Flowing Water Discovered on Mars 378
Dolphy writes "BBC News has the latest big scoop on the Mars phenomenon. Researcher Tahirih Motazedian apparently uncovered proof quite some time ago of flowing water and surface change on Mars."
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell
First water... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:First water... (Score:2)
"well the 12 billion 'golarger.com' messages originated from a McDonalds lobby, only 120,000,000 miles away."
The ping time alone could get you out the door before anyone got the e-mail
"yes sir, we have him, he's wretching in the bathroom. send in the troops"
Of course its there (Score:3, Funny)
M. V. Smith
PS: Anyone want to join my weird telepathic sex cult?
Re:Of course its there (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmmm... I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...
Re:Of course its there (Score:2, Funny)
You already know the answer
P
Re:Of course its there (Score:2)
Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:3, Interesting)
Mars's surface temperature goes down pretty low at night to some -100 degree Celcius, at which nitrogen (roughly our air) is liquid as well (at earth ground pressures).
Can't all those riverbed come from other liquid that only flow at night time and vaporize during daytime. As we only observe the daytime mars, the "water" is always gone.
Anybody have an idea about that?
It may be water (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2, Insightful)
perhaps at -100C at these low pressures water is a liquid.
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:5, Informative)
OK one step further: Martian Atmosphere [nasa.gov]
So we're talking carbon dioxide. Pressure is 7mb or 7hPa or 0.7kPa (earth pressure beeing around 1000hPa or 100kPa)
Here's a phase diagram of CO2 [wisc.edu]
So at such low pressures, CO2 is vapor at diurnal temperature ranges. My theory seems not to hold. Please go back to sleep.
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, even at the poles, Mars does not go below -150 degrees, so there is no place on Mars at which nitrogen will turn into a liquid.
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:5, Informative)
Second, the remarkable thing about water is that based on simple chemical rules it should not be a liquid at ordinary temperatures: ammonia, with a similar MW, is a gas. It is the strong hydrogen bonding between water molecules that gives it the high melting and boiling points, and the very wide range between them. The ideal liquid to sustain life has a wide range between MP and BP, dissolves a wide range of substances, is itself mostly unreactive, is made from elements common in planets, does not react with oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or sulphur in the liquid state at ordinary pressures, and is easily formed in chemical reactions (which implies a small molecule). Water fits the bill extremely well. Another liquid which is quite good is ethyl alcohol. The other small molecules (ammonia, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, methane, methyl alcohol, hydrogen cyanide) all fall down badly or one or more of the criteria.
Water may not be the only liquid that makes a suitable carrier for life, but it would be really hard to find a more suitable one. Human experiments to use alcohol instead are rarely successful for very long.
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2)
With the life we know, this indeed holds true. But I'm sure there could be life based on any number of weird building blocks, we just don't have them here. If you ask me, DNA/RNA aren't even required for life, life is a different concept altogether, very hard to define though.
But seriously, water has
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:5, Insightful)
With a little application of the anthropic principle, why should we expect other life-bearing planets to be wildly different? I agree with your point that we shouldn't be looking just for what we have here, but we have two reasons to do that: 1. we know our data is good, and 2. we really don't know what else to look for.
In fact, it reinforces my total agreement with you that [D|R]NA is not necessary for life. I believe that a good minimum for definining life is just adaptive behavior, i.e. evolution. Of course we aren't inclined to say things like evolutionary algorithms or simple adaptive chemical processes "are" life... but perhaps part of the problem with that is that we simply haven't let these things go on long enough to recognize them as life.
In a universe this vast, it seems impossible to me that we could be the only life. One thing which I expect we'll find if we explore the universe in greater detail is that it's full of weird things. The weirdness of life doesn't come across when we sit at home in ultra-introspective mode, categorizing the minute differences between insects as though they're legendary incredible differences. The weirdness will come across when we're confronted by complex interrelated chemical and physical processes on other worlds, and our biologists won't want to call it life, while the rest of us will (or vice versa).
For once a little manifest destiny would have been just fine. Instead, we're peering through expensive telescopes, while our ancestors are pointing at the leaning tower and asking us why we aren't dropping things from the top of it.
--
Daniel
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:4, Informative)
extremely complicated molecules that are used to store information (used to encode proteins)
Now, it is quite possible to envision an organism which uses some non-nucleic acid information storage system. However, for the trivial carrier molecule there is not really that much choice.
There are only so many simple molecules out there.
