NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water" 1048
NASA is currently holding a press conference (carried live on NASA TV) where they are discussing findings from the Mars rovers. They are saying that the crater that the second rover has landed in has convincing evidence that it was once drenched or covered in liquid water. They cite the tiny spherules, odd holes in the rocks, sulfur in the spectrometric analyses, and evidence of an iron sulfate hydrate (a hydrate is a chemical compound which includes water molecules in the crystal lattice). Update: 03/02 19:45 GMT by M : CNN has a story, or see the NASA press release.
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:3, Insightful)
are going to
That should read could.
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, as a Taoist, I fail to see how this would in any way effect my religious beliefs.
However, if I believed in a creator-god and in the uniqueness and specialness of human life in the universe, then yea, that would cause some issues. Thankfully, not all religions are like that.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Water != life
How can any religion survive that revelation?
I don't recall the Bible saying that there was no life anywhere but Earth. I've always believed it was possible that simple life could exist elsewhere. Intelligent life would throw religion a curve, though... I haven't thought as much about that.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
How can any religion survive that revelation?
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
My $0.02...
Calm down there Nietzsche (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that God created the universe with countless planets, stars and habitable worlds is not in conflict with at least Catholicism. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other religions who would have no problem with such an idea but I'm no religious scholar.
If I recall correctly, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Earth is the only world in the universe or even the only one with life, intelligent or not. It's kind of an open question.
Please give me a verse if I'm wrong.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:1, Insightful)
That "2000-year-old dead guy" DOES have a major influence on daily events, and you would be a fool to say otherwise. Whether that influence is supernatural or not is another story.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I'm going to get modded down as a troll, but why would you think this? Firstly, I don't think any mainstream religion DEPENDS on any of your ideas.
Looked at it another way:
The sun became the center of the universe. -Religion survived
We found out we were one star in a galaxy that was the centre of the universe.. -Religion survived
Then we found there were countless billions of stars. -Religion survived
Now we find another local planet with ancient water on it.. -Religion will survive
The next find I expect is simple life living on Mars. -Religion will survive
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Christians (at least _informed_ Christians, yes there are some) in particular, would not be disturbed to find that God had created life in more than one place. Why shouldn't He? It's not like the Bible says somewhere in it "Oh, and by the way... this planet is the only one with life on it."
C.S. Lewis discussed the subject fairly completely in an essay decades ago. In case you don't know, he was a famous and very influential Christian author, as well as writing some science fiction and fantasy. Besides writing a non-fiction essay about it, you could view his "Space Trilogy" fiction as an examination of the life-on-other-planets issue with a Christian background.
The more interesting question (also discussed by C.S. Lewis and many others) is how different religions would react to the discovery of _intelligent_ life somewhere else in the universe.
Microbes on Mars... scientifically, that's amazing. From a religious point of view... well, it's "just" another example of a Creator God at work.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I understand your criticism, which is, I think, directed mostly at dogmatic adherence to ancient traditions without questioning them. However, religion will survive, I am sure. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Science is concerned with one aspect of our reality - the quantifiable, and predictable. Religion is concerned with all those things that you cannot quantify - love, anger, thought, the experience of death, wonder, awe, consciousness. They are both parts of our reality, and neither can be used to explain everything.
Re:Biggest story of all time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you seem so eager to see religion eliminated?
Is it by any chance because they are always so "in your face" with their bible thumping and telling you that you're going to hell and all that?
Because if so, aren't you doing exactly the same thing as what you hate about them? Being intolerant of other people's values?
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that bacteria can leave fossils too.
