Enormous Amount of Frozen Water Found on Mars 442
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."
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.
Re:Let's add some heat! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's add some heat! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:2, 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.
How many astronauts these days are doing "heroic" things? Heroes are unique; you don't get to be a hero if there are a hundred other people who do what you do. Hops to LEO in a shuttle doesn't make you a hero to many people, no matter how much work it took to get there. Being the first man to land on the Moon, however, can make you a hero for all time.
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
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.
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.
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".
Re:Moo (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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...
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:Why couldn't NASA do this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There is even more water (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Global warming beat us there (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 funding is coming from or whatever, Real climate can find a trivial way to dismiss anything that doesn't step in line directly with their position. And the position hasn't changed any in the last 6 years or so either. I thought Science was about continually testing and finding answers but they use 4 year old research in some critics to discredit brand new studies. IT is as if it can only be right it they agree with it. Or more appropriately, it can only be right if all new research agrees with them!.
And yes, You can always find someone at real science saying something against anything that doesn't place humans as the cause of global warming.
Re:Let's add some heat! (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:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Global warming beat us there (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's say for argument's sake that the last ice age lasted 100,000 years. That seems reasonable enough considering the earth has been around for a few billion years. So then let's assume your decades of data is 50 years worth. Let's see, I haven't done division in awhile, but 50/100,000 is about
Unfortunately, humans haven't been advanced enough to collect climate data for long enough to predict anything. So wait another 1,000 years, and if the data still supports global warming, I'll start listening.
Re:Why couldn't NASA do this? (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 about Virgil (Gus) Grissom, even fewer will know his two crew members names: Edward White and Roger B. Chaffee. Astronaut deaths unfortunately became a lot more common with the Challenger and Columbia disasters, and thus the uniqueness of the deaths of the first three faded (Time has a lot to do with it as well, although had those other two disasters not happened, many more would know about the original Apollo 1 crew). Other than Christa McAuliffe, who else died on Challenger? Why do we know her? (Hint, she was a civilian astronaut - the first) What about Columbia?
Now to get back to the Michael Jordan analogy. Note that while we may still know Michael Jordan, I will guarantee you that many of today's teenagers do not. He's not a hero to them, he's before their time. He will fade although he will be remembered for a while. Look at Wilt Chamberlain. He too has largely faded, although he still holds several records. Charles Barkley, on the other hand, flashed and is almost forgotten.
Basically fame is fleeting, unless you're completely severed from the rest of the population by your actions. Certain (in)famous people will long be remembered (Charlemagne, Hitler, Einstein, Nixon, Washington, Armstrong, Stalin, Hawking, Julius Caesar, etc) and you'll note there are more infamous than famous ones in that list. There's a definite reason for that, and that is that (fortunately) it is much easier to go very negative than very positive outside the envelop of normal human behavior.
Even when someone does go far outside the norm, they can be forgotten. Quick - who was the first person to break the sound barrier? That was considered at the time to be as large a feat as the moon landing. You should have seen some of the articles of the time, even by scientists, about the absolute BS about what happens when you break the sound barrier. Makes for very entertaining, but sobering, reading. You see, the equations for air flow reach an asymptotic limit, or singularity, at Mach 1. In reality, it's quite similar to our current understanding about the speed limit of light. It too reaches a asymptotic limit, but the laws of physics as we understand them prevent us from accelerating anything faster
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.
Re:We're the ocean planet (Score:3, Insightful)
The global flood narrative kinda fits nicely in there, doesn't it?
BTW: dolphins and whales don't have gills, either.
Your cute little quasi-syllogism doesn't support evolution too well, either. Why bother having air-breathing animals if, as you suggest, on a planet with 71% water surface it's a huge advantage to have gills?
Re:What are the chances... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would never see it if it was modded down!
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