Slashdot Mirror


Ice Cliffs Spotted On Mars (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Scientists have discovered eight cliffs of nearly pure water ice on Mars, some of which stand nearly 100 meters tall. The discovery points to large stores of underground ice buried only a meter or two below the surface at surprisingly low martian latitudes, in regions where ice had not yet been detected. Each cliff seems to be the naked face of a glacier, tantalizing scientists with the promise of a layer-cake record of past martian climates and space enthusiasts with a potential resource for future human bases. Scientists discovered the cliffs with a high-resolution camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, revisiting the sites to show their subsequent retreat as a result of vaporization, and their persistence in the martian summer. The hunt should now be on, scientists say, for similar sites closer to the equator. The findings have been reported in this week's issue of Science.

83 comments

  1. Frosty cliffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Frosty cliffs

  2. Mars direct? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is the ice in a good location to explore space from later?
    Send humans to Mars.
    Get them using the water with more space exploring supplies sent from earth.
    A nuclear reactor and rocket fuel factory.
    Extract water to create more rocket fuel.
    A Project Iceworm for Mars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Mars direct? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Send humans to Mars.
      Get them using the water with more space exploring supplies sent from earth.
      Extract water to create more rocket fuel.

      Well at least these are SpaceX's plans.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Mars direct? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      What are the other plans? Protect the ice from all future use as national historical ice parks?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Mars direct? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It would take centuries to even get to the point where this would be necessary. And once you get to Ceres at least, the source of water becomes a moot point.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Mars direct? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Is the ice in a good location to explore space from later?

      No. It's a lot easier to explore space from Earth, where we already have everything we need.

    5. Re:Mars direct? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      I'd like to think that a species-level decision like this wasn't made by a random billionaire. We need to ensure that we don't contaminate our ability to learn (esp. since ancient extinct/hibernating life may be present, probably mono-cellular).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Mars direct? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      No. It's a lot easier to explore space from Earth, where we already have everything we need.

      Indeed. Earth has the advantage of an already existing industrial civilization. Mars has a a rover and a slightly shallower gravity well.

      But there are even more shallow gravity wells in the asteroid belt, and plenty of water there as well. A single asteroid may contain more water than all the oceans of earth.

      Using Mars as a base for deep space exploration makes no sense at all.

      Colonizing Mars doesn't make much sense either. We would be much better off constructing O'Neill Cylinders in solar orbit. We need to get over our fixation on planetary surfaces.

    7. Re:Mars direct? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      There's already a minute chance our space probes/landers/robots have already transported Earth based life to Mars.

    8. Re: Mars direct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? Mars is a shithole. Instead of the red planet we should be looking to the orange planet on which Fox News commentators have recently spotted signs of hair-based lifeforms.

    9. Re:Mars direct? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Constructing something that large in solar orbit is much harder than living on Mars. You have to get all the materials up there, do a lot of construction in zero G and handle solar radiation.

      On Mars you can build factories and use local resources. No need to expend vast amounts of energy escaping a gravity well for a lot of your materials. Existing tech works well in gravity.

      Then when you are living there you don't need a closed system or imported water and air.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Mars direct? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      On Mars you can build factories and use local resources

      How local are these resources ? Can you land in a random location, start digging, and find useful amounts of all elements you need to build an industrial base ?

    11. Re:Mars direct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On Mars you can build factories and use local resources

      How local are these resources ? Can you land in a random location, start digging, and find useful amounts of all elements you need to build an industrial base ?

      We can't even do that on Earth. So while that would be nice and convenient and all, I don't see why that should be a requirement instead of just dealing with the problem like we do currently.

      But even then, it could be argued that such resources are even "more local" on Mars compared to Earth.
      If you were to pick a random location on Earth, you have a 70% chance of that spot being in an ocean.
      Then assuming you make your save-vs-ocean savings throw, not all of the land on Earth you would have picked at random is ideal or suitable for mining all resources one could want.

      While I have no doubt there are similar non-ideal or non-suitable locations on Mars as well, you at least have a much greater chance of that random spot being on rocky land.

      Not to mention it is highly unlikely one would pick a random spot in the first place.
      We do have the ability to target a desired spot, at least on a rough scale. It may not be landing directly on an "X marks the spot" type thing, but could easily aim for a spot the size of a smaller city and be able to land within it.

      Mapping out desirable spots on Mars is still something we are not all that far along in doing compared to on Earth of course, but we do have some amount of information to go by that would raise the odds somewhat over simply choosing at random.

