Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Evidence Detected of Lake Beneath the Surface of Mars (cnn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the diving-deeper dept.

For decades Mars has teased scientists with whispers of water's presence. Now they have some solid evidence. From a report: The Italian Space Agency announced Wednesday that researchers have detected signs of a large, stable body of liquid water locked away beneath a mile of ice near Mars' south pole. The observations were recorded by the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding instrument -- Marsis for short. "Marsis was born to make this kind of discovery, and now it has," says Roberto Orosei, a radioastronomer at the National Institute for Astrophysics, who led the investigation. His team's findings, which appear in this week's issue of Science, raise tantalizing questions about the planet's geology -- and its potential for harboring life. CNN elaborates: Between May 2012 and December 2015, MARSIS was used to survey the Planum Australe region, which is in the southern ice cap of Mars. It sent radar pulses through the surface and polar ice caps and measured how the radio waves reflected back to Mars Express. Those pulses reflected 29 sets of radar samples that created a map of drastic change in signal almost a mile below the surface. It stretched about 12.5 miles across and looked very similar to lakes that are found beneath Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets on Earth. The radar reflected the feature's brightness, signaling that it's water. "We interpret this feature as a stable body of liquid water on Mars," the authors wrote in the study.

100 comments

  1. Space whales live on Mars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like Star Trek predicted!

    Coming home!

    1. Re:Space whales live on Mars! by zlives · · Score: 2

      We're whalers on the Mars, we carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune"

    2. Re: Space whales live on Mars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the Futurama reference. Made my day.

    3. Re:Space whales live on Mars! by Fetko · · Score: 1

      I see you've got a fungineering degree.

    4. Re: Space whales live on Mars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope they find a subterranean lake, full of life similar to the underground lakes we find here. Thank goodness this was discovered during my lifetime. I can't wait to try Martian filet. Soon, we'll hunt those lakes devoid of life, but at least this generation, at least those of us who can afford it, get to try this delecacy!

      ðY

  2. Drill Baby Drill by Zorro · · Score: 0

    Bruce Willis is available, lets drill in to it!

  3. I think I saw this movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *10 years later*

    We could never have known... Humanity... Filled with greed... Drilled too deep into mars and unleashed that which can't be contained.

    God help us all

    1. Re:I think I saw this movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chuck Norris is down there?!!?

    2. Re:I think I saw this movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Worse, Napoleon.

    3. Re:I think I saw this movie by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      unleashed that which can't be contained.

      Isn't that an oxymoron?

    4. Re: I think I saw this movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you have the BFG motherfucking 9000, beeatch.

  4. Two stories, one draw by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    This one about Mars having water, another one telling roughly the same about the moon. It's a draw. Not sure now if I'd prefer to go to the moon or mars!

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Two stories, one draw by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      This one about Mars having water, another one telling roughly the same about the moon. It's a draw. Not sure now if I'd prefer to go to the moon or mars!

      Mars, more of an atmosphere, more gravity, larger, more complex geology and geography. The moon is relatively boring next to mars and has much less commercial interest to attract sponsors.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Two stories, one draw by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Moon has more solar flux, a smaller gravity well to boost out of, is closer and faster to communicate with both electromagnetically and physically, and we need a way station outside of earth. Mars...is kinda "out there" and attractive as an adventure, but a rescue for some sort of "oops" that threatens a colony is out of the question for mars, hard enough for the moon.
      !

      I say walk before you run.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    3. Re:Two stories, one draw by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The moon is relatively boring next to mars and has much less commercial interest to attract sponsors.

      Water means rocket fuel. And Luna is a much shallower gravity well to get that rocket fuel out of. Admittedly, you're only going to be processing water into LH2 and LOX two weeks a month. But even with that limitation, it's way the hell better than lifting that much rocket fuel out of the gravity well we're all sitting at the bottom of now.

      Note, by the by, that even without water on Luna, making LOX there represents the overwhelming majority of any rocket fuel needed for deeper space missions...

