Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Ice Detected Underneath Mars' North Pole 474

Posted by CowboyNeal from the water-water-everywhere dept.
TheSync writes "A Reuters/Yahoo story says University of Arizona and Russian scientists have detected water ice uniformly distributed in the soil of Mars' north polar regions. The amount of hydrogen detected indicates ice of 80% to 90% of soil volume. Data was used from the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey." It's worth noting that their study only detected large amounts of hydrogen; so much hydrogen that ice is figured to be the only form it could be in, although I kind of like the idea of Mars' pole covering a huge pocket of hydrogen gas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ice Detected Underneath Mars' North Pole More

Ice Detected Underneath Mars' North Pole

Comments Filter:

  • Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:37AM (#6308693) Journal
    I believe that we will find evidence of long dead past life and not presently living organisms in this region of the Martian surface/sub-surface in the near future. Successful life tends to leave behind rather noticable evidence, evidence that we would probably have detected by now.

    Then again, if you were to use life on Earth as an example, you could argue that life can always persevere in the presence of water (from thermal vent-driven ecosystems devoid of energy from the sun, to environments that have been trapped under ice near the artic circle for a hundred years).

    • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Funny)

      by macragge ( 413964 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:52AM (#6308764)
      If its anything like the movies then NASA will send Pauly Shore and Sean Astin to go dig a hole on mars. After digging for several months they will find a little green man (played by Brendan Fraser.)

      Astin and Shore will dress it up in a space suit, in order to trick NASA officials into beliving that its the forign exchange cosmonaught.

    • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:54AM (#6308771)
      My first thought was pretty similar - if this leads to finding e.g. bacteria fossils, how exciting is that? Is mars far enough from earth that this would indicate life is probably "all over" the universe, or might that mars life have a common source with our own?

      • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:35AM (#6308897) Journal
        Doesn't matter; the fact that life was sustainable on two planets opens up the possibility to doubters that there could be life on more. The counter-anthropic principle states that we aren't special in the universe anyway, so if we find evidence to back it up, then there you go.
        • Doubters won't have a problem continuing to doubt. If life is discovered on Mars, then they'll just say that life is unique to this solar system.

          They've already stuck their heads in the sand, logical arguements aren't the way to convince them of anything.

          • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Insightful)

            by fenix down ( 206580 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @03:19AM (#6309122)
            The idea that there might not be any other life out there isn't sticking your head in the sand, it's a valid theory, just working from a different philosophy. Since there's no evidence that life has formed from scratch more than once, it's not impossible that it was a incredible, once-in-a-thousand-universe chance. If we knew exactly how it happened the first time, then you could figure out how likely something like that would be, but we have basically no information about any of this, on so many different levels. We have a reasonable bet that what happens once happens again, but if you're not willing to jump on that in every situation, you want some evidence.

            The thing that would really matter with life on Mars is if you could prove that it started entirely independent from earth. If you just find something that gets to a common getentic root with earth bacteria 2 billion years ago, then you proved cross-pollenation between planets, which is cool, but if you find somthing else, that would be enough for me to feel pretty confident of us finding a green guy within a few dozen light years. I just don't feel confident making assumtions based on a statistical sample of one.
            • The idea that there might not be any other life out there isn't sticking your head in the sand, it's a valid theory, just working from a different philosophy. Since there's no evidence that life has formed from scratch more than once, it's not impossible that it was a incredible, once-in-a-thousand-universe chance.

              There is a general flaw in your argument, in that we have only had any kind of technology on two objects in space: Our Moon and Mars. Granted, we have had probes pass by other planets, but stil

            • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:4, Insightful)

              by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @04:07PM (#6314208) Homepage Journal
              Since there's no evidence that life has formed from scratch more than once, it's not impossible that it was a incredible, once-in-a-thousand-universe chance.

              It's not impossible, but it violates Occam's Razor.
              There are two possibilities:
              1) the Earth is very ordinary
              2) the Earth is the only thing of its kind in the universe.

              No matter what exclusion criteria are used, option 1 has the better odds, because option 2 has the lowest possible odds. So, without any further data, we should assume option 1 to be true, as a working hypothesis.
        • Isn't it funny that you are saying that you need evidence to back up a principle? I could make up a whole bunch of "principles", and then call everyone else "doubters" and, heck, I could publish a public education textbook.
        • Speaking as a "doubter," I've always considered the possibility to be open. That's what a doubter is, somebody who does not subscribe to your dogma, yet is not ruling out the possibility that you are right.