      I'm not arguing for or against the question of if working towards a Mars base is a good or useful idea, just that we do have more technical capability than you suggest to do so.

    12. Re:Mars direct? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, but you can orbit a satellite that can locate the largest metal deposits. (My god, it was hard to find that link through all the bullshit about Kerbal and Space Engineers.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Mars direct? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder how well it would work on Mars.

      But even if you can locate all the ores, the big problem on Mars would be transportation. There are no oceans and rivers, no suitable atmosphere for flying, and no roads or train tracks. Transporting resources from one side of the planet to the other, across the rugged terrain would be a huge challenge.

    14. Re:Mars direct? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We can't even do that on Earth. So while that would be nice and convenient and all, I don't see why that should be a requirement instead of just dealing with the problem like we do currently.

      On Earth we have an established transportation infrastructure, and many industrial sites spread out over the planet.

      If you want to kickstart a base on Mars, you need to focus on reducing the launch mass from Earth. Sending all your stuff to one site is going to be insanely expensive as it is. Having to build a few dozen sites across the entire planet, with a usable transportation network between them would be completely out of the question.

    15. Re:Mars direct? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1
      Your link about water on Ceres says it's possible it has more fresh water than Earth, not more water than all of our oceans.

      The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers, around 41 million of which is fresh water. If Ceres' mantle accounts for 25 percent of the asteroid's mass, that would translate to an upper limit of 200 million cubic kilometers of water, Parker said.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    16. Re:Mars direct? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're willing to mine Mars for materials for a Mars base but to make an orbital habitat everything has to be lifted from Earth?

      You'd build O'Neil cylinders using moon or asteroid material. Actually transporting them would probably be less work than transportation on Mars.

    17. Re:Mars direct? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Your link about water on Ceres says it's possible it has more fresh water than Earth, not more water than all of our oceans.

      Oops. Sorry, I misread the page. But that still includes all the water in the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. That is likely much more water than Mars.

    18. Re:Mars direct? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      But there are even more shallow gravity wells in the asteroid belt, and plenty of water there as well. A single asteroid may contain more water than all the oceans of earth [space.com].

      This didn't seem right to me, and it's not. Reading the very article you linked in to defend this assertion, the asteroid in question contains more FRESH water than all of the LAKES AND RIVERS on Earth. About five times as much fresh water, but only 1/7 of the total water combined. There is a lot of water in the Earth's oceans.

      This doesn't really affect your conclusions -- as you say, there is a lot of water available on some asteroids or various moons in the solar system that have much shallower gravity wells than the Earth or Mars -- but that said, no need to exaggerate.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    19. Re:Mars direct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says the rights of an individual who is controlling his own assets, to decide what he does with those assets, are over-ruled by petty dictators who want to say they can tell him what to do?

    20. Re:Mars direct? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think that a species-level decision like this wasn't made by a random billionaire. We need to ensure that we don't contaminate our ability to learn (esp. since ancient extinct/hibernating life may be present, probably mono-cellular).

      The chances of that are almost zero. The chance of us discovering life, without sending people to look for it if it is there is almost zero. I'm all for contaminating as little as possible until we know for sure; but we shouldn't put off science because there is a tiny fraction of a percent chance that there is life on mars.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    21. Re:Mars direct? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It would take centuries to even get to the point where this would be necessary. And once you get to Ceres at least, the source of water becomes a moot point.

      It might be useful to set aside a portion of the ice for habitation. One of the problems with Mars is radiation; one proposed plan was to have a water shield between human habitation and the atmosphere. An Ice Cliff is a natural water shield. Drill a tunnel into the ice; build insulated habitation under the ice. Not only are you near easy access to water (and thus, also oxygen); you're also protected from radiation which could be one of the big killers on Mars.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    22. Re:Mars direct? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I should add... it would be relatively easy to drill tunnels in ice (and what you remove is usable water); but also the ice itself would be a great insulator lowering heating costs.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    23. Re:Mars direct? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      The asteroid belt has plenty of local resources as well, and you don't have to get them out of a gravity well. The cost - not just in resources, but in cargo space - of propellant is the second biggest problem in space exploration after the sheer size of space. Eliminate the need to propel out of a gravity well, and you eliminate the vast majority of that cost.