      Which means that a base there would really help for sending people to Mars.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Two stories, one draw by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And Luna

      I bet your mom thinks you're *so* clever.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re: Two stories, one draw by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Mars,
      because of its (albeit dim) atmosphere, it had much nicer sunsets and sun rises.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Two stories, one draw by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Moon is ... way closer!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re: Two stories, one draw by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      True, at the equator, the sun is only up 50% of the time.
      However it makes no difference if that time period is 12h (a typical earth day) or 14*24h (a typical moon 'day')

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Two stories, one draw by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mars. I hear the moon's restaurants have great food but no atmosphere.

  5. Jetskis by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    >> Evidence Detected of Lake Beneath the Surface of Mars (cnn.com)

    The sound of Jetskis was unmistakable and annoying, even from several million miles away.

  6. Not saying it's Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it's obviously Aliens.

    1. Re: Not saying it's Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the headline writers are aliens, given the word order?

  7. Gold by Max_W · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold. We may witness thousands of rockets departing to Mars daily.

    1. Re:Gold by gmiller123456 · · Score: 0

      There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold.

      Rivers do not create gold. Gold does not accumulate in rivers faster than other debris. The only reason you find a higher density of gold in some rivers is due to the unique processes of the area that cause other debris to decay and errode at a faster rate than gold, and faster than other debris comes in.

    2. Re:Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Arrr matey, sounds like ye be tryin to hide treasure!

    3. Re:Gold by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never seen"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre".

    4. Re: Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AU, like all other elements above hydrogen are forged in stars. Past Iron, all others beyond it are only formed during a Super Nova.

      Gold is star shrapnel. There's bound to be an asteroid of it somewhere in high concentrations.

    5. Re:Gold by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

      Gold does not accumulate in rivers faster than other debris.

      Of course it does. Let me quote a rather clever person who explains it well.

      The only reason you find a higher density of gold in some rivers is due to the unique processes of the area that cause other debris to decay and errode at a faster rate than gold, and faster than other debris comes in.

    6. Re:Gold by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold.

      Excuse my ignorance but why would rivers be evidentiary to the presence of Gold?

      We may witness thousands of rockets departing to Mars daily.

      Gold is a very useful element but it's pretty worthless when your planet doesn't have a habitable environment. The cost per kilo to transport it is much higher than the value of Gold on Earth.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re: Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's bound to be an asteroid of it somewhere in high concentrations.

      Probably, but the value of gold is mainly because of its scarcity, not because of its utility.
      If you start mining it in astronomic quantities it is going to become worthless pretty quickly.

    8. Re: Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lithium is the real rarity.

    9. Re:Gold by Max_W · · Score: 1

      There is water - means that probably there were rivers, and consequently gold.

      Excuse my ignorance but why would rivers be evidentiary to the presence of Gold?

      We may witness thousands of rockets departing to Mars daily.

      Gold is a very useful element but it's pretty worthless when your planet doesn't have a habitable environment. The cost per kilo to transport it is much higher than the value of Gold on Earth.

      On Earth there is gold in many rivers in the form of glitter, sand, and nuggets. I am an amateur prospector myself.

      The history of humanity is the history of Gold. One can sell as much gold as he got. It is very different from other products in this respect.

      I know for sure there are gold and diamonds specialists in the Mars exploration teams. If gold is discovered in large quantities on Mars people will start constructing DIY rockets and suits in backyards. Something similar happened already during gold rushes of the past.

    10. Re:Gold by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      No fucking way, chief.
      Gold is just another commodity. Its value is based on A) it's use as a non-corroding conductor, and B) rich people wanting glittery shit made out of it, and poor people wanting glittery shit made of it so that they can feel more like those rich people.
      It's no longer the reserve currency of the world, by any means.

      An entire asteroid worth of gold would be worthless if it costed 10 cents more per troy ounce to bring it back than it cost terrestrially to mine. And what's worse, is that value would quickly drop the more of it you brought in if the operation was too large. Gold mining today is already limited by the value of gold. The vast majority of known gold in the dirt is left there, because it's not economically viable to pull up.

      I know a few amateur prospectors who really overestimate the worth of gold. I don't really understand why. Bretton-Woods is dead. There is no gold standard. Gold wasn't a better standard than the more modern basket-of-goods. It was a useful one for its time, back when economies were relatively simple.