In the medium-complexity range, whould there we any other chemical structures which could replace proteins? I am not a biochemist...
I agree that we should not look for life just as ourselves. Alien life would probably not have DNA and might not have proteins. So we should not look for those.
However, they would probably be water based and therefore that is a good starting point.
AFAIK there is not many reasons to replace Carbon either, so they would probably be organic too. Another thing to look at.
Anyways, I am not an biochemist, again. Soany comments from the experts are welcome.
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:5, Interesting)
While that is true about water, it's also true about ammonia! There's quite strong hydrogen bonding in ammonia, which is why its boiling point and freezing point is so much higher than methane which genuinely doesn't have any hydrogen bonding. Methane has molecular weight of 16, ammonia of 17 and water of 18, so all these hydrides are quite similar in that respect. Their boiling points at atmospheric pressure are -161.6C, -33.4C and 100C respectively.
I fail to see why a life-sustaining fluid must not react with oxygen at ordinary pressures. (I fail to see why it need not react with the others noted for that matter, but oxygen is the odd one out.) Oxygen is such a viciously reactive gas that it reacts with almost anything that isn't already heavily oxygenated. There is only free oxygen in the Earth's atmostphere because it has been generated by living organisms which have reacted water with CO_2 to produce useful stuff and a nasty toxic byproduct. Organisms capable of withstanding the corrosive atmosphere came much later and those which actually require free O_2 even later.
A biology that didn't use a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't produce a oxygenated atmosphere and ammonia would very probably serve well as a working fluid. An ammonia-water mixture would possibly be even more suitable.
Paul
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2)
Well, I know a few people that have been sustaining such "experiments" for many years now . . .
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2)
Well, here in Texas there are a variety of human lifeforms that live off of alcohol instead of water.
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:2)
Mmmmmmm, Beer.
universal liquid (Score:2)
My $$ is on the theory that if there was an alternate liquid, it wouldn't flow as much as pool, and stay put, meaning we'd see it.
High res images (Score:5, Informative)
Higher res images [msss.com]
(o) <----put that karma right here :P
No way (Score:2)
Re:High res images (Score:2)
Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Really Know If It's There Or Not... (Score:2)
Things we could do with the water... (Score:5, Funny)
2. Evaporate it for salt
3. Water fights
4. Endless discussion about life on Mars
5. Experiments to see if fish could live on Mars
Re:Things we could do with the water... (Score:3, Funny)
At sixty degrees below freezing, you'd kill all the contestants.
I like my skimpily-dressed women alive, thank you.
-JC
In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP... (Score:5, Funny)
- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89
But Quayle did save NASA (Score:2, Informative)
Hey, the guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but, during the really big budget deficit days of the late 80's and early 90's, Bush Sr was like, well let's axe NASA. Dan Quayle intervened to get NASA put back into the budget.
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:2)
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:2)
Yeah, I remember the movie Total Recall with R'Nold...a movie essentially about a colony on Mars. The scariest scene in the movie is when they show Quayle on the screen as President. I just about peed my pants!
You know what bothered me about TR? What did the martians breathe **WHILE** they building the air oxygen machine?
Yeah, I know, Arnold movie - check your brain at the door. I love his movies, though. (Guilty Pleasure) My least-favorite-consequence -of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics is tha
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:2)
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:3, Interesting)
Relatively speaking compared to other planets mars is in roughly the same orbit as earth.. I belive withen 1-2% difference actually.
The canals are more and more likely turning out to be the result of flowing water or possibly CO2... good chance of both.
With water or CO2 there is OXYGEN. cO2 O is for oxygen, the 2 stating there are 2 oxygen atoms per molecule. H2O has o
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm
It says this, at the top of the previous paragraph, before giving a list of quotes:
"Most of the ones on the following list are actual Quayle quotes" ('most of the ones'?... nice writing there wannabes).
K, so, like, which 'ones' are real 'ones' and which 'ones' are not?!?
Geez. Again, don't use Internet sources in term papers....
Re:In the exalted words of our esteemed former VP. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want life on Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Going to Mars would probably suck. For example, I think living in Anarctica sounds a lot better. I predict the population of Mars will never exceed that of Antarctica.
2) Finding life on Mars would be a massive boost to understanding life in general. I bet that if things get better in the next few centuries it will be because mankind improves things on Earth, and that understanding biology is going to be important in that process.
So destroying life, however primitive, on Mars, is probably a bad bet, because colonizing Mars isn't going to help anyone anyway, and studying alien life may very well..