    24. Re:Mars direct? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Happy to have that conversation if you want, but you either need to prove first you're a responsive AC or post with a handle.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    25. Re:Mars direct? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm not for putting off science. I am for having it run by scientists, sponsored by the government, who only care about not-fucking-this-up. Responsive to the public, public and thorough debate over what choices we make, etc. I am not for a for-profit company making those decisions on behalf of all of us.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    26. Re:Mars direct? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I'm not for putting off science. I am for having it run by scientists, sponsored by the government, who only care about not-fucking-this-up. Responsive to the public, public and thorough debate over what choices we make, etc. I am not for a for-profit company making those decisions on behalf of all of us.

      I would prefer a publicly accountable, open and visible international multi-government ran approach to Mars exploration too. The problem is; very little is getting done that way. Nations are, by and large, are not very ambitious in regards to intra stellar exploration anymore. SpaceX does something else too- it makes the people dream and think big about space. It might even push the government to spend less on building military bases in Ruritania and funding half the world's net military spending and instead spend a little on science.

      Additionally; if a private corporation doesn't get there first; China is probably the most likely nation to put a man on Mars. They have the money; they have the desire. I wouldn't mind Russia, or Japan, or even Europe beating the US to Mars; but you can bet your arse that China will be there first (manned) and very exploitative of it. Everything China does, China does with the promotion of the state as the primary goal. To raise China up. It doesn't matter what gets in the way; whether its another country, their own citizens; and I'm certain not any lifeform on Mars. If China doesn't value their own people- they won't value microfauna on Mars.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    27. Re:Mars direct? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately; compared to the last 60 years, the chances of us getting to mars *at all* are appreciably better if left in the hands of billionaires vs scientists/government :(

      The chances of NASA having the funding (political and financial) to do any kind of meaningful manned exploration of mars are nil.

      China? maybe, but .. not sure if that's better or worse.

    28. Re:Mars direct? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It will work better on Mars, as there's far less atmosphere to screw with the data.

      I heavily utilize ASTER and LANDSAT 7/8 all the time for materials prospecting here on Earth. I'd LOVE to be using these satellites on Mars. Check out the spots where you can find advanced Argyllic weathering occurring, and go fucking dig there.

      Or just scan the garnet sand dunes that were found a few months back. I'd kill to get to see those spectral readings.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:Mars direct? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'd think that polyethylene would be even better - more hydrogen per unit of mass and volume, I believe? And building a base under the ice is what the US military tried in the 1960s in Greenland, and I seem to remember that they had lots of structural problems with that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re:Mars direct? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      No, you don't, because the majority of the cost is due to orbital mechanics. Asteroids tend to be in elliptical, high-inclination orbits, and those likely to contain significant volatiles are out in the main belt or further. Ceres, for example, would be a much more difficult colonization target than Mars (though potentially easier if you could refuel at Mars). With its extremely high propellant efficiency, low thrust ion thrusters giving it around 10 km/s of delta-v, the Dawn mission was only able to visit two asteroids, and it took years to get between them.

      A gravity well can actually be a benefit. You don't have to perfectly match velocity with Mars to go into orbit around it. Stop a couple km/s short, and you can end up in the same orbit around Mars as Phobos, making Phobos easier to reach than it would be if Mars wasn't there. The Martian moons are some of the most accessible asteroid-like bodies specifically because of the gravity well of Mars. And then there's the propulsive advantages of doing your burns in a gravity well, due to the Oberth effect.

    31. Re:Mars direct? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Maybe as a very short term shelter, but look into some of the Project Iceworm experiments done with digging military bases into Greenland glaciers. Ice isn't stable enough for that sort of thing, especially when being warmed by a base carved into it.

      You might use water as shielding on the surface...fill plastic bags, stack them up over a supporting structure, let them freeze...but you'd probably be better off with sandbags.

    32. Re:Mars direct? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Polyethylene would provide better shielding for its mass, which is why it's good for spacecraft, but mass isn't that big of an issue for surface habitats. You actually want a lot of mass on your pressurized structures to help hold the roof down against internal pressure.

    33. Re:Mars direct? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Or you could simply make the structure out of thick polyethylene and cover it up with dirt. You kill three birds with one stone.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Total Recall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kuato : Start the reactor. Free Mars...

    1. Re: Total Recall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triple bewbs!!!

  4. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are asking the wrong question of the wrong people.
    Ask Marvin. Marvin knows.
    http://www.ality.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/instant-martians.gif

  5. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by cheesyweasel · · Score: 2

    Well the title of the article is misleading "Ice cliffs spotted on Mars". It says later on that it "appears to be" ice cliffs. Typical.

  7. Get your ass to mars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start the reactor Quaid!

  8. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where are the aliens??? fakk off with the ice. i have Ice in my freezer. Nothing special about that.

