Underground Water on Mars? 109
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."
Re:Not a new result (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For Heaven's Sake... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:format (Score:5, Interesting)
See, I said it was unpopular. Bye-bye karma, I barely knew ye ;)
Re:format (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless, I've actually thought along the same lines about colonization, and it has a lot to do with the economic rationale for going in the first place. Once there is one good reason to establish a population, everyone else follows to support that population. Columbus thought that we'd settle to get gold and silver, at Jamestown it was tobacco (eventually), in New England and Atlantic Canada it had a lot to do with just leaving Olde England and perhaps a very little to do with cod fisheries and fur trading. But once those settlements started, other economic activites were established to support the local population.
Once it becomes cheap enough to visit Mars with regularity, be it for simple science or tourism, it would actually make sense to establish a permanent base, rather than bringing everything along each time.
Re:format (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The one hard part on all this is, power. We have 2 choices; Nuke or power sat. If NASA has a decent low-weight, high-power generator, then we will send that. But it is probably good for only 30 years and will probably not be easy to move. Of course, we could send a power sat and then beam the power down. But how much power?
In fact, baring war or worsening debt crisis (sadly, this is highly likely), I believe that we will be on the lunar surface by 2015 and mars by 2020.