Surprising Further Evidence for a Wet Mars 192
Riding with Robots writes "When the robotic geologist Spirit found the latest evidence for a wet Mars, 'You could hear people gasp in astonishment,' said Steve Squyres, the lead scientist for the Mars rovers. 'This is a remarkable discovery. And the fact that we found something this new and different after nearly 1,200 days on Mars makes it even more remarkable. It makes you wonder what else is still out there.' The latest discovery, announced today, adds compelling new evidence for ancient conditions that might have been favorable for life, according to the rover team."
Looks like ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still more evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Solvents (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Looks like ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Still more evidence... (Score:3, Insightful)
After we dusted the surface with the first few manned missions where insertion didn't quite work as planned (like many of the robotic missions have done), then perhaps. Just start with the cost of the rovers and start multiplying by tens, lots of tens. I doubt your "science" advancements as well. I think we would be looking at golf balls being hit off the Valles Marineris, numerous flag-postings, and speak-with-a-scientist-live-on-Mars photoshoots before one stitch of science was even contemplated.
You don't send men until you know for sure that there is something there, and know for sure exactly where it is. Then and only then can you justify the (powers of ten) cost.
Re:Still more evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully the costs of manned space flight are coming down. alt.space is that crusade. Then all these heady justifications for why we need to spend so much tax payer money will go away too. If we're lucky, NASA's role in manned space flight will be completely transformed and science will finally be recognised as the secondary motivation that it always been.
The purpose of manned space flight is not science. It's not spin-offs. It's not pork projects. It's not "national pride". It's not communications. It's not even about the limits to growth on our tiny planet.
All that stuff is just reasons we make up to keep the population paying for it. We need these justifications to explain why someone who barely has enough money to make rent should be paying for a space station.
The purpose of manned space flight is human unity. It's the global selfless dedication to a goal greater than all of humanity. It's what we learn science and build surplus economies to achieve. It's the purpose of being alive now. We need to get off this rock right now. We need to be more than just one planet. We need this so that we can look up at night and know there are people up there. Not just a scientist or two.. but an entire civilization.
Finding new things is surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's hope we don't find actual life there (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, since we don't have any self-sustaining colonies off of the Earth, I'd say there is at least ONE difficult step we haven't passed yet.
Why so surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
The Olivine Question (Score:3, Insightful)
There may have been life on Mars. There may be significant amounts of water in the form of ice on Mars. It's exciting and it will take a long time to sort the geologic or areology of Mars [wikipedia.org]. We should be going to explore Mars because it is an interesting world, not because it might have water or harbored life. Those discoveries are the icing on the cake. Because if those are the reasons we go an don't find anything, that will tell us something, but we will be disappointed and may not be able to get public support nor the tax dollars for future missions. We should look for evidence of life and water, but that shouldn't be our sole focus nor should we expect to find either.
Be sceptical; water means money. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy:
1. get observation
2. concoct a theory INVOLVING WATER OR LIFE which explains the observation
3. report observation as evidence for water or life
The scientest who says "nah, it's just a reaction involving volcanic stuff and light, etc." is due for a bad employee review. He's not a team player.
Re:Let's hope we don't find actual life there (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're talking about a species being advanced enough to see humans as a threat and nuking us from orbit, of course.