Slashdot Log In
Enormous Amount of Frozen Water Found on Mars
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:50 PM
from the or-at-least-way-more-than-before dept.
from the or-at-least-way-more-than-before dept.
schweini writes "Space.com is reporting that the Mars Express probe's MARSIS (Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding) experiment has detected and measured an enormous amount of water ice near Mars' south pole, which would be sufficient to submerge the whole planet's surface underneath approximately 10m of water on average."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Let's add some heat! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The conditions that caused the loss of the original atmosphere are still present, and even presuming you could start melting the water somehow, and then put some sort of hardy organisms on there to make an Earth-like atmosphere, it would only last until you ran out of water, then you would be back in the same boat, except now all the water would be gone.
Brett
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not realize that, and will not realize that until someone proves it and the proof survives the reviews.
Re:Let's add some heat! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Seriously do you have any idea of the amount of energy involved to do what you propose? Here's a hint: multiply 1370 W/m^2 minus 590 W/m2 [72.14.209.104] by the cross sectional area of mars (around 3.6 x 10^13 m^2) to give you 2.7 x 10^16 Watts.
That's pretty much around the amount of energy you need to produce with your nuclear reactors to keep mars at around earthlike temperatures... To put this in perspective, a 1 Megaton nuclear device has a yield of around 4 x 10^15 Joules. You would need to be exploding the equivalent of 6 of these devices on the planet EVERY SECOND to generate enough energy. Then there's the problem of distributing the heat evenly...
Parent
Re:Let's add some heat! (Score:4, Interesting)
From the source you cite:
The average solar intensity at the orbit of Mars is 590 W/m2, compared with 1370 W/m2 in Earth orbit
The figures you're citing are orbital figures. Most of that energy is reflected off or absorbed by the atmosphere. Energy reaching the surface of the Earth is more like 200 W/m2, with an additional 70W/m2 absorbed by the atmosphere. I don't know about the Martian surface, I haven't found any sources, but with a thinner atmosphere, I dare say a higher proportion of that energy reaches it. I'd guess you're probably looking at making up a deficit of less than 100W/m2, not 600.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't evaporating or boiling some of the water via nuclear reactors or orbiting mirrors increase the humidity and heat retention of the atmosphere
I can see it now... "The Simple Guide to Terraforming a Planet"
1. Bring the whole planet to a slow boil. *
2. Let planet sit until it reaches room temperature
3. Colonize!
As a side effect you would also be sterilizing the planet (at least of bacteria that can't survive boiling water, granted water would boil at a lower temp on Mars).
* For a more delicious recipe, add noodles and flavor packet after Step 1.
Re:Let's add some heat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear User:lordofthechia,
As you are aware, Slashdot protocol strictly regulates the form and content of user posts so as to maintain a coherent and familiar format for our readers.
Your post violates a treasured rule from our Manual of Style. All instructional lists (especially numbered lists) must follow a format in which the last two steps are as follows:
This message is a warning. You would have received a harsher first-time violator penalty if it were not for your mitigating footnote referencing the preparation ritual for our beloved food source, ramen noodle. Any future infractions will result in an automatic +100000 to your UID.
HAND,
Anae
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As you say, n
Re:Let's add some heat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You didn't miss anything except that it's OK to be like that. The point of a Dyson's sphere is not to provide habitable area. It is to capture the entire energy output of the enclosed star. So all the uninhabited parts are just banks after banks of solar power collectors.
ok, where was I when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, they've found a massive amount and the F article states:
So what gives? My vague memory says in the nineties they were still looking for any signs of water and now it's old news?
Liquid water (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Frozen Water? (Score:4, Funny)
So how many Hummers are we talking about here?
Martian Water-world (Score:5, Funny)
Thank god. [wikipedia.org]
The depth figure doesn't make sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on, is it enough water to cover the surface of Mars to an average depth of 36 feet, is it forming an ocean in the lowest-lying areas of Mars (Hellas?) with an average depth of 36 feet? (Or even a maximum depth of 36 feet?)
There's orders of magnitude between each of these. Does anyone have a better reference?
-Isaac
A Blue Mars Map (Score:5, Informative)
It's one of those statements meant to boggle, like "if you stacked all the books ever printed, they would reach the moon" [that's bunk, just made that up].
Anyway, you asked for a sea level map of Mars, so here ya go. [evildrganymede.net]
Parent
Not (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that if you took all of the sand from the Sahara Desert and spread it out that it would cover all of North Africa...?
Compared to the Earth, as an example, the 10m stat actually says there is very little water. Think about it.