          Finding evidence life on Mars which shared no genetic similarities with life on Earth would be a major find. However, if it is similar to what we find here, one could make the case that organisms were carried to Mars from Earth, by solar winds, or perhaps even our own unmanned probes.

          When one conside

          • but seeing as there are lots of star systems out there which are far older than ours, and we haven't heard from anybody already, it seems extremely unlikely that there's another inhabited star within a hundred thousand light-years of us (which rules out pretty much our entire galaxy.) I could be wrong, in fact I hope I'm wrong, but I think that we are probably, for all practical purposes, alone.

            "Rare" is relative. Maybe computer-building life only arises on one out of every 50 galaxies. However, from th

            • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Golias ( 176380 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @03:36AM (#6309156)
              Maybe computer-building life only arises on one out of every 50 galaxies. However, from the Universe's perspective, that is a lot of smart life, for there are billions of galaxies.

              Fair enough, but are we likely to reach beyond our own galaxy before our extinction? The space between us and Andromeda is quite daunting when the physical speed limit is "c."

              • The space between us and Andromeda is quite daunting when the physical speed limit is "c."

                True, but remember relatavistic effects. Assuming that c is absolute, and theres no way around it, we can still send colonists to far away galaxies, assuming we do it at close enough to c that shipboard, it will only appear to take a few years/decades. The speed of light is like a time machine, it halts time for all those on board the ship. So if we sent a ship 2 million light years to andromeda, it will take to m

      • Is mars far enough from earth that this would indicate life is probably "all over" the universe, or might that mars life have a common source with our own?

        Mars and Earth exchange material all the time from impacts on their surfaces. There are several instances of rocks that came from Mars having been found on Earth and the reverse is most likely true also, that Earth rocks have traveled to Mars. So if there is life on Mars, there is a chance that it came from Earth - or maybe even life on Earth even or

        • There are several instances of rocks that came from Mars having been found on Earth and the reverse is most likely true also, that Earth rocks have traveled to Mars. So if there is life on Mars, there is a chance that it came from Earth - or maybe even life on Earth even originated on Mars.

          I'm not ruling out the possibility of rocks going from Earth to Mars, but isn't it a lot less likely than the other way around? Earth is bigger than Mars, so escape velocity is much higher. Also, unlike Mars, we have

    • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MadCow42 ( 243108 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:55AM (#6308776) Homepage
      Don't forget the theories about an ecosystem being present in Lake Vostok, several miles below the surface of Antarctica.

      As cool as it would be to find out (along with the scientific significance of the data), should we really contaminate that ecosystem if it exists? As much as we try not to, any intervention would upset a potentially fragile system.

      MadCow.
      • I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory. While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory. A discover of a developed life form on another planet, however insignificant, would give undisputable proof of the ability of life to develop and adapt to the circumstances it finds. Bacteria found in this region, however, would prove very little, as bacteria can be found everywhere, including meteors that (no doubt) have crashed onto the surface of mars for years (as they have the surface of earth). The proof would be in the fact that this provides a link to the growth of multi-celled organisms that were able to adapt to conditions without any outside forces at work (i.e. man-made laboratories). This would proove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have stemmed from the same methods. Really, the implications are astounding.
        • > "The proof would be in the fact that this provides a link
          > to the growth of multi-celled organisms that were able
          > to adapt to conditions without any outside forces at work
          > (i.e. man-made laboratories). This would proove, beyond
          > a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have
          > stemmed from the same methods."

          Unfortunately, at least if you live in Kansas, creationists don't share your "without any outside force" premise. No evidence from the natural world matters to those who believ
          • not to be a jerk, but why do we have to change their minds? personal satisfaction?

        • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Quothz ( 683368 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:24AM (#6308865) Journal

          I think it's unlikely that evidence of extraterrestrial life will change too many people's minds. I think most folks who are gonna be convinced, have been. As far as fun games like logic and reason go, well, good luck.

          This Wired [wired.com] article points out the fact that, even during the middle ages, Christian scholars found that extraterrestrial life would not seriously challenge their faith. You can bet these guys weren't big advocates of evolution, either.

          I'll also mention that the Pope is an evolutionist, also noted in the article, although he almost certainly believes in creationism, as well.

          Cheers -- Quothz

          • I think it's unlikely that evidence of extraterrestrial life will change too many people's minds. I think most folks who are gonna be convinced, have been.