    11. Re:Gold by Max_W · · Score: 1

      It is all true. I agree and I do not argue with it. I would like just to pint that the quantity of gold on the surface of Earth is very limited.

      It is just a cube with the side of 50 meters (some researches say 20 meters): https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... . That's it. That is all the gold available for billions of people on several continents.

      Being an amateur prospector I know only too well how rare it is. So it is in a way not like an usual commodity.

    12. Re:Gold by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I don't see where you get 'it's very limited' from.
      That depends entirely on its use.

      If, for example, the world's consumption of gold were to trickle down to just electronics (desire for gold as jewelry is an entirely cultural factor. some cultures valued salt more than gold, by weight, due to the abundance and lack of use for gold), then the amount of gold left in the crust is enough for millennia without the need to recycle.

      Current actual goods consumption is driven largely by the Chinese, probably due to their rapid expanding middle class. People love them some glittery jewelry when they start having money for the first time.
      US consumption of gold for reasons other than investment has only declined, and probably will continue to decline, as the average Joe the millennial has less and less of a shit to give about it. It's investment value will drop like a rock as soon as the Chinese have had their fill of glittery crap made of the stuff.

    13. Re:Gold by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      in yer booty. harrrrrr.

    14. Re: Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold is also monkey hammered the moment it reaches 1,299 a Troy Ounce. "Paper Gold" is traded to manipulate the physical market. So, it will remain in the 1,250 range indefinitely.

  8. Other sources by XXongo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original paper in Science: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
    Space.com: https://www.space.com/41272-ma...
    Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
    CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25...

  9. Two weeks... by slaughts · · Score: 2

    Quaid... Start the reactor...

    1. Re: Two weeks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "F**k you, Benny!!!"

    2. Re:Two weeks... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      quick, i'd like to be back in time for cornflakes.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  10. Drill, baby, drill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to drill to see what is underground. There may be life deep underground. And this might be truth for the moon also. Just because the surface of a planet is lifeless and dead does not mean the planet is lifeless and dead.

    1. Re:Drill, baby, drill by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was a scientist that said "There is certainly life on Mars. We put it there."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Drill, baby, drill by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      And human beings would be required to drill a mile down... and human beings contain billions of life forms on each individual. Once you send a human- life will go with them.

      That said, is contamination necessarily such a bad thing? Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.

      What we have to be careful of though "is detecting life" that hitched a ride with us. When you're drilling that lake you need to make sure that you don't contaminate the samples coming out.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re: Drill, baby, drill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H. G. Wells got it the wrong way round... (although to be fair he was as much writing about colonialism as anything else)

    4. Re:Drill, baby, drill by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.

      Eek. Your general assumption, that an invasive species will automatically be less suited to compete in an environment against native species is flat out wrong.
      You then back it up with a very strictly limited scenario where it is not.
      I wouldn't underestimate the ability of Earth organisms, living in a hyper-competitive environment, to be able to completely dominate a small and constrained ecosystem if one exists.
      Earth organisms would be rats on their island.

    5. Re:Drill, baby, drill by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      What about invasive species? Weeds and such, they seem to out compete the native life.
      How about organisms becoming stuck evolutionary at a local maximum that other organisms didn't.
      Earth organisms would be seriously outnumbered, but if they found the right niche. They could have something novel that the Mars organisms just haven't had to deal with before that they aren't equipped to handle.

    6. Re:Drill, baby, drill by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Any organisms on humans are not likely to be able to compete in Mars against species that evolved in that environment. If you stick gut bacteria in a hydrothermal vent it won't outcompete it. Terran bacteria will only overrun martian bacteria if none are still alive.

      Eek.
      Your general assumption, that an invasive species will automatically be less suited to compete in an environment against native species is flat out wrong.

      You then back it up with a very strictly limited scenario where it is not.

      I wouldn't underestimate the ability of Earth organisms, living in a hyper-competitive environment, to be able to completely dominate a small and constrained ecosystem if one exists.

      Earth organisms would be rats on their island.

