Water Discovery Is Good News For Mars Colonists 247
astroengine writes "By now, we probably all know that there was once significant quantities of water on the Martian surface and, although the red planet is bone dry by terrestrial standards, water persists as ice just below the surface to this day. Now, according to a series of new papers published in the journal Science, NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity has found that the Mars topsoil is laced with surprisingly high quantities of the wet stuff. And this could be good news for future Mars colonists. 'If you take a cubic foot of that soil you can basically get two pints of water out it — a couple of water bottles like you'd take to the gym, worth of water,' Curiosity scientist Laurie Leshin, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, N.Y., told Discovery News."
water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that US public education is going to hell, but do we really need articles to explain what a pint is?
Re:water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:5, Funny)
Heathens??? Pot, meet kettle. All the "civilized" countries use metric nowadays - decijugs, centijugs, millijugs, and so on.
/ And the same units work for bra sizes, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Even in metric countries, people still use pint to refer to beer.
In a metric country, a pint is 50cl though. (a pint is actuallly between 47 and 56.8cl in the US or UK)
In any case, two pints is not a couple of bottles. A normal-sized bottle of water is 1.5l. So you'd need 3 pints to make a single bottle.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you clearly didn't make it to the 12th word... I'd guess you probably made it 10, but possibly only 4.
Do tell - How short of an attention span do you have?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. I'm not american and I have no idea how big a pint is. Can I get that in litres please?
Re: (Score:2)
What size are your glasses of beer? I thought that was a pretty standard glass size. It's the most beer you can drink at a reasonable pace before it gets warm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your bar is serving beer in 12 oz glasses, you need to go to a better bar. Any decent place in the US uses 16 oz glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Re:water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:5, Funny)
water bottles like you'd take to the gym
These comparisons are ridiculous- how can we know the amount of water indicated without knowing which gym we're taking it to, or what kind of workout we'll be doing? Is it aerobics? Weightlifting? Spin class? Are we just pretending to work out while ogling attractive people? Treadmill? We would need different amounts of water for each of these! Please provide information in units we can actually use.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb it down for me.. how many library of congresses is 2 pints?
Re: (Score:2)
Never underestimate a beowulf cluster of libraries of congress filled with martian soil and hot grits flying down the road on the back of a NASA rover.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. - I really love your
Re:water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:5, Insightful)
'If you take a cubic foot of that soil you can basically get two beer glasses-worth of water out it'
I think that's pretty much an international standard, right?
Re: (Score:2)
of course not. most places in europe will have 0.5l as the "standard" size, british (and themed pubs elsewhere) will use pint. well, one of them :)
Pint (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is how many boots of water will it contain.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is how many boots of water will it contain.
Boots of water are no good. You'd have to drink it all before you could sit the container down.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really quite bizarre. Nevermind 2 pints is a quart or 4 cups, both of which would carry more intuitive meaning than "2 pints", but they opt to provide an analogy for that when most people have no idea what a cubic foot looks like. I think it's more a comment of how reporting is going to hell than the education system. (After all, there's no evidence that the populace actually needed that 'helpful' comparison.)
Here's a thought, writers, maybe instead of a crap analogy just convert it to something use
Re: (Score:2)
Well they did say:
a couple of water bottles like you'd take to the gym, worth of water
Which is 1-liter. I don't know why they felt we couldn't handle that measurement and instead rounded it to pints and then added a metric-by-proxy measurement.
Re:water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:5, Insightful)
The average American kid probably knows better what a pint is better than what a gym is, or what kind of bottle you'd bring to one.
Re:water bottles like you'd take to the gym? (Score:5, Funny)
Lousy explanation using lousy measures ... if your audience can't understand standard units, just say what fraction by weight would be extractable water.
And if they don't understand fractions?
Re: (Score:2)
Lousy explanation using lousy measures ... if your audience can't understand standard units, just say what fraction by weight would be extractable water.
And if they don't understand fractions?
is it mandated by law in US not to offend stupid people by exposing them to something smarter than a rock?
Re: (Score:3)
So in your universe a pint is about 32 to 42 ounces?*
* I don't "Supersize" my order, but many do.
Re: (Score:2)
So in your universe a pint is about 32 to 42 ounces?*
* I don't "Supersize" my order, but many do.
Um, good point.*
* I don't eat at McDonald's at all, but I've heard of this "supersize" thing.
Re: (Score:3)
So in your universe a pint is about 32 to 42 ounces?* * I don't "Supersize" my order, but many do.