            Really? I have not been convinced, but if you were to take me to a city on a planet orbiting another star, I most certainly would be. Even getting a "shut the fuck up already, we hear your damned signal!" message via the SETI project would get my attention.

            Ice on Mars? Meh. Hydrogen and Oxygen are pretty darn common elements, and they form into H20

          • Anachronisms (Score:3, Informative)

            by Royster ( 16042 )
            This Wired article points out the fact that, even during the middle ages, Christian scholars found that extraterrestrial life would not seriously challenge their faith. You can bet these guys weren't big advocates of evolution, either.

            There was no concept of Scientific Evolution before the 19th Century.

            I'll also mention that the Pope is an evolutionist, also noted in the article, although he almost certainly believes in creationism, as well.

            You'd be quite wrong.

            I don't know why people confuse the biz
        • Those darn diehard creationists will also point to the fact that many things are not specifically mentioned in the bible. The bible doesn't exactly mention anything about the americas, the bison there, or the mississippi river...but we can all pretty well believe that it exists. As everything else that exists and not was not specifically mentioned in the bible...life could exist on mars. Life could exist in many many places. Ask yourself this: Did life spontaneously happen out of a completely impossib
          • True (sort of) but evolution is a more internally consistent and simple paradigm of beliefs. this is what really characterizes a scientific framework. not "proof" (there is no such thing).
        • You know the whole "creationist" thing is, within the educated western world at least, an anomaly of the United States?

        • Nope... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by davburns ( 49244 )

          This would proove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have stemmed from the same methods. Really, the implications are astounding.

          If life simular to that on Earth were found on Mars, it wouldn't prove anything, but would be strong evidence that one of two things happend: 1. Life started somewhere, and moved between planets (metiors or viking spacecraft); or 2. As you suggest, life in both places came to be for the same reason. Either multi-celled organisms "adapted" to life on Mars,

        • While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory. A discover of a developed life form on another planet, however insignificant, would give undisputable proof of the ability of life to develop and adapt to the circumstances it finds. Bacteria found in this region, however, would prove very little, as bacteria can be found everywhere,

          About the easiest organisms to demonstrate evolution are bacteria. Specifically antibiotic res

        • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SnowDog_2112 ( 23900 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @08:38AM (#6310018) Homepage
          A discover of a developed life form on another planet, however insignificant, would give undisputable proof of the ability of life to develop and adapt to the circumstances it finds.

          As someone who grew up in a fundy Christian household, I can tell you it will have zero impact on most of those people.

          Going from their Bible, literally, you'll see nowhere that says Earth was the only planet created, or imbued with life. In fact, I remember (in my youth) having conversations with people, and debating the possibility of what would have happened on other planets; if life had been created there, had they passed their Garden of Eden test, etc.

          In fact, it made for a great little argument against UFOs -- imagine some other planet out there, that never fell from their garden of eden. They're still cool with God, chatting him up like Adam and Eve used to, and he says, "No, stay away from Earth. They're evil. We're working on fixing them up, give us a couple thousand years." "Oh, sure God, no prob."

          You could go to Mars and come back with a green-furred 12-legged creature with purple antenna and it wouldn't shake the belief system of most of the fundies out there.
        • I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory.

          Sorry why? Bacteria evolve just like other organisms, in fact their rapid reproduction ensures that they are much faster at evolving into new niches.

          Bacteria didn't spontaneously appear from inorganic molecules, they are orders of magnitude more complicated than the simple organic molecules from which the Solar System was formed and are the result of evolution.

          To claim that multicell

      • Re:Does it constitute life? Tough call (Score:5, Informative)

        by dragons_flight ( 515217 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:23AM (#6309008) Homepage
        Don't forget the theories about an ecosystem being present in Lake Vostok, several miles below the surface of Antarctica.

        As cool as it would be to find out (along with the scientific significance of the data), should we really contaminate that ecosystem if it exists? As much as we try not to, any intervention would upset a potentially fragile system.

        Something most people don't know is that Vostok is not one of a kind. It is merely the largest of approximately 70 lakes under the primary Antarctic ice sheet, identified by radar imaging. Because it is so large, it is likely that it has been liquid for a large portion of the 40+ million years that Antarctica has been glaciated, thus giving plenty of time for evolution and the development of a novel ecosystem. Whether that ecosystem is "fragile" is anybody's guess, but whatever bacteria live down there do so in a very large (one the largest lakes on Earth) and unfriendly swimming pool.