      Invasive species only outcompete native species when the environment is similar. You put giant land snails in the arctic, they won't survive. You put snakehead carp in the desert they won't survive. Earth is very different in temperature, chemical make up and... well... just about everything from Mars. We're too different. Of course I'm willing to make generalizations that earth species couldn't compete (with perhaps a few extremophile exceptions- that wouldn't get there unless we deliberately placed them there).

      If a species is evolved to survive Mars's chemistry- temperature- radiation levels... etc... yes... it will outcompete any species that we would accidentally take there.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re: Drill, baby, drill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But extremophiles *have* been accidentally carried to Mars already. We know for a fact that this occurred at least once during our missions so far. Preventing cross contamination is a significant challenge.

    8. Re:Drill, baby, drill by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Invasive species only outcompete native species when the environment is similar.

      Sure, I guess. Where "similar" is loosely defined as "area capable of sustained aerobic metabolism within the thermal requirements of the organism"
      Invasive species decimate ecosystems in environments that are nothing like their own by terrestrial standards.
      Since we're talking about bacteria here, it gets even scarier, since there are plenty of bacteria on this planet, right now, that wouldn't be too deterred by conditions on Mars. Or do you think Lake Vostok isn't full of life?

      You put giant land snails in the arctic, they won't survive.

      Sure. And if you put a Vibrio bacterium in your gut, well outside of its happy place, it will still thrive and kill you.

      You put snakehead carp in the desert they won't survive.

      Very true. And if you put a butterfly in space, it won't survive either.
      But there are species of cyanobacteria that call the driest place on this planet home. In fact, Chroococcidiopsis has been singled out as an ideal invasive species for Mars, should we ever decide we want to terraform the place.

      We're too different.

      We, where we means all the phyla native to Planet Earth, are definitely not too different.
      You can measure the activity of our biosphere from space. You start throwing Earth biota, organisms that have been playing the game of life in hypercompetitive conditions for 4 billion years, on that barren rock to face a small and relatively-speaking static biome, we're going to win. We will destroy them.

      Of course I'm willing to make generalizations that earth species couldn't compete

      You shouldn't be, because you're wrong.

      with perhaps a few extremophile exceptions

      No. The places we're talking about life existing on Mars aren't extremophilic places. We're talking about deep in the soil, and deep under ice in cold lakes. There are literally millions of species on this planet that thrive in those conditions.

      If a species is evolved to survive Mars's chemistry- temperature- radiation levels... etc... yes... it will outcompete any species that we would accidentally take there.

      Well, most scientists on the planet disagree with you, and for good reason.
      You seem to have fallen prey to the idea that evolution produces the best suited resident of an environment.
      It doesn't.

    9. Re: Drill, baby, drill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as good as guaranteed that they've been carried to Mars many times since live arose on Earth, just as (if a little less frequently) Mars rocks have made it here. Bacteria embedded in a chunk of rock thrown off by an impact will easily survive the trip. (Not so much those on the surface of said rock, exposed to sunlight.)

    10. Re:Drill, baby, drill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one

      -Ogilvy, the astronomer

  11. Radar huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we bombard a planet with high frq's and wonder why life isn't found.....
    Let's nuke all the way down and see!

    Human never change.

  12. How do they know it's H2O? by Lucas123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to the article, the Italian space agency's Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding instrument works by transmitting pulses of low-frequency electromagnetic waves. Some of those waves interact with features at and below the Martian surface and reflect back toward the instrument, carrying clues about the planet's geological composition, but it doesn't seem to have any spectrometer component.

    So, and this is an honest (and not sarcastic) question, how could you possibly know what the liquid a mile below the surface is?

    1. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by Zorro · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting there is Oil on Mars?

      What else could it be at that temputure and pressure? It isn't CO2.

    2. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Molecule size and shape also has an effect.
      The easiest example I can think of off the top of my head is polarization of light off water, vs water with an oil slick on it. That you see colors means the light was affected differently on the oil. I'm sure similar physics can be determined for RF.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Other liquids have been identified on extraterrestrial bodies. For example, Scientists used low frequency radio signal from the Cassini probe to detect the existence of a layer of liquid ammonia beneath the surface of Saturn's Titan moon.

