radiation and such the water decomposes into hydrogen which then floats up and swept away, attempts to extract water from the Mars ground could permenantly destroy what little resource remains as such it is inevitable that extracted water will leak out into the environment and be swept away gradually and eventually completely.

      This also illustrates a problem with all hydrogen fuel on earth, there is little free hydrogen on earth because gravity is too weak to hold it down, so it floats up to the upper atmosphere and is swept away by solar wind, even on earth, like Helium does. So, if hydrogen is used by fusion or rockets, there are questions that needs to be answered as to if thats sustainable in the long haul, we have to stop thinking short term and start thinking long term like how our usage patterns will work out millions of years into the future. Hydrogen for fusion or rockets is often proposed to be extracted from water, basically what you are doing is burning up water, hydrogen in H20 is weighed down with oxygen keeping it down on the surface, when hydrogen is freed, it can float up into space, so you lose water. With fusion, its inevitable some will escape into the atmosphere and of course also with rockets. Might be insignificant in the short run but we need to make things sustainable in the long run and especially regarding the tendancy for these things to want to scale. Its like with Tesla and electric battery, you create the battery technology and looks good when you are shipping a few thousand cars, but once the technology is introduced it snowballs and before you know it the worlds supply of the rare earth metals in the batteries are totally depleted.

      Much of these concerns could be alleviated if we could find an easter egg or a loophole in the laws of physics that could allow for huge amounts of energy to be created without the need for fuel, violating the theory of thermodynamics. This way you could for instance, set up a colony on Europa underweater, provided you have an ample energy source, you can heat it and would have plenty of water around you for making oxygen atmophere, and so on. Or,

      These are not laws, theories and theories which can be imperfect. Of course its a long shot but close mindedness and dogma is on full display with allegedly objective scientists who refuse to consider the possibility of this, and make basic logical blunders to support their dogma. These blunders are that all physical laws are based on assumptions when they are extrapolated to behave in the same manner under all contexts. Let me explain. People make limited observational data and electromagnetism or gravity is measured to behave a certain way, in a limited set of expirements that they perform. These expirements they perform are tested in limited number of arrangements magnets, fields, whatever. They then extrapolate that behaviour to apply to all other arrangments of fields, magnets and so on. This is an assumption and thats why the "laws of physics" that the current ones apply to all interactions in the same way is based on assumption. Thus, if there was an effect that only arose with a very specific arrangement of magnets, perhaps a specific type of temporal, kinetic or spatial arrangement or some combination of these, such as rotating magnetic fields with specific velocity and geometry, that is one of a billion, you would not find it, espec

  18. A second use for Elon's boring machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could be used as a movie prop for a sci fi movie about finding water on Mars. SPOILER ALERT: The Nestle water bottle was left behind by the film crew of The Martian

  19. Planetary Geology [Re:Geology?] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do planetologists use the term "geology" when they're talking about another planet?

    Technically, no, the proper term for the study of Mars planetary formation, mineral chemistry etc is areology.

    It etymologically ought to be areology, but it turns out that having a different word for the geology of each planet was too cumbersome, so they are all lumped together as "Planetary geology."

      https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/research/research-topics-list/planetary-sciences/planetary-geology-and-geophysics

      http://planetary-science.org/planetary-science-3/planetary-geology/

    and geologists routinely use the term "Martian geology" and "geology of Mars"

      https://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/science/goal3/

      http://planetary-science.org/mars-research/surface-geology-of-mars/

      https://www.exploratorium.edu/video/martian-geology-101

      https://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol212/lectures/01.html

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  20. Only one person would know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to call John Carter. He would know where the water on Mars went.

  21. Re:Notice the weak winter Sun? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Wow. Yet another post where I can't tell whether it's deadpan parody, or dead-on clueless.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  22. Dumb summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where in the World is Mars' Water?

    Well if you are looking for it where most people mean when they say, "the world", I think I found the problem.

    But at some point in Mars' distant past, much of that water disappeared, leaving behind polar ice caps and a complex geology.

    Aren't ice caps made of water?

  23. Uranus, the water world by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Although I expect that this remark was intended to be some kind of humor, but in fact, it's accurate: Uranus is a planet composed mostly of water.

      https://www.universetoday.com/19309/water-on-uranus/

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Uranus, the water world by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Uranus is a planet composed mostly of water.

      But curiously, it rains diamonds on Uranus: https://www.kidsdiscover.com/q...

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  24. Re:Geology... by Ranbot · · Score: 1

    I'm piggy-backing on the geology thought...

    I would like to see the next Mars rover mission equipped tools to "see" deep below the surface. For example, a moveable geophone system or ground-penetrating radar, or land stationary seismic detectors around the planet to monitor long-term like we do on Earth. Mars missions so far have only scratched the surface (literally) and taken photos. We have enough surficial information to say with some confidence that if there's anything really interesting going on with Mars, it's probably happening deep below ground (e.g. water, tectonics, volcanism, earthquakes, cave systems, etc.), and we don't have good tools yet to say much, if anything about Mars' underground geologic conditions. If we fund another Mars mission that just sends back more pretty pictures I'm going to be really disappointed.