        Incidently there will be no fish in Lake Vostok. Subglacial lakes of this kind form under mature ice sheets. When an ice sheet grows to around 3 or 4 km, it becomes so thick that it can no longer effectively dissipate the slow outflow of heat from the Earth's interior. The result is that the ice sheet actually melts from the bottom. This water, combined with melt from friction as the ice sheet overruns rock, provides the source of the water that accumulates in low spots and forms subglacial lakes. The lubrication such water provides greatly enhances ice flow rates and limits the maximum thickness of glaciation.

        Anyway, this means that any life that is present in Vostok today must have survived in the soil underneath a growing glacier for millions of years until the ice sheet was large enough to trap sufficient geothermal heat that liquid water could occur and pool into the form we see today. Hence it is very unlikely that we would find anything more advanced than bacteria down there, though it certainly would be interesting if there was more advanced life down there.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Maybe it does not formally constitue proof of life, but have you thought how we could set up a base there that would burn hydrogen for energy?

      It would give us a toe-hold, so we could then start terraforming that planet to be able to produce oxygen and water, maybe some small agriculture at first until we perfect the organisms we'll be wanting to seed that world with...

      In fact, I'd RATHER it NOT already sustain life; that way I feel we could be much more free to develop it as we wish and not be destroying

  • Cool. (Score:5, Funny)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:40AM (#6308706) Homepage
    All we need to do now is send Schwarzenegger up there to turn on that ice melting machine.

  • Uh, yeah, so? (Score:5, Informative)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:41AM (#6308714) Homepage
    Considering that Mars has permanent polar ice caps (the permanent part is water ice, there's a CO2 ice part that expands in the winter), this is hardly a surprise.

    • Yup (Score:5, Informative)

      by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:49AM (#6308753) Journal
      Yup, we have known that the Martian poles freeze over seasonally. The dispute has been over whether or not the ice was composed of all CO2, largely of CO2 (like the Martian ice we have found elsewhere), or of the hydrogen variety.

      • Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:20AM (#6308857) Homepage
        What part of "permanent" did you miss? Yes, they grow seasonally as the temperature drops enough for CO2 to freeze out. But in summertime water ice is the only candidate (barring something really exotic).

        Come, this has been pretty much known since the first spectroscope was pointed at Mars, and known with confidence since the Mariner and Viking missions.

        Not that it hurts to cross check to rule out oddball theories, but why act like this was a surprise? Perhaps the concept is new to Arizonans, but you'd think the Russians would be familiar with permafrost.

        • So what you two are saying is that the pole is made up of both CO2 and H2O? And that every article that comes out claiming to have discovered one or the other again, trying to cast doubt on previous claims of the contrary are full of shit? I wish science would quit playing the one-up-isms and leave the props to the homies in the hood.
      • "The dispute has been over whether or not the ice was composed of all CO2, largely of CO2 (like the Martian ice we have found elsewhere), or of the hydrogen variety."

        You missed "The only ice is in my martini, you insensitive clod!" and "Cowboy Neal deals with the ice, ask him".

        graspee

      • Re:Yup (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Professor D ( 680160 )
        Moreover, it's the sheer quantity that's interesting. Enough water-ice to just seasonally "frost" the poles may not be enough to be useful for explorers.

        On the other hand, a uniform distribution throughout the Martian soil may be enough to supply humans with water (for humans, terraforming etc.) as well as enough hygrogen for fuel. Mars's relative closeness and its smaller mass could make it a critical resource for long term exploration as well as a refuling point for exploring the outer planets.

    • You mean the polar cap is made of frozen soda ? Beats the "moon is made of vanilla icecream" theory anyday !!

  • This will be great for tavel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by confused philosopher ( 666299 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:42AM (#6308721) Homepage Journal
    However, this hydrogen is something that the next generation will get to use, not mine. We need to figure out if we still have what it takes to get to the Moon, when the Chinese try next year.

  • Ummm. (Score:5, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:43AM (#6308732) Homepage Journal
    Oh...kay. Call me strange, I've never really considered a "big pocket of trapped hydrogen gas on Mars" much of a turn-on, but to each his own.
    • ...although I kind of like the idea of Mars' pole covering a huge pocket of hydrogen gas.

      BOOM!

      Hindenmars - oh the humanity!

      • Re:Ummm. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:53AM (#6308941) Homepage Journal
        Well.