    4. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have to change how you think of transparent and opaque. typically when we think of em waves, we think of visible light. If something is black it absorbs all colors or frequencies of visible light. if something is red, it reflects just the red light. if something mirrored if reflects all visible light, and transparent it will pass all frequencies. But the em spectrum is much larger than visible light, and at very low frequencies rocks and stone start to become transparent/ reflective based on composition, density, etc. So shining a beam of low frequencies onto mars, you would detect or "see" the reflected frequencies (or "colors") and be able to see inside of the planet like you were looking into a marble with visible light.

    5. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      networkBoy already touched on this, but different liquids have different dielectric constants which affect the return of the em (radar) waves. For example, water is a highly polar molecule while the carbon dioxide molecule is non-polar -- they will reflect radar differently.

    6. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They looked at the permittivity of that layer. They do this by comparing the strength of the radar reflection from the layer to the reflection from the surface (accounting for a number of varried potential losses). From the abstract, "Quantitative analysis of the radar signals shows that this bright feature has high relative dielectric permittivity (>15), matching that of water-bearing materials." Note, this is most likely brine saturated soil, which I wouldn't call a lake. On Earth we call a water-bearing material "mud", not "lake".

      The spot they found is very small and not visible to SHARAD, which does leave some questions.

    7. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impedance differences in the materials below the surface.

      Either that is enough for you to understand or you need more research than I can fit in a comment box.

    8. Re: How do they know it's H2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Temp not low enough for liquid ammonia at those pressures.

      Also: "Quantitative analysis of the radar signals shows that this bright feature has high relative dielectric permittivity (>15), matching that of water-bearing materials.â Different materials absorb/reflect radar at different rates; it isn't purely a density measurement. Liquid ammonia or most other materials wouldn't conduct an electrical charge the same way.

      This is a pretty sure indication of liquid saline. Or a newly discovered molecular material with many similar properties, which would arguably be an even more sensational finding.

    9. Re:How do they know it's H2O? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Yes, but water makes sense based on basic physics (H2O at that pressure and temperature equals water), as well as the specific reflective properties of the return signal.

      You are right that it might not be water, but there are many indications that its water, and none that it is not.

  13. Top Priority Area To Investigate by careysub · · Score: 2

    We have known for some time that Antarctica's subsurface lakes are rich ecosystems. This is the first plausible location to look for life on Mars that we have discovered (as opposed to merely hypothesized).

    Ice is also relatively easy to drill through, or even penetrated with an ice subterrene.

    It will be a much larger operation of course than any lander mission to date, by far.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Top Priority Area To Investigate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Elon Musk can combine two of his enterprises, and design a Boring Company TBM for SpaceX to take to Mars.

    2. Re: Top Priority Area To Investigate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He will have to be there to supervise.

    3. Re: Top Priority Area To Investigate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, it shouldn't be too hard to make a "Teslaâ" vehicle work there.

  14. Bad Writing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    > Mars has teased scientists with whispers of water's presence.

    This is humorously bad anthropomorphizing. Mars is "teasing" and "whispering" to scientists about how wet it is?

    1. Re:Bad Writing by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      > Mars has teased scientists with whispers of water's presence.

      This is humorously bad anthropomorphizing. Mars is "teasing" and "whispering" to scientists about how wet it is?

      They walk a thin line. Don't be descriptive and colourful language and you lose readers/viewers because you're boring. Use colourful and descriptive language and you're no longer accurate.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Bad Writing by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Do not tease Happy Mars Ball.

    3. Re: Bad Writing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't neglect them either.

  15. MARSIS by omnichad · · Score: 2

    They planned on using it to study Martian ice caps, so they wanted to call it ICE/IS. Apparently there was a problem with that name so they called it MARSIS.

    Yes, it's a bad joke. I even tried not to post it, but I wouldn't let myself. I just think MARSIS is a dumb name.

    1. Re:MARSIS by MaryannG · · Score: 1

      Has the added benefit of several nations NOT trying to bomb MARSIS back to the Stone Age.