80 meters depth covering just a bit more than 10% of the entire planet. 2/3 ~ 3/4 of Earth is covered in water, with the average depth of all the major oceans sitting at 3800m. [hypertextbook.com]
Three-thousand, eight-hundred meters here at home - compared to fifteen meters for Mars. Fifteen??!! Does that sound enormous to you? If it does, I've got an appendage I'd like to show you, in private, of course, you're not going to believe.
Re:Not (Score:4, Informative)
There's probably other deposits, with much, much more....
"There's evidence that about 10 times or maybe even 100 times that much water has flowed across the surface of Mars to carve the various channels, the outflow valleys and other features we see in the images and topography data"
They're just saying that, they've found where a bunch of that water IS, but they still have to find where the rest of it is. If it's there.
Parent
Earth First! (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad we can't ship our CO2 to Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. A bit simplistic, but you can't help wondering...
Re:Too bad we can't ship our CO2 to Mars (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
So THAT's what (Score:4, Funny)
There go all my "Martian Cocaine" investments!!
This is spooky (Score:3, Informative)
This story really startled me, because now it's actually sounding possible.
The year is 2303, and tourists are gliding in gondolas along the canals of Neo-Venezia, in the care of the undines...
the case for (terraforming) Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
That is far from certain. It seems many people are going with the assumption that the theory that the gravity-field of mars is too puny to hold the watermolecules (and thus the atmosphere dissapeating into space in a copple of thousand years), is a fact. However, this is only one of many theories existing to explain the lack of an (considerable) atmosphere on Mars. Another variant of that theory to explain it is that the atmosphere got largely blown away by meteor-impacts in the first half-billion years of the existence of our solarsystem (there was a period of a large amount of meteor(hits) then, as proven by craters on the moon and other planets).
Now, if that's true, and seen the fact that fase is long since over, then, if we were able to revive a useful atmosphere, it could well be that it could sustain itself, or at least last for millions of years. No more mass amounts of impacts that blow the atmosphere away, after all. (BTW, all atmospheres lose molecules to space, but it gets more then enough back from tiny (and bigger) particles falling down to earth; this may be true for Mars as well, EVEN if the atmosphere dissapeates faster).
I'm not saying this IS true, but it's one of the many theories out there that try to explain the current state of Mars. Untill we know the actual truth about the matter, it's far too soon to claim terraforming isn't possible on Mars. Depending on the cause for Mars' thin atmosphere, and the level of replenishment, it might well be a viable option.
We're the ocean planet (Score:5, Informative)
Facts about the Oceans:
Area: about 140 million square miles (362 million sq km), ore nearly 71% of the Earth's surface.
Average Depth: 12,200 feet (3,720 m).
http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html [mos.org]
Parent
Re:We're the ocean planet (Score:5, Funny)
Man believes that there is a "God" that created the Earth for him.
71% of the Earth is covered in water.
Man has no gills.
Parent
Global warming beat us there (Score:4, Interesting)
Its always fun saying "Mars has global warming" to a room full of people who consider themselves "educated enough to know that global warming denial is an unscientific crock". You first get a bit of laughter, and then about 15 seconds later the implication dawns on them, and they'll say the satellites were busted, the protocols unscientific, and that whatever boring astronomer produced the result must be a stooge for Big Carbon.
Parent
Re:Global warming beat us there (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that, most dictionaries define global warming as something related only to the Earth and also as needing measurements taken over decades, neither of which apply when used in the phrase "Mars has global warming". Your linked article talks about measurements taken over 2 years, which is hardly enough to claim that global warming is taking place on Mars (assuming of course, that global warming is defined that way), but good try.
Parent
Re:Global warming beat us there (Score:5, Insightful)
And i find it somewhat disturbing that when someone finally admits global warming is happening, the objection is that after all this time explaining it to you, you don't know what it is. Come on, Don't change the definitions or rules because you think you might be losing the fight. It takes nothing away from global warming if mars is doing it too. All it takes away is the amount of influence humans have. Or is there some big scare that if it is ever found that humans don't have as big of an impact as once thought, the ability to control them and extract funding from them goes with it? I can see an interesting problem here.
Parent
Re:Global warming beat us there (Score:5, Insightful)
Your link, for example, says, "new data points to the possibility" of a warming trend. Here, in contrast, is someone disputing (in just one of many ways) your implicit suggestion that both Mars and Earth are warming due to some external cause:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 [realclimate.org]
Another thing to consider: "more study is needed" (from your space.com citation).