        That would only work if, like the Hindenberg, Mars was placed in Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere.

        By the way the whole Hindenberg disaster was caused by the compounds infused into the outer covering: powdered aluminum and iron. Was supposed to eliminate static. Actually caught fire itself in a static discharge and...well, read up on thermite.

        • Re:Ummm. (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          By the way the whole Hindenberg disaster was caused by the compounds infused into the outer covering: powdered aluminum and iron.

          IIRC someone worked out that the covering is not unlike rocket fuel. Also the pictures of the accident are not consistent with the fire starting in the hydrogen cells.

  • hmmmm. . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by thexaspect ( 552088 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:44AM (#6308736)
    so when does the mad rush to build your own hydrogen farm on mars start? selling tickets on my spaceship! but seriously, now we have the possibility of being able to send a manned mission there, and then they can gather their own fuel for the way back! well, once we figure out that whole hydrogen fuel cell engine. . . or something. . .

    • Re:hmmmm. . . (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BrainInAJar ( 584756 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:46AM (#6308742)
      You don't need a fuel-cell engine.

      Rockets right now burn hydrogen and oxygen together to create thrust...

      They could use solar power to electrolyze the water, and collect the gasses for fuel. No need to perfect the fuel cell.
      • the problem is that the sun is further away from Mars than it is from earth.. leading to a reduced amount of solar radiation hitting the surface. (it decreases at the ^2 iirc.. but don't quote me on that).. which means that solar power may not be as efficient, on the other hand a lack of atmospheric interference may help .. but i believe that the best bet may be to look for hydrogen isotopes that could be used to fuel nuclear reactors (deuterium and tritium iirc) which could be used to "crack" water to prod

  • I knew it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:45AM (#6308739)
    This confirms my belief that Santa Claus could indeed be living on Mars.

  • Big deal (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:57AM (#6308782)
    We have plenty of water here, I read somewhere that like 60% of the earth's surface is water. Why do we need to get water from other planets? Looks like a waste of time to me.

  • Test it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) * on Friday June 27, 2003 @12:59AM (#6308788) Homepage Journal
    If they want to prove the voracity of their claim that copious amounts of hydrogen must be water, why don't they try this experiment on Earth. NASA did this with the Galileo space probe. It was equipped with some kind of spectrometer that was supposed to detect particular elements. When it was far enough away, they tested it on Earth to see if they'd get the readings they were expecting from other planets.

    • Re:Test it. (Score:3, Informative)

      by mao che minh ( 611166 ) *
      The use of spectrometers in discovering hydrogen has long been proven valid (the criteria for proof is all there). This is why astronomers are so confident when claiming that "planet-X", which is a couple hundred thousand light years away, has an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen. Spectrometers were used to determine why planets within our own solar system like Neptune (with have blue hues) had outer atmospheres that contained large amounts of methane. Many submissions to accredited astronomy journals wouldn't
      • The use of spectrometers in discovering hydrogen has long been proven valid (the criteria for proof is all there). This is why astronomers are so confident when claiming that "planet-X", which is a couple hundred thousand light years away, has an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen.

        You can do atmospheric measurements with transmitted visible light on far off planets. However, you can't get below the surface measurements.

        The main technique the Mars probes have used is neutron spectroscopy. A hydrogen atom is a

    • Re:Test it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:17AM (#6308852)
      Well one thing they know for a fact. There is no free hydrogen on Mars. None. Any gaseous hydrogen would literally just wander off into space.

      So if they're detecting hydrogen in any quantity it must be locked up in something on the surface and that something must leave the hydrogen still detectable.

      The list is fairly short and water is at the top of it.

      Number two on the list, by the way, is organic compounds.

      KFG

    • Re:Test it. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dcmeserve ( 615081 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @05:04AM (#6309344) Homepage Journal
      If they want to prove the voracity ...

      Ahem. That's veracity :) :) ...

      ...of their claim that copious amounts of hydrogen must be water, why don't they try this experiment on Earth. NASA did this with the Galileo space probe. It was equipped with some kind of spectrometer that was supposed to detect particular elements.

      We're talking two completely different kinds of instruments here.

