Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Mars

Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars 143

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the dr-neukum-forever dept.
FireFury03 writes "The European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft has spotted an icy feature which appears to be a young active glacier. Dr Gerhard Neukum, chief scientist on the spacecraft's High Resolution Stereo Camera said 'We have not yet been able to see the spectral signature of water. But we will fly over it in the coming months and take measurements. On the glacial ridges we can see white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice'. Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 — 100,000 years old."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars More

Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars

Comments Filter:

  • Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dr_Banzai ( 111657 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:19PM (#21757450) Homepage
    This might be a good place to land a Mars mission because you could use the ice to create oxygen, water, fuel etc.

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by scubamage ( 727538 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:21PM (#21757472)
    The doctor in the article is named Dr. Neukem. If his first name is Duke, I would not want to be the one to contest his theory.

  • Here comes the Martian penguin movie... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gumbo ( 88087 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:25PM (#21757520) Homepage
    If you thought Hollywood was out of penguin movie fuel (after March, Happy Feet, and the other animated one that I can't remember the name of), this is just the thing they've been waiting for. Cute green Martian penguins dancing around on an iceberg. Fun for everybody!

  • Not a surprise. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:26PM (#21757524) Homepage
    We've known there was ice on Mars for a century or more. It is visible from Earth through any reasonably good telescope. You know, those white things at the poles?

    Sure, in winter they get bigger from frozen out CO2, but there's a year-round permanent cap of water ice. Glaciers, permafrost, pingoes and other signs of ice should not be a surprise. Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).

    Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

    • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:29PM (#21757570) Journal
      I think the pleasure out of this finding is yet more evidence that Mars is an *active* planet. We've known for over a century about Martian seasons, for quite some time about the vast dust storms, and recently there have been some tanatalizing hints of ongoing vulcanism, and now an active glacier. For a glacier to be active, it means there has to be some sort of hydrological cycle to replenish the ice.

    • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:37PM (#21757690) Journal

      Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).
      its location is at 47.5N, 28.4E so yes, very odd indeed.

      Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.
      yeah, a large percentage of the solar system's material consists of frozen water, no surprise by that account that water exists on Mars, what seems to be interesting here is how young it is and I presume the position as well. although if we were to find say liquid water anywhere nearby *that* would be far more interesting but no luck on the surface [confirmed that is] yet.

      • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:40PM (#21758512) Homepage
        Well, 47.5 N is hardly equatorial, but it is further south (by about 8 degrees) than the typical maximum winter extent of the north polar cap, so I'll grant you "odd" but perhaps not "very odd". (We have equatorial glaciers here on Earth at sufficient altitude, although they're disappearing rapidly.)

        I wouldn't be surprised if significant traces of water (ice) are found all over Vastitas Borealis; if it was once a sea bottom (and it bears characteristics of such) there could be a lot left just under the surface (which would help preserve it).

        The real question is whether they find sodium ;-)

    • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:38PM (#21757706) Journal
      I'll probably get modded as troll for this, but there is a great desire on much of this planet to ignore anything that is not written down in one of the 'good books'. Unfortunately, Mars was left out of that garden of eden scene... probably still somewhere on the cutting room floor of the FSM's dark room.

      Needless to say, in North America, it is always surprising to find something that is not explained explicitly in one of the good books, even though god supposedly made everything. The possibility that there might be signs of life on Mars, outside the realms of this singular haven of life god created on Earth, is something that people want to forget very quickly. Besides that, what does ice on Mars have do with paying the rising interest rates of your ARM?

      I for one welcome our solar system neighbors and their CO2 eating ways. Perhaps then we can all stop with the fighting about who has the one and true understanding of god on this planet.

      Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars. I can see that wing in the Creation Museum.

      • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:47PM (#21757794) Journal

        Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars.

        Leaving aside the (in my opinion) intellectual dishonesty of ID, a cool (and admittedly fictional) creationist take on the idea of life on Mars: Out of the Silent Planet [slashdot.org] by C. S. Lewis.

        Nothing I'm aware of in creationist canon explicitly excludes the idea of life elsewhere in this universe. It's just not mentioned. Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".

        • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Shadowplay00 ( 1042912 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:00PM (#21757928)

          Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".
          Unfortunately that describes far too many these days. Even if you were to argue that's a small proportion of active Christians in the US, it's enough to affect attempts to teach science. Look at all the controversies over teaching ID in public schools: do you really think these schoolboard members are terribly open-minded?

          • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:15PM (#21758130)
            Unfortunately that describes far too many these days.

            Again, please provide even a single instance of anyone who claims that, for example, penguins don't exist because they aren't (TTBOMK) mentioned in the Bible.

            Honestly, don't you at some level see anything inappropriate in abusing people for offenses you simply made up?

          • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2, Interesting)

            by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:33PM (#21759086) Journal
            Your completely off the mark here. The problem isn't people thinking that "if it isn't in the good book it doesn't exist". It isn't even close to that.

            The problem with teaching science isn't anything to do with the bible. It is with how the science is being taught. It is being done in a way that excludes anything else. It is in effect calling religions wrong and to some extent, it (the people teaching it) specifically mentioned it being wrong. While that may be a true statement in your take on things, there is still this thing called freedom of religion and the separation of state.

            This freedom of a religion and separation of church and state is a concept that say the government cannot push a religion on people, can't favor on over another and they cannot prevent one from being practiced. You cannot argue that going to a publicly funded school and being compelled by law to attend isn't the government sanctioning what is happening there. So when the science is presented in a way that little johnny or little susy comes home and say god is a liar or doesn't exist, this didn't happen because we learned about it in school, then we have a problem along this freedom of religion and church and state thing.

            I personally feel that if the material is presented as a theory in the tradition sense with something saying simply that this is how science relates to things and so far it has been as accurate as we can test, things would be fine. I'm not impressed with these intelligent design ideas of teaching creationism as a philosophy course. Just don't make any definite statements and present it as it relates to science and there shouldn't be a problem.

            I understand that people think it is absurd to downplay something like evolution and the big bang theory because they incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven. The fact is, while it has become close to being shown as fact and it is generally accepted as true, it hasn't been proven to the extent some think it has. But your interpretation of something being the right way or the real way has just as much to do with this as some bible thumper's interpretation. You have as much freedom from religion as they have freedom of religion. You cannot claim their religion is anything as much as they cannot make you subscribe to their religion.

            That is what this boils down to, and that is why the problem is in America and not other free countries (the constitution). It isn't for the most part and outright rejection of science but a rejection of the way science is being taught and how that teaching is attempting to deny other people's freedom of religion. And just like in anything else, when the government endorses the view, it kicks in constitutional problems.

            I'm not saying that you won't find a few creationist who strictly think the bible is the only way, but you will find that the majority of people supporting ID or statements in science classes are the people who doesn't want the government going around claiming their religion is a fairytale or wrong and whatever else. If it wasn't for the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion, this wouldn't be a problem. But it is a problem and people are attempting to introduce ID as an fix.

            Ask me about science as a religion, it goes a little more into explaining the "incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven" I mentioned earlier. Of course people want to strongly deny religions convictions of scientific theories because then it would be obvious on the freedom of religion and seperation of church and state thing.

            • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

              by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:51AM (#21761586) Homepage
              So if my religion declares that the atomic makeup of water is H4O, and in science class they teach that it is H2O, then they are violating the constitution?

              Bullshit. And the basics of chemistry are no less questionable than the basics of biology.

              • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

                by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @03:59AM (#21762144) Journal
                Aren't you paying attention? It would be against the constitution if the instruction for science in schools said that H2O was the only composition and all other renditions outside of science was incorrect. If they said that H2O was the way science used it and when you stated "well my religion says water is H4O", the answer was when science used the H2O version because it fits with their science where you religion used H4O because it works with it, then thing would be alright.

                It isn't a matter of who is right and who is wrong. It is a matter or one not allowing the other, either way. What is needed is simply a more crass approach of instruction. When the schools don't allow the religion to exist, it is a violation, when schools don't allow the science to exist and chooses religion over it, it is a violation. When one, withing the respect of each field exists, not only are people happy, but we don't tread on anyones rights that are protected by the constitution.