Finally, even if Mars is experiencing 'global warming' - is it of the same magnitude that we are? Why is it happening? You seem pretty eager to latch on to whatever evidence supports your theory without finding out very much about it...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am to the point were I don't see the difference between something they parrot and something Exxon creates by proxy when funding research into global warming. IT doesn't matter what scientist says something, who is backing them, how many other scientist are backing them, were the fund
Re:Global warming beat us there (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the second time in a week I've seen that article claimed as the definitive response to claims made just this month - I like RealClimate, but they aren't clairvoyant...
Parent
Re:Just wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the water depth would be ten meters on average, those oceans would be puddles compared to ours.
Unless of course this "10 meter" average is some really stupid number in which higher ground is counted as "negatively submerged".
Parent
Re:Just wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, Earth's moon is millions of times heavier than the moons of Mars. They're going to have to be pretty damn close to get a tidal swell worth riding, even with the reduced gravity.
Parent
Boring ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Bah
Parent
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, when was the last time you heard a kid cite some social parasite, sports star or rapper as one of their heroes? When was the last time you heard one name an astronaut? In fact, how many people can name even one astronaut that is currently active in the space program?
Unless it involves devising some mechanism of getting us beer, porn or baby jebus in larger quantities and more efficient rates, my fellow Americans largely don't give a damn.
Parent
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a discussion with another student a week or so ago about the politics of space exploration, and who of the upcoming nominees would be the best choice with regards to NASA funding and private exploration legislation (I currently think its Bill Richardson, despite my partisanship,) and one of the main things that stuck out at me in our discussion was that it doesn't matter if the public is really excited about it, it just matters that a small minority are willing to put their effort into it, and the majority are willing to tolerate a very minor part of the budget on it ($15 billion is not that much as far as the national budget is concerned.) Not that I wouldn't be ecstatic if everyone started cheering as loudly for a discovery of a life-developing extra-solar planet, or even the discovery of vast liquid seas on Titan, but what we currently have is better than nothing. A couple more billion to allow for more robots along with 'Moon, Mars and Beyond' would be amazing though.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the Europeans making this discovery, and I'm as patriotic as anyone, because this kind of thing is a human endeavor, and I'm just happy that my country can make a significant impact.
To sum this little rant up, I'd be very happy if our celebrity obsessed culture got over the obsession, but it really doesn't worry me much. My one real concern for the long term future of the US (long-term meaning hopefully not Iraq, Afghanistan, or even immigration) is our educational system so we can remain competitive (but not necessarily dominant) in the technology and discoveries of the future.
Parent
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, why would it have to be an astronaut "currently active" in the space program? Surely you could still have Neil Armstrong or John Glenn be your astronaut hero. I'm sure a lot of people still hold up Michael Jordan as their sports hero, even though he's been retired for years.
Second, on the Neil Armstrong angle. That the only space heroes we could conjure up are those that were around when most of our parents were still watching Saturday morning cartoons is the perfect illustration of how pathetic our desire for exploration has become. Astronauts today are doing far more heroic things every time they step into that suit above and beyond most other human beings. Unfortunately, they are not big, bold, earth-shattering things leading to immense progress. Again, that illustrates the entire problem at hand. We don't have any Buzz Aldrins or Neil Armstrongs at the moment, because we are too busy cutting their budgets, reducing the grandness of their adventures and explaining away the loss of our societal fascination with and dedication to advancement.
There's nothing wrong with admiring sports figures, but neither Kobe Bryant nor Paris Hilton are ever going to discover anything great. Lead man to a new world. Or save man from himself by finding "new lands".
I envy that my parents were a live in a time when a president put an impossible challenge in front of a nation and then they watched nervously as it culminated in potentially the greatest achievement in the whole of history. I envy that the memories my parents and generations before them have are not limited to two space shuttles exploding and screwing up a little robot rover launch, because we used imperial instead of metric measurements.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, why would it have to be an astronaut "currently active" in the space program? Surely you could still have Neil Armstrong or John Glenn be your astronaut hero. I'm sure a lot of people still hold up Michael Jordan as their sports hero, even though he's been retired for years.
That illustrates my point precisely. First, on the sports angle - it's sad that we would even compare some guy who scored lots of points in a game where you throw a ball in a hole and who could jump high to a guy who straps himself into skyscraper sized machine with enough fuel to incinerate Florida, escapes the atmosphere, throws on a suit and leaves the shuttle to walk around in the empty vacuum of space, tethered by a little stringy rope and risking his life every second of the way in a manner that no other man or woman on the planet could even comprehend.
