Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ice Cliffs Spotted On Mars (sciencemag.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the looking-for-signs-of-life dept.

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.

13 of 83 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

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

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

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

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

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.