Re:Not very surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Pressure is pressure. Kinetic pressure due to impact will overcome (by many orders of magnitude) vaccuum. Water ice impacting at interplanetary speeds will form all manner of different phases according to the chaotic nature of the impact (no idealized impacts in nature). It is extremely unlikely there was no liquid water on Mars. The question, as I stated in another thread, is "how much for how long". If it existed for minutes, we could see some of the results they're finding, but obviously that won't have anything to do with the possibility of life.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no place in the Bible that claims that Earth is the only source of life in the universe. In addition, by "religion", you are most likely referring only to the three major monotheistic ones: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Plenty of Christians believed that the earth was not the center of the universe even back when this was the prevailing worldview. The Bible itself does not stipulate that Earth is the center of the universe. Aristotle believed that Earth was the center of the universe (plenty of his contemporaries disagreed), and his works became "canonized" as the only view during the Middle Ages, along with other great thinkers of the ancient world such as Ptolemy, who used an overly complex method to explain the orbits of heavenly bodies, and Galen, who was the first doctor in the West to link the nervous system to the brain, but based all his findings on pig anatomy (couldn't dissect humans back then).
Having a religion does not exclude common sense. In persisting in this belief, many atheists (or at least ./ atheists) are often more intolerant and ignorant than followers of organized religion.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
And Sirius begat M-551, and M-551 begat Polaris, and....
Someone's going to say "Life elsewhere would be pretty important."
Sure, to you. Probably not so interesting to most people living 4000+ years ago, who would have been quite shocked to discover that there was more than one continent, or that the world was round.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent point. I think my fundamentalist brethren tend to forget that when God came to Moses, he wasn't dealing with a Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking -- or even a Galileo. He was dealing with a guy whose claim to fame was running away from a life of luxury to tend sheep. At the best, Moses' idea of the universe might have dealt with Egyptian gods, and a universe whose origin was a direct result of some rather kinky onanism.
God came to Moses in a way Moses could understand, in a way that his fellow shepherds and stonemasons could understand.
Imagine Moses up on the mountain, getting the first four books of what we now call the Old Testament from the Almighty: A bit cheeky, but the point is: God comes to us in a way we can understand. That's different for an illiterate goat breeder in 2000 BC than it is for a nuclear physicist in 2000 AD. Whether you choose to believe doesn't have as much to do with how God appears as it does with your own faith.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:0, Insightful)
They could possibly.
Could we come back with another rover
Could they.
You know NASA right? That's the place where you don't work, don't do research, and have never even been to.
Thanks!
Re:Sample Return? (Score:3, Insightful)
Quarantine Mars? (Score:2, Insightful)
Life on Mars would prevent terraforming or perhaps any human colonization at all.
I printing off my "Save the Martian Microbes!" bumper stickers right now.
Temperature Data is insufficient. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and this couldn't have come sooner? (Score:1, Insightful)
-- Mark 7:18-20
Sorry, Jesus repealed this one. So, unless, you're a Jew, God doesn't hate shrimp.
Ifs Ands & Buts (Score:3, Insightful)
If we bring back a few samples with the help of a robotic probe, EVEN IF they dont contain any fossils, those samples will still be invaluable to science.
But hey, we can always hope the samples contain Sand Kings...
Re:Key point (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me ?, I hope you are some kind of rocket scientist and can qualify that statement.
I'm no expert myself but I reckon that taking into account the fact that humans have never travelled interplanetary before it is probably a little bit more difficult than you think.
Re:Where's the benefit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
Fossils can wait. We don't need to contaminate Mars with the Earth Bacteria that a manned mission would introduce until we are sure there is a very low probility of finding living independantly evolved life.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Insightful)
If they aren't aeolian (wind-blown) deposits. At the moment we don't know if they were formed in water, or elsewhere, but later altered by water.
Exciting stuff though.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Faith vs proof (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that is why it is called "faith".
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:1, Insightful)
Water (Score:1, Insightful)
OK there was once water on Mars. What caused it to dissapear? What caused Mars to lose it's atmosphere and magnetosphere?
How long did it take?
Can it be reversed?
Could, will and/or is this happening to Earth?
You must answer one question before you can answer others and ask more questions. Our curiosity put us up there to expand our knowledge of our home system. Until we can understand what is here we will not have what is needed to properly understand what is going on farther out.