  9. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    appears
    verb
    comes into sight; becomes visible or noticeable, especially without apparent cause

  10. Ironic Musk sending An electric Car by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    He may consider sending a few gas guzling beaters to mars... you know warm the place up :)

    --
    [($)]
  11. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Boutzev · · Score: 1

    That's not water ice, it's CO2 ice.

  12. Yeah, by no-body · · Score: 1

    maybe, just maybe, this Mr. Mars may have been in a similar situation as our globe and messed up climate-wise similar what is going on on our ball with the speculative point of no return which is not always controllable or fitting in people's brains very well that some ideas are not just very dumb but highly dangerous.

    1. Re:Yeah, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe, just maybe, this Mr. Mars may have been in a similar situation as our globe and messed up climate-wise similar .

      And maybe your dad messed with Uranus.

  13. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by cheesyweasel · · Score: 2

    "Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden." The title sounds like it's stating a fact. It's an appearance, not a confirmed fact.

  14. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  15. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember in the future, Boutzev is a liar.

  16. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    You want this meaning: 4. seem; give the impression of being.

  17. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Boutzev · · Score: 2

    Ok, my mistake, I was under the impression most of it was CO2.

  18. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for spreading words of truth !

  19. Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by mentil · · Score: 1

    I'm curious. Ice has been found on Luna's poles (it may need some processing but it's there), so why does Mars seem to be the go-to place for human colonization? Luna would be far faster/easier to get shipments to/from Earth, much faster communication times, no waiting for optimal interplanetary distance windows etc.
    The ice being on the poles shouldn't be as much of a problem. Maneuvering a spacecraft to land on Luna's pole should be far less delta-V than landing it on Mars (I presume). The ice could be pipelined (~1,500 mile pipe, world's longest is ~2,350 miles) to an equator outpost, although given it's ~27kelvin at the poles, heating it to liquid and pumping it would likely be infeasible. However, ice could be electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen and those could be easily pumped, then separated or burned for water as needed. I'll let someone else do the math on which of electrolysis or melting would require less energy (although presumably we'd use most of the water for electrolysis into rocket fuel anyway, as water recyclers are reasonably (~85%) efficient.)

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Probably because of the dream of Terraforming, which is theoretically possible on Mars, but not on the Moon.

      And if you're just looking for a simple base to launch rockets, then the Earth is much cheaper and simpler.

    2. Re:Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by joh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because on the Moon the ice is at best in eternally shaded craters, buried as small crystal in the dust. Evidence even for this is inconclusive (there's hydrogen there, but it doesn't have to be water). Then the Moon has an unforgiving thermal environment with lots of sun and long dark nights. And then the Moon has no atmosphere, which means no protection against micrometeorites. And then Mars has an atmosphere of CO2 which gives you a source of easy accessible carbon. Also to land on the Moon you have to brake with engines and propellants all the way down while on Mars you have the atmosphere to do most of that for you. Also Mars is much more interesting to explore, since it had a wet and warmer past, so you can go and look for signs of past life instead of digging through dead dust on the Moon.

      And nothing of this is in any way new.

    3. Re:Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also don't forget that the moon is a harsh mistress.

    4. Re:Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Mars has an 25h day/night cycle.
      Moon has a 28day day/night cycle.

      Mars has 1/3rd of Earth gravity.
      Moon has 1/6th of Earth gravity.

      Mars has about +20C at the equator in summer ... and obviously down to -150 (or so?)C at the poles in winter.
      Moon has about +300C at the equator (and basically everywhere on the day sie) and about -200 or -250 on the night side.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Apart from the immense costs of your pipeline proposal, relying on such a thing for your water supply would be incredibly risky, and still limits you to locations along the pipeline and activities that can be supplied sufficient amounts via the pipeline.

      Landing on the moon takes more propulsive delta-v than landing on Mars, so payloads are more limited and costs of moving material are higher. The lunar ice is going to be in the form of icy regolith instead of deposits of nearly pure water ice, and the moon has a shortage of carbon and nitrogen, much harsher thermal and radiation environments, and a very difficult power situation with its 2-week night periods...you are going to need to ship enormous amounts of batteries to keep solar powered facilities running through the night.

      The geology of the moon is also largely unprocessed igneous rock: Mars has a wide variety of minerals that have been separated and concentrated by liquid water and wind: the Spirit rover got stuck in a patch of iron sulfate powder, for example. It'll be a lot easier to find useful mineral deposits nearby on Mars.