                Of course outside of school and outside of government branches, anyone is free to say anything. It is only when you make a law for religion or prohibiting the free exorcise of it, you run into problems. And by the separation of church and state, this includes policies of schools and any government offices that normal people have a need to goto. Some examples would be court houses and municipal buildings, Schools, the DMV, and so on.

            • Hypotheses, facts, and theories (Score:2)

              by jbengt ( 874751 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:04PM (#21765414)
              "I understand that people think it is absurd to downplay something like evolution . . . because they incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven."

              In the context of science
              A hypothesis is a proposed fact that is, hopefully, to be proven or disproven.
              A theory is an overall view and understanding of the subject that informs the facts and hypothesis.
              Disproving a fact predicted by a theory (e.g. a hypothesis) will cause the theory to be changed or abandoned.
              Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact. Study of the fossil records, of the ecology, of living species, of artificial evolution caused by farming and husbandry over the last few thousand years, and of direct observations of fast breeding creatures like fruit flies and disease-producing microbes all make it abundantly clear that evolution happens.
              "The" theory of evolution is actually a set of overlapping and competing theories of how evolution happens and has happened in nature, Darwin's theories of natural selection being the most notable. (To continue the analagy, "the" theory of gravity explains the earth revolving around the sun, but Einstein's relativity gives a better understanding than Newton's theory.)

              Calling evolution "just a theory" is a red herring that relies on confusions of theories, facts, and hypotheses.

              • Re:Hypotheses, facts, and theories (Score:2)

                by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @03:04PM (#21768088) Journal
                So is evolution, the common ancestral parts, a fact? Have we seen empirical evidence supporting this Fact. Is there still room for something to change in the theory behind the FACT?

                Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact. Study of the fossil records, of the ecology, of living species, of artificial evolution caused by farming and husbandry over the last few thousand years, and of direct observations of fast breeding creatures like fruit flies and disease-producing microbes all make it abundantly clear that evolution happens.
                No, it isn't. We have empirical evidence supporting the majority if not all of what you said. But we don't have any supporting the common ancestor thing and we don't have any showing the big bang as fact. The problem is that Evolution is an all encompasing term. It was designed that way so we could take the "look at these different finches" and say that man and gorillas have the same uncle. Religions, at least the ones I am familiar with, don't have a problem with the majority of evolution, just the parts that say god didn't exist and that god didn't make things.

                The real dishonestly here is that the observed facts don't prove that. They prove parts of it enough to let us believe that everything evolved form common ancestors. That in and of itself isn't a fact. Let me ask you, when you know that religions only have problems with small portions of evolution, do you think your being intellectually honest in saying that things outside where their problem lays, is true therefor all of it is true? I mean they already acknowledge that the parts we know to be true could be true, they aren't denying that. But insisting that what they dispute is a proven fact because of what they already agree with? I think there is some magic working there and it isn't from the religious crowed.

                Calling evolution "just a theory" is a red herring that relies on confusions of theories, facts, and hypotheses.Well, first of all, you know the controversy isn't over evolution in it's entirety. I Mean you admitted that it was a set of overlapping theories and conclusions. So why are you attempting to treat it as one evoloping theory when the problem revolve around bits and pieces of the underlying theories. If anyone is attempting to blur the issue, you are too. It isn't that complicated in the end though.

                • Re:Hypotheses, facts, and theories (Score:2)

                  by jbengt ( 874751 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @06:03PM (#21771266)
                  "So is evolution, the common ancestral parts, a fact? . . . "
                  Yes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that there are common ancestors among different species. If, however, you mean to say that all life comes from a single common ancestor, then, no, there is not enough evidence to prove that. But it's not necessary to believe in that in order to believe in evolution.

                  " . . . we don't have any showing the big bang as fact. "
                  I agree, the big bang is not a fact, which is why I left that out of my original response.

                  "Religions, at least the ones I am familiar with, don't have a problem with the majority of evolution, just the parts that say god didn't exist and that god didn't make things."
                  Unfortunately, many people do have a religious problem with the majority of evolution. Second, nothing in evolution requires you to disbelieve in God, nor does it require you to disbelieve that God made things; it does require you to not worship the creation stories of the Bible as literal scientific facts, which is what upsets so many.
                  As a God-believing religious person, myself, I don't have a problem with evolution, and I would not agree with anyone who says that evolution says that 'god didn't exist and that god didn't make things'.