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:3, Insightful)
colonizing mars is not going to help anyone anymore than colonizing america.
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:3, Funny)
You know, the Spanish empire ignored North America because it thought it was just a useless, barren wasteland. I can imagine them saying something similar. The Moon is a like Antarctica, Mars is more like northern Canada - difficult, but liveable.
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:2)
That was useless, barren, inhabited wasteland. I'll think you'll find that Mars on the other hand sucks a lot more as far as quality of life goes.
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:2)
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:2, Funny)
I have it on good authority that the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one.
Re:I don't want life on Mars (Score:2, Funny)
And I predict that no one will ever need more than 640k.... oh, wait...
I want life on Mars... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe Mars will be a great place to try our hand at terraforming, but whether there's life there or not, we'll see outrageous political battles over the attempt. Let's go anyway! Perhaps it'll have to be some far-off planet that gives us the chance to really engineer the place without massive protests by people on Earth who aren't doing anything themselves. That's no reason not to go to Mars and see what we can find out about the place with actual people there on the ground.
And sure, [i]t would still be a long time before the environment would be safe for humans." Hey, this planet isn't all that safe for humans in the first place. Let's go.
Re:I want life on Mars... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nixon killed NASA by cutting the budget massivly and leaving us with the shuttle. The original version would have gone to space at a fraction of the price of the current shuttle.
Clinton totally perverted the Space Station from being a possible low-cost factory type assembly into a multi-nation nightmare.
Raygun and Bush were not much better. Suggest ideas and then cut the budget. When projects are underfunded, we have accidents becuase managers up top push for what bit of money you have to go further. Engineers get ignored.
The only thing holding us back is our politicians. I only hope that Zubrin is able to privitize space travel as our current politicians are killing it - literally.
Re:I want life on Mars... (Score:2)
How, oh wise one, would you get back? Where would you find someone skilled enough to go to Mars that was willing to go there to die? Much less a whole crew?
Also, our technology for renewable, self sustaining life, ON EARTH, isn't there yet. How would you expect to send up a living module complete enough to allow the group of suicide scientists to survive for any length of time AND still have time to do any exploration?
Give it another 100 years, we'll get ther
Re:I want life on Mars... (Score:5, Insightful)
>
>How, oh wise one, would you get back? Where would you find someone skilled enough to go to Mars that was willing to go there to die? Much less a whole crew?
How would you get back? You probably wouldn't. So what?
Skills 1? Spaceships fly themselves for the most part. Martian colonists on one-way trips are spam in a can until they land.
Skills 2? After spending six months in a can reading geology textbooks, they break out the pickaxe and start digging and taking pictures. Any of us reading this could do more in five minutes on Mars than has been done in the past 30 years.
Volunteers? You ask for them.
"Congratuations. You're going to Mars.
Since there's nothing on Mars to spend your money on, we are going to pay one person of your choosing your "salary" of $100K/year for the rest of your life, or until you come back, whichever comes first.
We will put you on the cheapest spaceship money can buy. Some of you will blow up on the pad. Some of you will have air leaks and suffocate or freeze en route. Some of you will burn up on re-entry. But at $50M per launch, some of you will land on Mars.
Your mission, en route, is to read about rocks and learn how to use a microscope. Once there, your mission is to break big rocks into little rocks and tell us what you found.
Your ship has an RTG (or better yet, a small nuclear reactor) that provides your capsule with electricity to break water into oxygen for you to breathe, alcohol to drink, and hydrogen for you to refuel your engines with. If you manage to find enough water, you will also be able to use that hydroponics lab to grow food for a while.
Some of you will figure out how to get enough food, water, heat and oxygen out of your setup to last for months, maybe years. Some of you will live long enough to make it to the point where we've already landed half a dozen unfueled crew and sample return vehicles.
We will pay you or your beneficiary $100,000 per pound of Mars rock that comes back. The return vehicles can carry 500 pounds. Whether you launch that thing with 500 pounds of rock, or 350 pounds of life support, your 140-pound ass, and 10 pounds of rocks, hey, that's up to you.
I won't lie to you. Many of you will not be coming back, but we will see to it that you have one hell of an adventure."
Every day, people sign up for what is fundamentally the same deal: If you're willing to do something you believe in, even knowing you might die, we will give you the equipment to do it. Soldiers have vastly better odds of survival than my Mars colonists, but keep in mind that they do it for a tenth of the pay.