      Or in Mars' case, forward into the Stone Age, I suppose.

      --
      Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
  16. The best part of this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that there is a Tesla supercharging station right by the lake.
    It's a win-win!

  17. Forget the lake... by DarrellBFI · · Score: 1

    ...is the "mile deep" thing a mile under ice? Ice thickness = 1 mile???

    Seems like Mars has plenty of water.

    --
    Social Media Mgr at Bluefield Identity
    1. Re:Forget the lake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does have plenty of water, as we've known since we could first see the polar caps with telescopes.

      We just haven't observed liquid water there.

    2. Re:Forget the lake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. The mars polar caps are frozen CO2, not water ice.

  18. Gurgle by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    a large, stable body of liquid water locked away beneath a mile of ice near Mars' south pole

    So some Martian accidentally pulled the plug out and all the water drained away.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Gurgle by Agripa · · Score: 1

      So some Martian accidentally pulled the plug out and all the water drained away.

      This supports the Flat Mars theory.

  19. from TFA: by doug141 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I can't absolutely prove it's water, but I sure can't think of anything else that looks like this thing does other than liquid water," says Richard Zurek, chief scientist for the Mars Program Office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who was unaffiliated with the study.

    1. Re:from TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Zurek, chief scientist for the Mars Program Office at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who was unaffiliated with the study.

      Unaffiliated in the way an oil exec is unaffiliated with new methods of drilling for oil.

    2. Re:from TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's unaffiliated, not uninterested. They mean that he had nothing to do with this particular study. Scientific journalists tend to try to get outside ("unaffiliated") perspectives, to see if a study's conclusion is more widely accepted in the community or if there's more to the story.

    3. Re:from TFA: by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Interest is not affiliation.

  20. Where the White Martians live by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Where the Great River of Barsoom falls deep below the surface, from the canals.....

    1. Re:Where the White Martians live by TheFakeMcCoy · · Score: 1

      Once you got passed the messed up martian people on the surface you got the really messed up martian people below it, and let's not forget about the blood sucking plants things, why would people ever want to go there

  21. Moon, at night [Re: Two stories, one draw] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    True, at the equator, the sun is only up 50% of the time. However it makes no difference if that time period is 12h (a typical earth day) or 14*24h (a typical moon 'day')

    Huh? If you're running on batteries at night, 12 hours of storage is heavy but doable, 354 hours is pretty much out of the question.

    1. Re:Moon, at night [Re: Two stories, one draw] by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The point wad H2/O2 production fo rocket fuel.
      Not running on the energy.

      And providing enough storage is actually not such a problem anyway.
      If you already sunk the cost to fly to the moon, some batteries should not be a problem, cost wise.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re: Moon, at night [Re: Two stories, one draw] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar?

      I imagine that would be more efficient with an ozone.

  22. Piers Anthony nailed it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in his novelization of Total Recall, where the ant creatures stored the water of mars below the surface, waiting for the day they could...release it and create an atmosphere? Man, that is some whack scifi right there...

    1. Re: Piers Anthony nailed it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the idea of the Martians having enough water ice to create an atmosphere, but not enough to *sustain* one is pretty weird. What, did they need to wait a few centuries for the supposedly dormant system to collect enough of something?

      Figures they had plenty of nukes but no biotech. Draw your own parallels.

  23. Look, I said visit the swimming pool by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    You can visit my swimming pool, but you're not allowed to empty it out for your own personal use.

    I have clear signs posted.

    Also, no flip flops.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  24. Exxon future. by joao.cordeiro · · Score: 1

    This is just like oil. Deep into the ground.
    Now Exxon can have a future in taking a resource, more valuable than gold, out of the ground.
    And this time, it's far more dependable then fuel.

    1. Re: Exxon future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It *is* fuel!

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Why am suddeny I thinking of the Dr Who episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Waters of Mars"?

  27. Re:Boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not easy being 9th in line to the throne.

    Princess Eugenie is that you?

  28. Oil would be better? by antdude · · Score: 1

    I am sure companies would go nuts to go Mars for it!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).