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
My kids are growing up in a conservative Christian household and I am highly encouraging them to choose what they want and what they're good at for a career. I hope that they want to study science, but will support them every step of the way regardless of their decision.
I know that doesn't help you any, but I thought you should know that Christianity and a love of science are not mutually exclusive. Any belief system (or lack thereof) will have a few bonehead adherents, but that doesn't mean that's the norm, or even particularly common.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dune (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Insightful)
The reliance on faith (God won't provide proof because he relies on faith to bring people to him) is a sticking point. The same data can be just as validly analyzed as "non-existence".
Re:Wow...$860 million to tell us that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For all the overtly religious people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were dropped off in Alberta and told to find some, but didn't know about Drumheller, you probably wouldn't find any there either
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. An RTG with twice the power output would have weighed far less than the batteries, solar panels, and mounting. Not to mention that 5 pounds of PU is pretty small (remember, atomic number in the 90's). Cooling is the least of their concerns on Mars. (Or getting it there, for that matter). They had a working RTG system for the Mars rover. NASA just backed off of it because of the outrage over Cassini. (Insert comment about stupid tree huggers with oatmeal for brains who can't even take 10 minutes to find out what the hell they're protesting over. And that also goes for that whats-his-name physicist who complained about Cassini. "Oh no! A little plutonium in an indestructible box that has had flight testing during several accidents is going to kill us all!!!! Run for the #$*%#$*%$%$ hills!!!!")
Re:Key point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really not trying to flame here, honestly, but if the above is taken as an axiom, or even a good rule of thumb, what exactly is evidence of absence? Is it proving that if something, Y, did/does happen/exist that could not possibly happen if X happened/existed?
Just curious, that seems like a very far reaching stipulation to me.
Re:Get off the cross (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost so far for this most recent mars mission is over $800 million. Budgeting through further missions is set to exceed $15 billion. The ISS outdoes even this, with an expected cost of near $30 billion to finish the station, and estimated operating costs of $1.5 billion a year once completed.
Hubble needs about $100 million for a single shuttle launch. $200 million in equipment has already been constructed and is only waiting in a warehouse for a mission.
I don't deny the importance of the ISS and Mars missions. All these projects have significant importance for science, technology, and society as a whole. Hubble is about far more than "getting to see a black hole". We have made dramatic advances in astrophysics with the help of the telescope. We have gained immense insight into the depths of our universe, to an extent that won't be possible again for a very long time.
Taking relative cost of the three projects into account, Hubble is by leaps and bounds the most effective. Do the math. Fixing the hubble will only take 0.2% of the cost of the ISS and Mars missions. Given the advances in science [nasa.gov] and technology [nasa.gov] we have extracted from Hubble, the return on this small investment is tremendous.
That's why I sigh.
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Insightful)
We need probes designed to answer that fundemental question, does life presently exist on Mars before we land Humans there. If we find that there is little likelyhood of Martian Life then it's time for Human Exploration. If we finf that there is life on Mars it needs to be carefully studided before we contaminate the planet with the Bacteria that a manned mission would introduce.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Insightful)
TW
yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where's the benefit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if life developed independently on two planets in the same solar system, that would imply that the development of life in any similar star system is not just possible, but likely..
Look at it this way: if life is so common that it had evolved multiple times in the same little nook of the galaxy, then it's a very good bet that nearly every planetary system anywhere, with even remotely the right conditions, probably harbors life. That would be amazing.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:3, Insightful)
See, the funny thing is that "We the people" do all sorts of things. "We" are supposedly responsible for Iraq, right? Not France, England, and Russia, who made the mess in the first place decades ago...no, "we," the people of the US of A.
No one could get to Mars on their own. No one person could even design a system capable of leaving the earth, flying to mars, landing on it, and scouting the ground there - not all of their own ideas. No way. And those that could even do it with someone else's ideas - those who could put the ideas together and make them work...guess what, they wouldn't have the money to do it.
So yes..."we." Ass. Collectives do things all the time. "We" make open source work. "We" went to mars. "We" are hated by the baathists.