                  "If anyone is attempting to blur the issue, you are too. It isn't that complicated in the end though."
                  My point was just that the phrase "just a theory" underestimates what a theory is and somewhat conflates it with the concept of a hypothesis; a theory is not an unproven fact.

                  • Re:Hypotheses, facts, and theories (Score:2)

                    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @09:12PM (#21773770) Journal

                    Yes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that there are common ancestors among different species. If, however, you mean to say that all life comes from a single common ancestor, then, no, there is not enough evidence to prove that. But it's not necessary to believe in that in order to believe in evolution.
                    Well, Having "evidence" and having empirical evidence are two different things and my point stands, it isn't fact. As for A single ancestor, wel yea you have to believe that because that is what is being taught that people are getting their panties in a bunch over. You know, the world tree and all.

                    Unfortunately, many people do have a religious problem with the majority of evolution. Second, nothing in evolution requires you to disbelieve in God, nor does it require you to disbelieve that God made things; it does require you to not worship the creation stories of the Bible as literal scientific facts, which is what upsets so many.
                    lol..But you see. It doesn't have to require you to do anything concerning God when being instructed at school. And those instructions at school shouldn't be in a position to have science contradicting anything with regard to the religion outside the context with science while being instructed in school.

                    My point was just that the phrase "just a theory" underestimates what a theory is and somewhat conflates it with the concept of a hypothesis; a theory is not an unproven fact.
                    Just a theory in this context really goes to the issues that are just theories. We already know and understand that the term evolution encompasses several independent evolutional theories that are called evolution too. When you hear about the contradictions and the problems with religion, you know that they are isolated to the points that contradict creationism and the biblical tales. You know that when we say evolution in this context, we aren't talking about the points of the other parts. When we say just a theory, it is an accurate statement because it is dealing with stuff that are only theories.

                    I mean you do know what the religious claims actually are don't you? It wouldn't be very scientific to deny creation if you had no idea what it actually encompasses and are rejecting it out of the faith that science has got it right. That by definition would be a religious act. So I would at least hope you took enough time to discern the arguments before flat out rejecting them based on what you know to be true, because someone told you it was.

            • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

              by arkhan_jg ( 618674 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:32PM (#21766640)
              You don't think teaching in science classes that 'God/an intelligent being did it' is a violation of the separation of church and state?

              God/intelligent design have no place in a science class, in any fashion. Science is by definition the study of the natural. Religion is by definition the worship of the supernatural. ID/creationism have none of the hallmarks of scientific study. They make no predictions, and cannot be disproven which is a requirement of science.

              The theory of evolution is as true as the theory of gravity or the carbon cycle. It is testable, it makes predictions, and the current evidence matches the theory. An alternative theory that can explain all the current evidence of evolution, and can make predictions about those areas not yet investigated should probably be taught in science classes. ID is not that theory, and never will be as it is not science. God deserves no place in science classes. He should not even be mentioned, and ID is creationism by God by another name.

              There shouldn't be little stars in evolution text books with little notes saying 'some people say that this theory is wrong, and that God did it', any more than there should be that little star by every other single item in a science text book.

              The study of natural phenomenons (i.e. evidence, that which is seen) with the theories that explain that evidence using only testable hypothesis. Otherwise, I demand that schools also teach in science classes my theory that things fall down because invisible unicorns jump upon them, imparting momentum...

              • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

                by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @03:22PM (#21768470) Journal

                You don't think teaching in science classes that 'God/an intelligent being did it' is a violation of the separation of church and state?
                Sure it is, But I'm not suggesting you do it. Why do you ask? I'm not advocating intelligent design or anything. Not refuting something doesn't mean advocating. The trick is simple to say nothing about it. And if you have to, limit it to the context at had, IE science, when in science class, Theology when in social studies and so on.

                God/intelligent design have no place in a science class, in any fashion. Science is by definition the study of the natural. Religion is by definition the worship of the supernatural. ID/creationism have none of the hallmarks of scientific study. They make no predictions, and cannot be disproven which is a requirement of science.
                I'm not and never advocated ID and God. Your preaching to the quire here.