I'm not sure we compare Michael Jordan to an astronaut. The analogy holds, however, much deeper than you think. More below:
Second, on the Neil Armstrong angle. That the only space heroes we could conjure up are those that were around when most of our parents were still watching Saturday morning cartoons is the perfect illustration of how pathetic our desire for exploration has become. Astronauts today are doing far more heroic things every time they step into that suit above and beyond most other human beings.
That could be because Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first who did something only 12 humans have done, and we remember some firsts. Heck, do you know who stayed in the command capsule and flew around the moon while the other two were cavorting? Do you know who the first 3 were that flew around the moon? Do you know the first 3 that died?
Today, I think only some will know abou
Re:Measurement Nitpicking (Score:5, Funny)
get on the phone with nasa before its too late!
Parent
Re:What are the chances... (Score:5, Interesting)
BURDICK: It is surprisingly difficult. I spent some quality time with a microbiologist at the Jet Propulsion Lab out in Pasadena, and this guy works in the spacecraft assembly facility where they build, well they built the Mars Rovers that are now out there on Mars. And this guy, his job is to kind of inspect what's left over and to see well, gosh, did any microbes survive the incredibly kind of harsh decontamination process that we've devised to get rid of them? And to his great surprise they have, and he's found at least one microbe that not only thrives in the spacecraft assembly facility, but seems to have actually evolved in it. It's a tough little spore, it eats aluminum. He found it growing on the surface of one of the Mars Rovers. It forms these spores and then the spores kind of group together to form a little, what he calls an igloo. It looks kind of like a macaroon under a microscope and when he cuts it open and exposes it to the light detection techniques that NASA's developed to look for life, he finds no sign of life and then when he puts this little igloo back together, the microbe comes back to life amazingly. And I asked him, "So you know you found this thing on the Mars Rover when it was being built. Do you think it's up there on Mars right now?" And he said, "oh yes, I'm quite certain, I'm almost certain that it is." So you know, I mean, it's just indicative of how life wants to spread. Either they're moving around inadvertently with us or they're moving around intentionally with us, but they are kind of reflections of our ambition, our desire to reshape the nature around us in a way that makes us more comfortable. You know, we can kind of demonize these things, but in a way they're really kind of impressive little critters. They're sort of doing what nature permitted them to do. And in a Darwinian sense, I mean, they're winners. I mean you've got to be, even if you don't like aliens, and there is quite a number of reasons not to, I think it's worthwhile sort of stopping and at least being impressed by their ability to thrive in a world that we think that we dominate. So far as we know, Earth is the only planet with life on it and the wind is blowing outward. We may well be the dandelion in the solar system.
Interesting...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you know what this means... (Score:5, Funny)
We need to urgently plan our first colony to Mars... how shall we do it..
Parent
Re:Of course you know what this means... (Score:4, Funny)
Daniel
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There is even more water (Score:5, Insightful)
There's long been known to be an enormous amount of water in Mars' polar caps; the question was how much.
Let's engage in a little creative exercise, for those who have this notion that Mars will be colonized within the next hundred, hundred-fifty years (by colony, assumedly "mostly independent"). Pick a category you would need on Mars -- power, metals, ceramics, plastics, adhesives, clothing, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, dyes, solvents, abrasives, food, personal items, medications, etc -- and pick a specific representative in that category -- say, in ceramics, ferrite suitable for transformer cores, or in plastics, teflon for coatings in high-corrosion environments (like many refining processes). Take your pick. If you want me to break down a particular category, just ask. Once you make your pick, we'll trace back the dependency chain for producing it.
The dependency chains are almost always monstrous.
The simple fact is that, on another planet, you're entirely dependent on modern technology to survive. Modern technology inherently spawns massively long dependency chains. We don't notice these things in our daily lives. We write with a marker and never give a thought to all of the chemical and physical processes that went into making the plastic, the foam core, and the ink, and everything it took to make those chemicals, and everything it took to make those chemicals. And so on. Look around you. Almost everything you see has dependency chains like that. To have a mostly self-sufficient colony on Mars, thus, you must be able to satisfy most of those dependency chains locally. You're talking mining hundreds of minerals (can't find some? Uh oh, you're in trouble!), which will be dispersed across the planet. You're talking about an industrual complex the size of a major US city. Which you'd have to set up on a planet for which it costs tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram to land payload there.
Don't hold your breath.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You
(0)
|
---
|
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Due to its lack of a magnetic field, the solar wind pushes gases off Mars, resulting in an atmosphere which is much thinner than it would be otherwise.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_