Believe me, a faster-riskier-cheaper manned space exploration programme would have no shortage of volunteers.
Oil :P (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oil :P (Score:2)
The point is moot, of course, owing to the fact that crude oil is biological in origin. Maybe millions of years ago, there were rainforests, martiansaurs, etc, and they became cru
Re:Oil :P (Score:2)
Damn tootin'! Mars is a dangerous rogue state with a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. We have intelligence which proves Mars has worked with Al Qaeda to terrorize our world [fourmilab.ch] (but we can't share our information--it's classified). It is imperative that Mars dismantle its weapons of mass destruction; if they do not (or, heck, even if they do), we must disarm the Martians by force.
War is our last option (wink wink nudge nudge), but sanctions and inspections have proven ineffective. Mars' continued
Re:Oil :P [OT] (Score:2)
> Only a communist liberal bashes this way....
Be fair. Both Liberals and Conservatives bash. Both Liberals and Conservatives make silly, critical remarks from hidden places. This is a thing that humans do normally. Belonging to any particular political party or idealism does not suddenly mutate you into some angelic being incable of ill will.
-JC
Send Some People Already! (Score:5, Interesting)
We really need to get some actual PEOPLE there to gather some real data. This photo interpretation is only a little bit better than Rorschach Ink blot for crying out loud.
The only real good that comes out of this is hopefully it will generate interest in the nimrods who don't see the value in getting some people on the planet.
To quote Arnold: "Get your butt to Mars!"
Re:Send Some People Already! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just by being there, we could destroy a biological system that has evolved in isolation for billions of years.
Re:Send Some People Already! (Score:2)
But then, killing off the humans wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen to this planet
(worst for us humans, but not for the planet)
What's really important about water (Score:2, Interesting)
We know from Odyssey that there is hydrogen in the subsurface (at most a couple of meters from the surface), and it has been propos
At what temprature does water freeze on mars? (Score:2, Interesting)
Rus
Re:At what temprature does water freeze on mars? (Score:2)
Current Data: Inconclusive (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a nice idea, but, as usual, the details don't seem to reinforce the headline much. I can't blame Slashdot (much) for being sensational this time--the story submitter copied the headline from the BBC article. Although the submitter did manage to make it just that tiny bit more sensationist by removing the quotes from the word flows.
The article says how the observed phenomena do all these various things that water should do. As Eric points out, water is not the only liquid. More generally, the question of importance is: what are the other possible causes for the observed phenonena? All we've really got are Dark Streaks and possible Dynamic Fluid Flow. That's not really so much to go on. Sure something's definitely happening down there, and it could be water or some other fluid--but that's all we know right now.
and at the same time (Score:5, Interesting)
darn, eh?
Water? Pfft. (Score:5, Funny)
Uhm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't we at least try to fix THIS eco-system before we go screw another one?
Just like a rush to War in Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixing stuff is hard work. Wrecking things is easy, maybe even... fun.
Re:Uhm. (Score:2)
Oh, and uhm, life did and does still persist on the Titanic
Would you buy Martian bottled water?... (Score:2)
Postage and Shipping not included. Add $4995.
Mars is geologically active? Cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not new! (Score:3, Interesting)
Enterprise Mission [enterprisemission.com]
So not only is echelon real, not it's confirmed that RCH was right all along. Starts to make these conspiracy shows a little more credible doesn't it?
Water on Mars - who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this lead people to think that the herculean effort of trying to terraform a planet like Mars is more feasible?
Does this lead credence to the concept of Mars previously having been in
Re:Water on Mars - who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Water on Mars - who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
If there is simple life on Mars, there is the possibility that life in this Solar system began on Mars, not Earth. Problems with life beginning on Earth are that it was too hot (around 4 billion years ago when they figure life should have begun) with meteors crashing into it continually so that the surface was basically a sea of lava. Mars was more hospitable at that time.
We've found fragments of Mars, blasted off by impacts, on Earth, so life
Some of us knew this more than 2 years ago (Score:3, Informative)
The rest is below.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/press-water.ht
Life on mars = ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from all of the theoligical implications, what would our response be? Would we collect it to near extinction ala early biologists (let's kill it, stuff it, and put it under glass) or would we just leave it alone? Would we bring it back here (unlikely) and if so, where would we put it?
I always kind of assumed that if we found life, it would be more simple than science fiction has postured, but i never really thought of the implications of that simplicity.
Geothermal heat? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not a geologist (or exogeologist for that matter) and so I'm not claiming any special knowledge here, but it keeps bugging the back of my mind - Any insights?