                The theory of evolution is as true as the theory of gravity or the carbon cycle. It is testable, it makes predictions, and the current evidence matches the theory. An alternative theory that can explain all the current evidence of evolution, and can make predictions about those areas not yet investigated should probably be taught in science classes. ID is not that theory, and never will be as it is not science. God deserves no place in science classes. He should not even be mentioned, and ID is creationism by God by another name.
                Wrong, Parts of it are. Not everything has been observed or tested. But that is besides the point. I still don't understand why you keep bringing up God and ID. Do you have issues with him?

                here shouldn't be little stars in evolution text books with little notes saying 'some people say that this theory is wrong, and that God did it', any more than there should be that little star by every other single item in a science text book.
                Your right, Once again your talking about something I agree with. However, there shouldn't be any science that makes assertions to God not existing or a religion being wrong and the context of the science should be explained as it relates to science. So again, no problems here either. If we can keep god completely out of it, we would be fine.

                he study of natural phenomenons (i.e. evidence, that which is seen) with the theories that explain that evidence using only testable hypothesis. Otherwise, I demand that schools also teach in science classes my theory that things fall down because invisible unicorns jump upon them, imparting momentum...
                I think I will demand that you actual comprehend what you read. It seems as if you are seriously missing something here. Just because X is a multiple of Y doesn't mean X is the only multiple. So get a grip and setting down.

        • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:1)

          by biraneto ( 886262 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @09:53PM (#21759836)
          Actually the universe according to ID is men centered. Men was created as the image of God. They may even find some excuses for some small simple life forms, but they wouldn't be able to explain why there is more advanced life forms in the universe than us. Good for then we still won't be effectively leaving this galaxy for the next centuries. :)

        • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

          by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:54PM (#21760326) Homepage Journal
          I would think the ID explanation of life on Mars would most likely be the same as most scientists: "There isn't any."
          Even if there was, nothing in the Bible says there is no life anywhere else. Jesus once said something to the affect of "I have other sheep which are not of this fold." As Jesus was a carpenter, I think we are not meant to take that literally. Most would say that refers to the Gentiles. But who knows for sure?

    • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:49PM (#21757806) Homepage
      Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.

      Well maybe this is just me, but I tend to be surprised or excited whenever the actual scientists involved are surprised or excited. Seems like they are the ones who would be best equipped to know what the significance is.

      I'm pretty sure they are already aware of the Martian ice caps, so maybe there's something more significant to this then? Naw, you're right, it's better to use hindsight to say "that was obvious!" and brush it off.

      • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

        by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:20PM (#21758216) Homepage
        Scientists act surprised and excited at almost any discovery, partly because it either supports or disagrees with current theory, which in a relatively new field like planetology is interesting either way. But - and forgive me for being cynical - they also do it to encourage those who fund them to keep on funding them. If they'd said "ho hum, we expected that", how do you think the purse-string holders would react the next time the scientists went asking for money?

        Yeah, it's an interesting find in the way any data about Mars is interesting. It's not - or shouldn't be - something that will shake the very foundations of planetology. Didn't anyone predict glaciers? If not, I hereby predict pingos, braided streams, and moraines -- although I think they've all already been observed.

        • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

          by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:16PM (#21758898) Homepage
          Be cynical all you want. I doubt you know enough about planetary climatology to have said whether or not young, active glaciers were probable based solely on the existence of ancient, permanent ice caps. But now that it has been discovered, it's easy for the cynical to say "Oh of course you would expect to find that, we already knew there was ice, duh". When there's simply more to the issue than that.

          Nobody said that this should shake the very foundations of planetology, or anything even close to that. You're inflating their claims to enhance your cynical criticism in the same way you're inflating the obviousness of the discovery despite not having any scientific foundation for saying it is obvious to enhance your cynical criticism. Well the scientists don't think it's obvious -- they're not even completely convinced that they're seeing what they think they are -- and frankly scientific knowledge is a better basis for saying something is non-obvious than cynicism is a basis for saying that it is.

          • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

            by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:23PM (#21760064) Homepage
            The "young" is yet to be demonstrated. (For that matter, so is whether or not this is really ice, but that seems a reasonable bet.) As for "active" -- if it's a glacier, it flows under the force of gravity, and either advances or (depending on temperature) the leading edge retreats; of course it's active.

            TFA makes a big deal out of the exposed white areas, claiming that ice sublimates quickly on Mars. Well, some places it does, some places it doesn't. If it's exposed on the ridge peaks, that could be because a covering layer of dust was recently blown off -- or it could be that it was recently snowed (or frosted) upon. I'm not inflating their claims, perhaps the BBC is.

            • Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)

              by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @04:08AM (#21762178) Homepage
              The "young" is yet to be demonstrated. (For that matter, so is whether or not this is really ice, but that seems a reasonable bet.) As for "active" -- if it's a glacier, it flows under the force of gravity, and either advances or (depending on temperature) the leading edge retreats; of course it's active.

              Yes, as the article noted the results are not certain, so good call there. A retreating glacier is not an active glacier, and an ancient glacier can only stay active if it has its ice renewed as fast or faster than it evaporates, which is why this would seem to be significant if it pans out.

              TFA makes a big deal out of the exposed white areas, claiming that ice sublimates quickly on Mars. Well, some places it does, some places it doesn't.

              Ah yes of course, and I'm sure you're well versed in which areas those would be and have correlated that with the location of the possible glacier. No, wait, that would be what the people actively researching Mars would do. Stop pretending you're one of them, or that you can elevate yourself to the status of one of them simply through skepticism.

              I'm not inflating their claims, perhaps the BBC is.

              Oh so it was the BBC that said that this was going to shake the foundation of planetology? Oh, no, that was you, so you could then claim that straw man as being the hyperbole of those darn scientists that you are seeing through with your insightful cynicism.

              Honestly, cynicism for cynicism's sake, especially acting alone in lieu of understanding, is completely pointless and never a substitute for actual knowledge. It wasn't presented as anything other than a possible discovery on Mars of something we haven't found before. Stop pretending that they over-stated the claims, and that you used your layman's knowledge to predict those same claims in advance.

  • I sense a connection here... (Score:1)

    by Odin The Ravager ( 980765 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:27PM (#21757544) Homepage
    Dr Gerhard Neukum
    Duke Nukem
    Really, ask yourself, what are the chances?

  • So, the European Space Agency is dreaming... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by niceone ( 992278 ) * on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:27PM (#21757550) Journal
    ... of a white Christmas?

  • Glacier (Score:1)

    by Velcroman98 ( 542642 ) <Velcroman98.hotmail@com> on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:30PM (#21757584)

    With Mar's distance from the Sun I wonder if any of it it dry ice, or any other elements that would normally be a gas on Earth.

    If it melts will it be blamed on Bush?

  • Missing (Score:4, Funny)

    by Etrias ( 1121031 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:35PM (#21757666)
    Oh good! Glaciers on Mars. Nice for them to turn up because we're starting to miss a few down here.

  • A place to find life (Score:2)

    by readin ( 838620 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:01PM (#21757932)
    This is cool. If any Martians ever stuck their tongue on it they should still be there!

  • Mars Ice "Premium" Bottled Water? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zymergy ( 803632 ) * on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:07PM (#21758022)
    Executive: "How can we get ahold of some of that Mars glacial ice? We could make a killing selling it to the bottled water crowd!"

    R&D: "We could make it a dilute 'blend' with filtered municipal tap water and disclose (in small print) that it is 'filtered for your purity'."

    Marketing: "The bottle cost should be just under $0.05 each (with printing) and we could put on its side in BOLD TYPE: 'Contains REAL Mars Water' and actual unit cost could be $1000 each. Then we could spread a rumor that it has aphrodisiac properties, it worked for the rhinoceros horn market!"...

    NASA Administration Plebe to NASA Director: "Sir, I think I have found a new way to raise REAL corporate money for our manned Mars missions..."