  25. It sank by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... into the ground.

    The earth's water is kept on the surface by geothermal heat. Any water that trickles down through fissures is quickly heated and vented back into the atmosphere as steam. Mars' geothermal output has cooled to the point that there is little, if any active volcanism. And so the water stays underground.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Polar caps of Mars [Re:Dumb summary] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    But at some point in Mars' distant past, much of that water disappeared, leaving behind polar ice caps and a complex geology.

    Aren't ice caps made of water?

    Yes, the permanent ice caps of Mars are water ice (the seasonal ice is primarily frozen carbon dioxide, aka "dry ice").

    But, although they are miles thick, the Martian ice caps are just too small to contain all of the amount of water that early Mars is believed to have once had. The polar caps contain a small amount of it, but the question being addressed here is, what happened to the rest of it?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  27. The same place you'll find... by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    Carmen Sandiego.

    --
    I tend to rant.
  28. Re:Notice the weak winter Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third possibility: The most important thing you've ignored ever.

  29. comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mars, by virtue of its chemistry, was doomed from the start,"

    Well, it's comforting to know that it wasn't due to poor life choices made by Mars. "I was born this way," says Mars. "I can't help it."

    1. Re:comforting by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Neat! A new definition for "transoceanic"!

  30. How bout some efforts(money) to tackle climate cha by VivereJay · · Score: 0

    Hopefully now people would realize earth's worth... especially those who were hoping to escape after messing up here? You reap what you sow - high time we got our act together.

  31. Re:Earth to space man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is self evident. Space is fake. Earth is flat.

  32. True Location by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Martian water currently exists as a fictional entity in government grant requests.

    This is the same place it originated from.

    The intent is to burn off immeasurable amounts of tax payers resources just as the Martian atmosphere has been burned away by the Sun.

  33. Under the surface [Re:Geology...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    I would like to see the next Mars rover mission equipped tools to "see" deep below the surface. For example, a moveable geophone system or ground-penetrating radar, or land stationary seismic detectors around the planet to monitor long-term like we do on Earth.

    Your wish is granted: the next NASA mission, Insight, has a five-meter drill, and also a seismometer.
    https://insight.jpl.nasa.gov/h...
    Launches May 2018.

    Mars missions so far have only scratched the surface (literally) and taken photos.

    Two of the Mars orbiters had ground-penetrating radar: SHARAD on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and MARSIS on Mars Express.

    SHARAD: https://mars.nasa.gov/MRO/mission/instruments/sharad/

    MARSIS: http://sci.esa.int/mars-express/34826-design/?fbodylongid=1601

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Under the surface [Re:Geology...] by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Cool. I should have done some research myself first. I guess that information doesn't get as much attention as pretty pictures. The resolution on satellite based GPR has to be massive. The seismometer is really cool. Although I would prefer several stationary seismometers deployed long-term around the planet, but one mobile seismometer will have to do. I am very skeptical of how much planetary information can be obtained from a mere 5-meter drill, but we'll see...I'd like to be surprised. I suspect the drill will succumb to wear before the probe's other devices from Mars dirt and mechanical force driving it, so hopefully they get it to the good drilling spots early.

  34. Re:How bout some efforts(money) to tackle climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully now people would realize earth's worth... especially those who were hoping to escape after messing up here? You reap what you sow - high time we got our act together.

    Indeed, one of the most valuable things gained from studying other planets (and possibly the most valuable thing) is a better understanding of our own planet.

  35. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the earth stole it. Cause earth has a lot of water.

    It's been at least 20 years since I trolled this site, so here ya go.

    Lov U slashdot, stay fresh - AC

  36. I am the author by gnasherspants · · Score: 1

    And as a LONG time slashdot botherer (yeah, I've lost my UID more than once....) I'm more than happy to answer questions (if I can!) shit - this is the pinnacle of my science career - SLASHDOT!!!

    1. Re:I am the author by mentil · · Score: 1

      Might it not be easier to reengineer the human body to no longer require regular intake of water, than to squeeze it from stones in other environments like Mars?

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  37. In related news: Plans to find the water ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... will be entrusted to Astronaut Carmen Sandiego who is fully trained for space adventures.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  38. Re:Notice the weak winter Sun? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from idiocy.

  39. Re:I am the light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you are an expert at staring at small lights and divining facts, can you evaluate the solar eclipse and explain the cause of the lights appearing inside the limb of the moon? (Red of protuberances, red of chromosphere, and white of corona)

    Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895

  40. Its covered by space dust by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Where is it??,maybe buried by zillions of years of space duct 100 feet below the surface. why not?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  41. So.... by BitztreamNotARealNam · · Score: 2

    How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  42. Re:Its not in 'the world' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!

  43. Score:-5, Pwned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Witness BitZtream getting pwned!... twice.....three times..... four times!