    6. Re:Why Mars #1 Focus For Colonization? by mentil · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the informative reply

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  20. Core samples by John.Banister · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A one meter by 50mm core sample would mass about 2 kg. The navy has railguns now that can accelerate 10 kg to about 2.4 km/sec. According to this Delta V map, delta v to reach low Mars orbit is about 3.8 km/sec. Considering that it wouldn't have to be built to withstand use in warfare, it might not be that much harder than what we've already achieved to build a railgun that could launch an ice core to low Mars orbit.

    1. Re:Core samples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the purpose of having the Mars sky full of ice cubes would be...

    2. Re:Core samples by bjorniac · · Score: 4, Informative

      A single shot device like a railgun cannot launch something into orbit. You need a second impulse to alter the trajectory to achieve orbit. The reason is that orbits close - they're ellipses (or circles). So with a single shot device you either launch something to infinity, or you have it crash back into the planet as its orbit intersects the point of origin.

      What you'd need in this scenario is either something to collect the sample already in low orbit, or a container with a thruster of some sort to force the trajectory into orbit. Either case increases the difficulty considerably.

    3. Re:Core samples by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to put an Earth ice core in Mars orbit? Or are you suggesting once we have presence on Mars we could use railguns to send cores to orbit for pickup?

    4. Re:Core samples by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      A single shot device like a railgun cannot launch something into orbit. You need a second impulse to alter the trajectory to achieve orbit. .....What you'd need in this scenario is....a container with a thruster of some sort to force the trajectory into orbit. Either case increases the difficulty considerably.

      You mean like this? The idea is farfetched anyway, but it's safe to assume the core sample would be containerized anyway in the projectile from the rail gun, so you would just have to make the projectile and the thruster strong enough to change the trajectory.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Core samples by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      The second of those two things. In the article, and interest was expressed in retrieving core samples.

    6. Re:Core samples by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was expecting that something would need to be in orbit to pick it up. I was thinking that the difficulty of aiming to where it could be picked up would be less than landing something on Mars capable of lifting both itself and a core sample off the planet - that it would be easier to land a sample taking robot, a railgun and some casings than to land a rocket capable of return. The equipment capable of return could stay in orbit, where the delta v for return is less.

  21. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by cheesyweasel · · Score: 1

    Yep, good choice.

  22. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little late.

  23. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I'm "under the impression" of something, I try not to assert it as fact.

  24. Re:We are Legion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are lesion; a festering wound on the flesh of society.

  25. Landing on Mars is not easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Landing on Mars is more challenging than on the moon. High gravity and a thin atmosphere means you need a heat shield to deorbit, but you still can't ltouch down using parachutes.

    On the moon an unshielded light craft can land with little fuel use.
    On Earth a well-shielded ballistic craft can land using only heat shield and parachutes.
    On Mars you need to slow down using both heat shield and parachutes, and then land with rockets (or airbags if you're not squishy).

    1. Re:Landing on Mars is not easier by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Landing on Mars is more challenging than on the moon. High gravity and a thin atmosphere means you need a heat shield to deorbit, but you still can't ltouch down using parachutes.

      Technically it's more challenging, but the result is considerably cheaper in terms of delta-v. Compared to a hypothetical Mars without atmosphere the heat shield and parachutes pay off well. Though parachutes are most viable for small payloads anyway, for large payloads you pretty much have to land propulsively. Yes, you can airdrop even a light tank here on Earth but not coming in hot and fast from space. Fortunately we have this guy with some experience in that area, landing rockets in a much denser atmosphere than Mars... too bad he's not working a Mars mission or anything like that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Landing on Mars is not easier by cjameshuff · · Score: 2

      Of Earth, Mars, and the moon, the moon is the body that requires the most propellant to land on. All your delta-v must be done via rocket propulsion. Both Earth and Mars landings can be performed with ~600 m/s of propulsive delta-v, the remainder being handled by atmospheric braking, no parachutes required.

  26. Total Recall is true then! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Total Recall is true then! Hastala Vistala baby!

  27. I'm not saying it's Aliens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's obviously Aliens. Why else would they store Ice?

  28. Re:SHUT THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like their appears to be a mound in the shape of a face on Mars, but their actually isn't.

  29. Gear up! Let's go climbing by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Crampons: check
    Ice axes: check
    rope, ice screws, pro and harnesses: check
    clothing and helmet: check
    beer: check
    SpaceX Big Falcon: ....uh. Stand by Houston.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  30. Re: We are Legion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol!! This shit is priceless