      What this article is referring to (though not explicitly) are measurements taken with neutron detectors. As the spacecraft fly (at relatively low altitude) over the planet, they are bombarded by neutrons that can be assumed to come uniformly from the top N meters of the soil (don't know what N is exactly, might be on the order of 10). When the craft detect a significant drop in the number of neutron hits, it can be assumed that the neutrons are being absorbed by something in the soil. As hydrogen is the best neutron absorber among the most likely elements in the soil, the absorber can be assumed to be a bunch of hydrogen -- which can in turn be assumed to be a part of a bunch of water/ice. If there's a big dip in the neutron levels, then there's probably a lot of water down there. The trick is calibrating the measurements just right to get an accurate measure of how much water there is.

      A spectrometer, on the other hand, measures a broad spectrum of light frequencies. When there are spikes or dips at particular frequequencies that correspond to known absorption or emission wavelengths of various elements, then the instrument has detected that element. But it pretty much only works for a gas. Absorption patterns in reflected light from a solid surface can give some info about the minerals on the surface, but it's not as clear-cut a signal as you get from a gas.

      So... uh, er, now that I look at your post again, I see you are probably not actually confusing these two instruments... but then, some of the other respondents to your post are, so I will continue... :)

      Anyways, there'd be little point in running this experiment with Eath, in terms of answering the question of whether the hydrogen is really water. We already *know* that the hydrogen on earth is mostly in water, the fact that we could detect that hydrogen with an orbiting neutron detector really wouldn't tell us much about the likelihood of detected hydrogen on Mars being water.

      Besides, as you can see from my description, there are already a number of assumptions being made in order to get at the "it's hydrogen" result in the first place. For example, a dip in neutron readings could also come from a simple lack of radioactive elements in that portion of the crust, though this is unlikely. Basically, the best probability for an explanation of these results lies with subsurface water. The only real confirmation will come when we go down there and dig it up. :)

      Oh, and a spectrometer won't be able to do the confirmation; it can't see below the surface.

  • So they have water... (Score:5, Funny)

    by brilinux ( 255400 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:04AM (#6308807) Journal
    But honestly, who cares? To have life, you
    need earth, fire, and sky, too. They
    obviously don't have earth, as we are on Earth,
    and that is Mars. They can't have fire, as their
    minimal sky doesn't have enough oxygen.

    So they don't have the four elements necessary
    for life. I'm just going to stay here and figure
    out the first two digits of pi on my abacus.

    • Re:So they have water... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Clearly the only solution is to send Earth Wind and Fire [earthwindandfire.com] to Mars immediately. We better be sure there is no intelligent life up there though. Otherwise it would surely be interpreted as a declaration of war.

  • This just in (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sammich ( 623527 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:08AM (#6308819)
    Astronauts have again found ice on mars which scientists speculate could be evidence of life, just as they have on previous missions.

    Dj

  • Hydrogen is light (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:09AM (#6308822)
    I think I has to be pure hydrogen.

    We all know that it is a very light gas and would rise to the north pole... duh!

  • water snobs (Score:4, Funny)

    by brer_rabbit ( 195413 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:12AM (#6308833) Journal
    So now we have purified water, mineral water, distilled water, rain water, tap water, spring water, and now martian water. It's a Bobby Boucher dream come true.

  • Testing that theory... (Score:5, Funny)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:16AM (#6308848) Homepage
    I find it somewhat unlikely that a huge pocket of hydrogen might be underneath the surface, but there's a simple way to check. Just crash a probe into the planet. If Mars ruptures and starts lurching around the solar system like an untied balloon, the theory might have some merit.

    This avenue of research should be explored as soon as possible. This is in keeping with my conviction that our scientific dollars should be spent in the most entertaining ways possible.
  • They could pack Strom Thurmond in it until they're ready to bring him back from the dead!! /me watches karma wither away.
  • ...although I kind of like the idea of Mars' pole covering a huge pocket of hydrogen gas.

    You need three things for combustion. Fuel, got that. Ignition source, sure. Oxygen, don't got that. Maybe you could process it with the CO2 in the atmosphere to make hydrocarbons, oxygen, or even alcohol, (for the astronauts of course) but that would require energy to produce and there wouldn't be enough oxygen to fully combust any of those products. Hydrogen alone isn't good for much. Maybe if you sent a factory over used solar power to generate stuff (which was part of somebody's plan to get to Mars...) it could be useful, but just hydrogen has limited usefulness. I doubt it would be worth shipping back to earth to fuel the hydrogen economy either unless we're looking for hydrogen prices like $100 per cubic meter, cubic foot, mole, or whatever. Yeah, that'll work...