We.
Re:Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What I want to know is ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:2, Insightful)
Given an infinite time, which we don't have. And even then your conclusion is only valid for a uniform random distribution, which is most certainly not given either. (and that's not all... you're making a lot of assumptions.)
Otherwise you are saying that, at some point, a 747 with every seat occupied by an encyclopedia salesman named "Fred" has flown out of a black hole. If you believe that then I have 440 sets of encyclopedias to sell you.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:4, Insightful)
I couldn't find any bang-up-to-date specs for RTGs, but those fitted to Galileo and Ulysses weighed 65 kilos, which is a sizeable chunk of the rover's 185kg. Don't forget that any rover using an RTG would need a major redesign so as to shed heat during the flight to Mars. It might have required the use of a Titan IV rather than the cheaper, but smaller Delta to get it to Mars.
Of course what we need is someone to approach the Russians about using a Proton to send 4,500kg to Mars - then we could have some serious exploration!
Agree with you completely about the senseless scare stories sent around before the Cassini launch, you'd have thought NASA had a glowing chunk of plutonium mounted on the nose cone.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Also: harsh radiation splits apart water (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, just as you do not walk into a friends house and start telling them why they furnished it as they did, we should not assert that the creator is this or that. The creator is as it wishes to be, and if it wishes to predate the physical universe, then perhaps it does. If it does not wish to predate the physical universe, then perhaps it does not. In any case, it is certainly not my place to say one way or the other.
Re:Bible was not written as a scientific textbook (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mission Accomplished (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, it is important that a sample return mission from mars does not go to earth directly but gets the first analysis done in orbit (an that would mean ISS), to minimize the risk of contaminating earth's biosphere with extraterrestrial life-forms.
And it will also be likely that a manned mission's mars rocket would be assembled in orbit because a rocket like that should be fairly large, because the astronauts have to live in it for at least 2 years, so the living space (and the storage space as well) has to be fairly large. In my opinion, the living space should at least approach that of the old MIR space station to protect from the greatest psychological problems...
Re:Key point (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry you're wrong, isotopes are chemically almost identical, but you can separate them using chemical processes. Uranium is routinely enriched using chemical techniques. They may also be separated physically, the heavier isotope tending to have slightly higher boiling points and very slightly lower reactivity. The processes that incorporate carbon into living tissues favour the lighter isotope of carbon over the heavier.
The depletion of carbon 13 in plant tissues is one method of determining nutrient sources for herbivores. Since different groups of plants have slightly different photosynthetic pathways they produce slightly different depletions of carbon 13 (so-called dC13) in their tissues which can be traced through into animal tissue.
And a quick scan of the Beagle 2 page [esa.int] shows that they were trying to get a C12/13 ratio from Mars.
If life did select -12, then radio-carbon dating would simply say that all dead things are exactly the same age.
And why is that, when radiocarbon measures the amount of carbon 14 in a sample?
Since the c-13 decays (known half-life) then the current ratio of c-12 to c-13 implies the time passed between death and now.
Oh dear. carbon 13 is perfectly stable. You're thinking of carbon 14 which no one has even mentioned in this context as yet. C14 dating is hardly ever used in geology because the half-life is too short for all but the most recent of sediments.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Magnetite signature for bacteria (Score:3, Insightful)
You've misread that, I think...I think you should adjust your parser so that reads
"How does anyone know that only LIFEFORMS on earth can create that type of magnetite? Couldn't it occur naturally?"
To which, the answer is "No."
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just a stupid argument. I'm sorry if you don't understand why that's a stupid argument despite my explanation, but that's your problem.
As for how dangerous Plutonium actually is, that's an entirely different question. As I was saying, it's probably not very dangerous, but that isn't the main issue in deciding whether to use it on space missions. I'm sorry if that also goes over your head, but, again, that's your own intellectual limitation.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Not saying that Pu is some sort of doomsday material that will kill us all; just pointing out that it's not entirely harmless either, given the right set of circumstances.