Massive Martian Glaciers Found 314
Kozar_The_Malignant writes "Scientific American is reporting that 'data from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter point to vast glaciers buried beneath thin layers of crustal debris.' Data from the surface-penetrating radar on MRO revealed that two well-known mid-latitude features are composed of solid water ice. One is about three times the size of the City of Los Angeles. This certainly makes the idea of establishing a station on Mars far more plausible."
Re:Time to move... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
then what are you going to call solids?
Why, "CowboyNeal", of course!
Re:Fossil water (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple reasons I wouldn't expect anything large. The more obvious reason is that, if there were large native lifeforms (plant, animal or what have you), they'd be the first to die off. Generally, the bigger you are, and the higher up the food chain, the harder an ecological catastrophe hits you.
Since Mars hasn't be suitable to most forms of life for ages, and since it seems likely it became gradually less and less habitable as time wore on, it stands to reason that larger hypothetical Martians would be long gone. Small, survivable life forms would stick around a lot longer, possibly even to the present day. The odds of finding something frozen in the (geologically) recent past are a good deal better than the odds of finding anything from a couple hundred million years ago.
The less obvious reason is that I doubt there ever were large Martian lifeforms. There's a world of difference (pardon the pun) between being totally ecologically sterile and being Earth-like, and while I'd wager that Mars probably had something alive sometime in it's history, I doubt it ever got much past bacteria, and maybe simple plants. Too cold for one thing, and too dry. I've seen a couple different theories about how Mars was in the past, but nothing I've read suggests abundant heat, or water, or a thick atmosphere.
Granted I don't like to assume that the standards for life on Earth are the same as the standards for life elsewhere, but since we don't have any other basis for comparison, that assumption will have to stand. Plus, if living things adapted easily to extreme cold and scarcity of liquid water, you'd expect the poles here to be host to a larger variety of life. A world only slightly more hospitable than Antarctica doesn't seem like the best place to find big fauna.
That's actually an interesting idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, the first people to go to Mars would almost have to have a deathwish to do so.
One of the problems with sending people to Mars is how to get them back again. If we could find volunteers who have a shortened life expectancy (terminal cancer, etc), would it be terribly unethical to send them? No need to worry about return/retrieval, and if you're already dying, you've got to admit that it'd be a heck of a way to go.
Re:Time to move... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a tad worse than the new world. No air and no food. Dust that will corrode anything. Poor mineral deposits. No open water. Basically, complete alien and inhospitable environment. Being second best in the solar system is a pretty low bar.
Pluses for no hostile natives, though.
Re:Time to move... (Score:5, Insightful)
no one is going to be sailing to Mars in a 15th century galleon or caravel. the reason our "New World" is Mars is because technology has advanced a fair bit since the 1400's.
our astronauts aren't going to be stricken by scurvy, nor are they going to contract polio, malaria, or other now preventable diseases. they also won't die form bacterial infections that killed millions of people before antibiotics were discovered. that means a small cut or cavity won't turn into sepsis or bacteremia and kill you.
astronauts are also not at risk of getting lost due to a lack of modern navigation technology. in fact, any trip to mars will likely be backed by billions of dollars of science/research, technology, and years of extensive preparation and planning. and any candidates for Mars exploration or colonization will be specially chosen for their educational and technical background and given additional training on top of that. so they're likely to fare a little better than the average 15th century explorer.
and even people who climb Mt. Everest bring their own oxygen, food & water. why would astronauts going to Mars need to worry about no air/food? if we were going to send anyone to colonize Mars they'd be living inside of a space habitat. they're not going to be dropped off on Mars butt naked without any supplies or shelter. in all likelihood by the time we send our first manned mission there'll already be some kind of habitation module, sustainable power plant, chemical oxygen generator, and usable water supply.
any astronaut going to Mars is going to have a much longer life expectancy than the average 15th century European, much less a 15th century explorer. aside from perhaps the psychological strain, going to Mars would be a cakewalk compared to traveling to the New World in the 1400's.
Re:That's actually an interesting idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeh, just look how quickly Australia became a republic free from Great Britain's influence~
Of course, even if they were to form a separate nation - no big deal. The Australia comment was sarcasm (hence the sarcasm punctuation), but despite not being "truly" independent, they pretty much are for all reasonable intents and purposes. Their independence hasn't really caused any major problems for the world and I don't see that it'd be any different for a Mars colony. Whether they gain independence through violence or politics is largely irrelevant and we'd just end up with one more nation in our (now interplanetary) civilisation.
All that is rather an aside from the point though - I don't think we'd need to "use" anyone for colonisation... we could just ask, "hey, who wants to go?" and there'll be PLENTY of volunteers. Even though I'd never see anyone I know again, I'd jump at the chance (I've already lived in 5 different countries in my life and pretty much "started again" several times... a new planet is just the next big step from that).
Re:Time to move... (Score:4, Insightful)
they also won't die form bacterial infections that killed millions of people before antibiotics were discovered. that means a small cut or cavity won't turn into sepsis or bacteremia and kill you."
Unless a strain of bacteria turns up that is resistant to every antibiotic you have on board and you are several light minutes away from an alternative, in which case it's bye bye mr.astronaut. We really haven't evolved that much from 15th century explorers. Take away this vast safety blanket of civilization and we're just as resourceful, and equally helpless as any explorer in the past 50000 years.
Infections are not that likely as killers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a guy who spent a month in the hospital a few years back fighting one of the worst drug-resistant infections in the world (a nasty kind of c.dif) what you're talking about just doesn't happen that much to healthy people. Not only that, much of how medical technology fights infection (rehydration, boosted nutrients, etc) doesn't actually depend on knowing what the infectious agent is.
No doubt, there are exceptions, but among healthy adults the odds of the kind of thing that you mention are much lower than more simple things like losing oxygen.
Make no mistake, this is still a damned risky proposition. But so is bungie jumping. Hell, so is driving on New Year's Eve. Life involves risk. Pioneering even more so. The real question is not "is there risk?" but "does the likely gain outweigh that risk?"
Re:UNDERGROUND CITIES (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the largest piece of graphene they have been able to make so far has been a few square centimeters, it still doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon. I'd say a better option may just be carbon fiber geodesic domes with layered plastic composites in the gaps. It may not be as effective as graphene, but it is certainly more doable in the short term.
Re:Time to move... (Score:3, Insightful)
With a small number of people and no animals, it's highly unlikely new strains of dangerous bacteria would evolve.
True (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily in the sense of "little green men" so much that there is still some possibility of hostile native bacteria, and definitely of unknown hostile environmental conditions.
Re:Time to move... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:UNDERGROUND CITIES (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mars Gambling! (Score:2, Insightful)
This reminds me of the morons who start an overused joke with "obligatory" as if that made them less of a lame wad. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Then I want a pony. (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks to me like you're just a wee bit confused on this whole cost factor. How many kilos of mass do you think the first group will be bringing with them, anyway?