Underground Water on Mars?

WaltonNews wrote in with a story about possible underground water on Mars. The article begins: "The Mars Express spacecraft, from the European Space Agency (ESA), has indicated to scientists that the dry atmosphere and surface on the planet Mars does not necessarily mean Mars is dry underneath the surface. In fact, a huge storehouse of water and carbon dioxide could be found in underground reservoirs."

404

[Any Web Loco (555458)]

No water after all?

Try this link...

[aapold (753705)]

Mars Express scientists think Mars might have plenty of water underground [itwire.com.au].

I'm sure they'll fix the article soon. But tossing the quoted section into a news.google search provides this.

Re:

[Cimon Avaro (1022609)]

I'm actually starting to get a little paranoid. It almost seems like WMD-II. "There's water on Mars — we must go!". I'm beginning to wonder if someone's got a real reason for wanting to go, and it's got nothing to do with water.

Happens to me often. I hear flowing water, and I have to go.

Lowell was right?

[BTWR (540147)]

Maybe there are canals on Mars, lol...

Big Alien Button

[Rissole (693590)]

you can press to release it all. There *may* be some bad guys that will want to stop you though.

Old News

[celardore (844933)]

This was discovered some time ago. [wikipedia.org]

Article link?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Got a link to the article? Or do I have to go to Mars and see it for myself? I'll pack thermal underwear and a shovel.

Re:Article link?

[JustOK (667959)]

Don't forget your towel

Since we lack the link!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Let us all call it a dupe! :-)

Not a new result

[amightywind (691887)]

This is not news worthy in the least. It has been several years since groundwater seeps have been observed by the MOC camera [msss.com] on Mars Global Surveyor.

Re:Not a new result

[nwbvt (768631)]

I think the point of the research being referenced (though the link is bad, so its hard to tell) is that new experiments show the water loss rate should be much lower than they previously thought, which means all that water that used to be there must have gone somewhere.

The desert planet

[iiii (541004)]

Beneath the surface of the desert planet we will find huge stores of water and the spice melange, which will allow us to see into the future, which will enable us to travel among the stars. It's actually the poop of some giant monster worms creatures, but who cares, let's eat it anyway.

Speculation...

[ilovegeorgebush (923173)]

Why does this make news? It's speculation. Can I make the /. frontpage by saying "There might be miniture Giraffes under the surface of mars"?

It'd be a fascinating article if they had found water under the surface, but this?...Come on...

MARSIS

[Nuffsaid (855987)]

Don't know where the link was supposed to go, but some (not really new) information can be found here [esa.int], along with a nice section of Mars North Polar Cap obtained with the remarkable Italian MARSIS [esa.int] instrument. Nice to see another world studied by geologists with just the same techniques used here on Earth.

Did I miss something, or did they?

[Speed Pour (1051122)]

Seriously...there's been a decent number of sightings of ice water on Mars including European Space Agency [esa.int] and again recently with NASA [nasa.gov].

There's nothing new here. Stating a theory that perhaps less water has disappeared than previously thought? What's expected? Ice is known to have a lower planetary dispersion rate.

To add to all of this, it's scientifically reasonable to assume there should be fairly large quantities of water under the surface. Logic applies, we've seen landforms that support the belief of water having once been on mars, and we've got recent pictures to show some (likely a lot) is still there. Guess what, anybody who knows anything about dessert geography also knows that water naturally burrows below the surface. This is just putting 2+2 together.

What are they going to report on next, the discovery of Magnetic Fields and how they might exist on other planets?

Maybe the article was about the gullies

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

I recently attended a presentation by a geologist (areologist?) investigating the gullies [nasa.gov]. She argued convincingly that many of these are caused by liquid water erupting horizontally from aquifers about 100m underground. This water would lie about 100m below plateaus and the water would emerge from the side of steep faces. This is exactly where the gullies appear in photography and the 100m is consistent with the pressure and temperature required to keep wtar in a liquid state. On emerging to the surface the water would only last a few minutes before boiling and freezing. This is consistent with the length of the gullies. From what we know of the temperature of Mars these conditions aren't suitable for liquid CO2. The sinuosity of the gullies is inconsistent with landslides.

This is quite different from evidence from radar. We're talking about water that may have flowed in the last couple of years. (Not geological time. A few years here means less than ten.)