  • Get it while it's cold! (Score:2)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:08PM (#21758044)
    After all, no telling what global warming will do to this thing.
  • so we can melt it

    i am not happy with just denuding mt kilimanjaro of glaciers and melting greenland

    we must do better than this

    global warming? this is the mark of an inferior life form

    solar system warming or darest i dream galactic warming, that should be the goal of mankind!

    • Re:we must go to mars (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rucs_hack ( 784150 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:30PM (#21758360)
      Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.

      Without it we'd have to wait tens of thousands of years, or more, while specially engineered plant life (very basic plant life) and such worked its slow magic on the atmosphere. With a bit of global warming technology (TM) we can shorten the time considerably. If oceans were brought back the process would be much faster.

      The question is how can it be acheived in a way that can be managed, so it doesn't spin out of control. Personally, since I won't be alive in either case, a thing I have in common with everyone reading this, I'd go for the slower option, or even go for the option of spending a few hundred years seeing if there were any remnant native organisms that could be helped back into activity and do the job for us.

      That there are active glaciers is fascinating though. What a shame that almost all of the current environment of mars would need to be destroyed or irreversibly altered in order to host our species. It doesn't bode well for our entry into the interstellar club. How ironic if the destructive aliens we worry about so much in fiction turn out to be us.

      • Re:we must go to mars (Score:2)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:57PM (#21758690) Journal

        Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.


        It's going to take more than that. Even if you managed, somehow, to get a dense atmosphere on Mars (which is a must if you don't want the water to simply boil on the surface), you're going to have to figure out how to keep that atmosphere from simply leaking into space.

        In short, Mars is not a massive enough planet to hold a dense atmosphere over the long term.

      • I have a plan. (Score:2)

        by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:10PM (#21758804) Homepage Journal
        Create a giant yellow 'umbrella' between the sun and mars.
        It would be concave on the mars side and larger then mars. So it would focus more light and heat onto mars. Thus warming it.
        It could also deflect much of the suns bombardment of radiation onto the planet.

  • More Martian Glacier Info (Score:3, Informative)

    by L3WKW4RM ( 228924 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:31PM (#21758372) Homepage

    More info and photos on the Martian rock-ice glaciers of Deuteronilus Mensae [asu.edu].

    Now that we've got glaciers and lava tubes [nasa.gov], I'm packing up my crampons and caving gear for a Martian vacation!

  • Estimate? (Score:3)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:08PM (#21758790)
    Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 -- 100,000 years old.

    They really meant "wild-assed guess", but it sounds more scientific to call it an estimate.

  • Don't do the same mistake again (Score:1)

    by felipekk ( 1007591 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:25PM (#21758996) Journal

    I think this is a hint that we should not go there. We already screwed with our glaciers...

  • Meanwhile, in other news ... (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @09:42PM (#21759738)
    Martian scientists believe that their neighboring planet, known as 'Irth' may have had glaciers and polar ice caps in its recent past. These ara believed to have disappeared during the recent geological era known as SUV.

    • Re:Meanwhile, in other news ... (Score:2)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:04PM (#21760422)
      Martian scientists believe that their neighboring planet, known as 'Irth' may have had glaciers and polar ice caps in its recent past. These ara believed to have disappeared during the recent geological era known as SUV.

      Some Martian scientists disagree. They believe the proper interpretation of the inhabitants own description of their final days to be the symbols "GW". There are two camps, one of which considers this "GW" to represent the phrase "Global Warming", which would tend to agree with the physical evidence. The other group has some indication that these symbols refer to a mythical figure known colloquially as "GW Bush".

      Whether this "GW Bush" bears any relationship to "Global Warming" is not yet clear.
  • Or something else.

    But they are probably right, it was probably ice from the beverage the giant face dropped when he heard the dismaying news that NASA "proved" he was just a natural rock formation.

  • Not News. (Score:3, Funny)

    by notnAP ( 846325 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:50PM (#21760784)

    Possible Active Interplanetary Missile Complex Found On Mars


    Now that's news.

  • Nasa already found water on mars (Score:2, Funny)

    by kvap ( 454189 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @10:56AM (#21764564)
    A couple of years ago:

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc_big.jpg [nasa.gov]

  • Now we can actually use Futurama's solution to global warming! All we need to do is bring the glacier back here and stick it in the ocean!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close