Anyone fancy... (Score:2)
pack a bowl (Score:3, Funny)
Liquid water can exist on Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
conspiracy theorists be damned (Score:3, Informative)
More details (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:4, Informative)
don't you kids read Kim Stanley Robinson? Mars terraforming has never been better researched and presented than in K.S.R.'s Mars Trilogy.
Read and learn all about Mars.
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:4, Informative)
For example, the books postulate huge underground aquifers - clearly, based on this story, that's something we haven't been able to determine yet. "There might be water" vs "There's enough water to fill several oceans" is a big leap!
How much of the other science that KSR relies on for terraforming to work (eg the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the chemicals that are available from the Martian soil) is based on things we actually know about Mars, rather than just guesses? Anyone have the background to know how likely these guesses are to turn out to be true, based on our current knowledge?
For that matter, does anyone even know the up-to-date status of this story and just how much water is supposedly there?
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing to remember though is if there is that much on the surface there is likely more deeper.. and the deeper you go the higher the preasure gets and the surface of mars is not far out of waters range for existence so the possibility of underground aquifiers in liquid form is getting stronger and stronger.... IE you might just be able to drill a well on mars much as you would on earth with the added complication of keeping it from boiling off once exposed to surface preassure/temps.
Enough for oceans ? I dunno. imagine if the earths oceans evaporated. For there to be enough underground water to replace them either that water seeped into the ground or there is that much down there already. However the idea of the evaporation that takes place on mars is that it does it and the atoms/molecules reach escape velocity. Dosn't mean there can't be alot of water down there but 'oceans' in terristrial terms I doubt very much. Can still be a honking lot of water though.
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "short time". Are we talking a million years? 10,000?
Even if the atmosphere only lasts a short period on a geological timescale, it would still give us plenty of time for useful colonisation. Maybe even enough time to develop a way to make the teraforming permanent. Remember how old our civilisation is. A couple of thousand years is a very long time.
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like my dad after a couple of burritos
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if the US is teh first country to reach Mars, creating huge amounts of CO2 won't be a problem at all. After a few years, there will be enough pickup trucks and SUV's to give us the same lovely greenhouse effect we have here on Earth right now
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:2, Insightful)
We still haven't charted all species on our own planet, and figuring out how they all interact in the ecosystem is a greater effort still.
It's not that I think it's impossible, I just doubt that the first attempt at terraforming would de successful. Using a subset of the possible flora and fauna would help a lot though.
Thoughts?
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Who said it needs to be managed? IMHO, the end justifies the means. We want the end result to support HUMANS, not Tigers, not butterflies. If they fit into what the ecology becomes, then dandy.
It's not that I think it's impossible, I just doubt that the first attempt at terraforming would de successful. Using a subset of the possible flora and fauna would help a lot though.
IMHO, "Success" means Humans can live there without oxygen ba
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As Crichton so elegantly put it, "Life finds a way."
I think the real issue at hand is not whether we can terraform Mars, but how we will.
In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, this very item was
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:2, Informative)
I am not an ecelogical expert (by no means), but in my opinion, you will still need to be very careful about what plants you bring there and you will probably need to manage them very closely. When you don't bring animals with you (birds spring to mind), that means that none of the seeds the plants produce get eaten (except for what the people harvest). This means that plants can and eventually will start growing where no people live (yet). If they are the wrong type, they could exhaust the soil, preventing
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple of reasons Mars has an atmosphere 1/100th of our own.
One reason is because Mars has less mass than the Earth. Hence there is less gravity [nasa.gov] to "hold" onto a thick atmosphere like what we have on Earth.
Secondly, Mars did have a denser atmosphere at one time, but was probably eroded away by the solar wind [nasa.gov]. The loss of a strong magnetic field [spacedaily.com] probably didn't help things either.
To prevent the erosion of some future atmosphere, you probably would need to restart the magnetic field. Maybe you could drill down to the core [thecoremovie.com] and plant a big bomb to restart it.
So terraforming is still (extremely) hard after all. I didn't get into the astronomical amount of energy required to do it either.
So it looks like that if you wanna live on Mars you're gonna have to strap on some airtanks.
And don't forget the long-johns either, because it's cold there too.
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:5, Funny)
now we just gorra remember to bring the following with us:
thanks for the info, I'll get back to ya:)
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:2)
Re:Terraforming wont be so hard after all.. (Score:3, Insightful)