History of Mars Water

[Tablizer (95088)]

1973: There MAY be water on Mars.

1977: There MIGHT be water on Mars.

1997: There is POSSIBLY water on Mars.

2004: There is PERHAPS water on Mars.

2007: There COULD be water on Mars.

I am beginning to see a trend here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Re:format

[Paulrothrock (685079)]

I'll take a one-way mission, too. Hell, imagine never having to wear bug spray anymore. No more poison ivy. No more dimwits trying to push their religion on you by force if necessary. And you'd be spending your life building a new world. That would be a wonderful place to die.

Re:format

[OriginalArlen (726444)]

I have a deeply unpopular opinion round here which is that, even if humans actually walk on Mars in our lifetimes (I'd put the chances of that at 5/1), the chances of any permanent settlement are nil, zip, zilch, nada. You have to understand how much it would cost, and that there would be no economic benefits at all apart from the teflon/tang/spacepen type spin-offs; and if that's the aim, there are plenty of much more useful projects that could be run which would have just as many technological spin-off benefits. You have to understand how hard it would be to get there and maintain life support in such a hostile environment. How long would the US settlers have lasted if they'd had no natural resources apart from lots of very very salty / acidic dusts and regolith, a dim sun, low gravity, and had faced instant death in the event of a loss of air pressure / failure of any of several thousand literally "mission-critical" systems? Oh wait, for some of those failure modes, death would be slow, lingering, and unpleasant. And we'd all have to watch it on TV every night. *shudder* no, thanks.

See, I said it was unpopular. Bye-bye karma, I barely knew ye ;)

Re:

[1u3hr (530656)]

Bye-bye karma, I barely knew ye

Don't try to second guess the mods. It's as likely to provoke as to mollify. If you're actually fearful of being modded, just post AC.

You have to understand how much it would cost, and that there would be no economic benefits at all apart from the teflon/tang/spacepen type spin-offs; and if that's the aim,

Of course that's not the aim. The Moon will be more than enough of a technical challenge. The reason to go to Mars is pure science; to explore, and in the (very) long

Re:

[stevesliva (648202)]

How long would the US settlers have lasted if they'd had no natural resources apart from lots of very very salty / acidic dusts and regolith, a dim sun, low gravity, and had faced instant death in the event of a loss of air pressure / failure of any of several thousand literally "mission-critical" systems? Oh wait, for some of those failure modes, death would be slow, lingering, and unpleasant.

Even in the relatively temperate climate of North America, there are plenty of ways to die.

Regardless, I've a

Re:

[WindBourne (631190)]

Actually, your opinion matches up with a number of folks. Of course, most of them believe that ID is real.

Thank god that it is not likely to win. Simply put, it is no where near as expensive as NASA or even you believe. Why? Because of NASA's and RKA (USSR/Russian space agency ) precursor work of figuring out what works.

1. Launch will be provided by any number of transports. My belief is that spaceX and scaled composites will capture the bulk of this within another 4 years.
2. Bigelow's stations will be used

Re:

[misleb (129952)]

I'll take a one-way mission, too. Hell, imagine never having to wear bug spray anymore.

No need to imagine. I live in NW Oregon. No bug spray needed... even out camping in the lush forests. It is pretty great, actually.

No more poison ivy.

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater...

No more dimwits trying to push their religion on you by force if necessary.

Can't say that happens to me here. The only time I ever come into (virtual) contact with a religious freak is if I opt to visit some forum or

Re:

[rbanffy (584143)]

We did. It was called Beagle 2.

It was supposed to dig down a little bit and try to take some underground samples.

Keep in mind that most mining equipment is not very portable, if at all. Taking it to Mars and landing it safely is beyond our current capabilities.

OTOH, we could smash a block of something and analyze the resulting plume. There is no better way to dig a crater that smashing a 1 ton bullet traveling at a couple kilometers per second.

There is, but try smuggling a nuke to space these days...

Re:soda!

[CptNerd (455084)]

So, all we have to do is drill holes all over Mars and drop huge Mentos candies down the shafts, and voila! Instant atmosphere and oceans! Plus, if we time the drops right, we might be able to nudge Mars into an orbit closer to the Sun!