  • Could be good.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) * on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:36AM (#6308899)
    Ice = Oxygen/Hydrogen

    Oxygen/Hydrogen = rocket fuel

    Rocket Fuel = launching point for further operations from the Martian surface... Also, it would make it unneccessary to haul water to and from mars (saves a lot of cost if we ever decide to inhabit the planet)

    If we ever decide to go to mars, i hope to see some permanent settlement.. no use in going and coming back in 3 days

    • Re:Could be good.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ramk13 ( 570633 )
      Yes. Ice is oxygen and hydrogen, but it's at the lowest energy possible. You can't get any useful energy out of ice, or water for that matter. If water were a viable energy source, we'd have a lot less problems with energy here on earth.

      If they set up some huge processing plant to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity from solar panels, it would still take a long time to get enough fuel to come back. A fairly long time.

      And as far as permanent settlements go, I don't think we'll be read
      • Think about if water on earth would be capable of exothermic reactions. I'd say we'd then have one huge problem. All those "no smoking" signs at the seashores...

    • Re:Could be good.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @03:40AM (#6309165)
      Ice = Oxygen/Hydrogen

      Oxygen/Hydrogen = rocket fuel

      But ice = spent rocket fuel, where are you going to get the energy to:

      a) melt the ice into water
      b) split the water into H2 + O ??

      Don't get too excited about solar power, Mars is a long way from the sun and existing solar panel technology is heavy, bulky and relatively low-powered. You'd need to take tons of them to Mars to make any reasonable amount of water into rocketfuel by the time you were ready to go home.
    • Completely wrong. Ice = H20 (oxygen ALREADY COMBINED with hydrogen). Rocket fuel = H2 PLUS 02. When you react H2 and O2, guess what you get? You get H20. So no, starting with H20 will get you ~ NOWHERE.
  • An adaptation of the best scene in Douglas Adams's The Restaurant at the End of the Universe to explain exactly what's going on here. Enjoy.

    The telescope aperture opened.
    "Hello?" said the man.
    "Do you run the observatory?" said the planet Mars.
    The man smiled at it.
    "I try not to," he said. "Are you wet?"
    The planet Mars looked at him in astonishment.
    "Wet?" it cried. "Does it look as if I'm wet?"
    "That's how it looks to me," said the man, "but how you feel about it might be an altogether different matte

  • Water or ? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ratfynk ( 456467 )
    Could it be the original Russian water substitute that they are detecting, Vodka?

  • Where there's ice, there's... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ansak ( 80421 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:41AM (#6308908) Homepage Journal
    HOCKEY!

    And Canada will be happy to represent Earth in the Solar Cup Hockey championships.

    I wonder if Don Cherry will whine as much about the Martian way to play as he tends to do about Europe?

  • Can't be gas (Score:3, Informative)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:46AM (#6308924)
    It can't be hydrogen gas trapped beneath the polar caps. Molecules don't get much smaller or lighter than H2, and it surely would have wormed its way through any polar layer and into the atmosphere by now. And I can't imagine that it would be cold enough for the hydrogen to be in liquid form, so that pretty much leaves water as the most likely candidate.

    Note that IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), so no flames please for anything I might have overlooked.
  • Martian scientists have just found definite proof of solid ice on the poles of earth, now bringing up the possibility of life. A scientists was quoted as saying "This is exciting news, if earth has solid ice, then it is possible that ice burrowing intellegent lifeforms such as ourself. We always new earth had liquid water but everyone knows it is impossible to life in melted ice, or even in a gas atmosphere."

  • Good...good (Score:5, Funny)

    by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:19AM (#6308998)
    They found the ice I planted...soon they'll find the lost civilization, then the obilesk on europa, and then unlock the mysteries of artificial intelligence. Creating a new super race of robots that will wage war on them and enclose them in a reality emulating matrix to power their metal bodies. Yes...it's all coming together nicely...muhah hah hah

  • It is as I told you! (Score:3, Funny)

    by BiOFH ( 267622 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:44AM (#6309047)
    It is through electrodynamism and these pockets of gas that the Martians would hurl their cylinders toward our Earth! We should be steadfast in our study of Mars, for surely they are studying us just as intently; Perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.

  • Mmmm (Score:2)

    by Hasie ( 316698 )
    Mars' polar cap covering a pocket of hydrogen gas. This is a potentially explosive situation! :-/

  • "Now only for the Gin, Tonic and Slice of Lemon", say Scientists...

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close