That only applies if the Martian soil is made of quartz. However if the Martian soil is actually made of anything else it will yield two American pints per cubic foot. Which is why I prefer the British pint in the first place because is closer to a half of a German liter which is larger than an American 26er which is closer to a paltry ripoff 750ml of French plonk.
Come up to Canada if you really want to get confused, order a full pint of some real beer and then think about how Milwaukee is ripping you Amer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thus the 32 to 42 oz.
OMG. 42 Australias of water? That's insane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A fraction by weight of a quantity specified by volume? Brilliant...
That's a whole lot of dirt, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you couple it with water/fluid recycling techniques, you stand a good change of doing well.
I find it strange that they would focus on just drinking water in the summary, when water will give you fuel and oxygen as well, and will likely be the greatest byproducts of this type of mining.
Re: (Score:2)
They also said "like you'd take to the gym" as a way of explaining pints, and used cubic feet.
In other words drinking water was the most "understandable" part of it for the audience it was written for, and oxygen and fuel would have just drawn blank stares.
Re:That's a whole lot of dirt, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Less than 1/1000 of common water is dissolved oxygen. Common air is about 20% oxygen. You would need around 200 pints of water for 1 breath of air. The water on mars probably contains even less dissolved oxygen.
Electrolysis to split the water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen is very energy expensive. Oxygen is very easy to compress and ship in tanks. Water is difficult to compress, and is heavy and difficult to ship.
Being able to source drinking water from Mars is much more important and practical than trying to use that water for anything else.
I suspect that an established, long-term colony on Mars would be more interested in splitting water for oxygen and fuel than shipping air from earth. But I agree that this may not be terribly practical with current technology. I've seen solar powered electrolysis rigs, but the output is comparatively tiny. Perhaps that there fusion power that I hear tell is (still) 50 years away might provide a solution. Fuse hydrogen to generate the energy required to split water molecules for more hydrogen fuel and oxygen to breathe.
Of course, another way to turn water into oxygen is grow things with it.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is that in shot glasses? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought since a certain missed orbital maneuver, people talking about Mars had agreed to only use metric...
Re:How much is that in shot glasses? (Score:5, Funny)
No. We agreed to use imperial only. Didn't we? Oh, shit! I have a phone call to make.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought since a certain missed orbital maneuver, people talking about Mars had agreed to only use metric...
Scientists studying Mars have only used metric for decades. American reporters only use imperial units. If you don't translate for them, they nearly always mess up the conversion. As far as that failed orbital maneuver, it was the defense contractor that use imperial units. As I said before, NASA and the scientists have used metric exclusively for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you label your units you're generally ok but for some reason people feel they don't need to maintain unit labels when they're programming.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why they should code in Ada, forced units of conversion for the win.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as you trust your eyes and common sense you're generally ok as well. Regarding that "certain maneuver" mentioned above, it was NASA who refused to correct course, despite their own (not mixed-up) sensors telling them that the probe was coming in too low.
Even properly converted and labeled units are no match for stupid management.
Re: (Score:2)
American reporters only use imperial units. If you don't translate for them, they nearly always mess up the conversion. As far as that failed orbital maneuver, it was the defense contractor that use imperial units.
Um, no, definitely not. Very few people in the US use imperial units. They tend to use US customary units. If you used imperial units, especially when talking volume, you'll confuse the heck out of everyone, since that's one of the areas where US customary units are quite different from imperial units.
Let me be the first to point out (Score:3)
Water Discovery Is Good News For Mars Colonists
Well, duh.
Now beer, that would be news!
Re: (Score:3)
If you have yeast, hops and barley ... you can make your own beer if there's water there.
Red Planet Ale sounds tasty.
Re:Let me be the first to point out (Score:5, Funny)
Great, let's send plants (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, next step, let's find some plants that might be able to grow there. Let's make Mars a green planet. I think that's really the next step, can we take a desolate planet and make it remotely suitable for life. I'd like to do the same thing with Venus, which I'm sure will be much more of a challenge.
Re:Great, let's send plants (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great, let's send plants (Score:5, Funny)
I generously offer as the first plant to go to Mars a sample of the very hardy crabgrass found in my yard. I'm sure it will do fine there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, next step is heating Mars up with probably greenhouse gasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched a tv documentary a while back that said the rate of loss of atmosphere is slow enough to make terraforming Mars possible. I'm not sure what you do about the lack of a magnetic field or ozone layer. I'm assuming it builds up over time after plants start generating oxygen.
Re: (Score:2)
Mars' atmosphere is already 98% carbon dioxide. If that's all it took, we'd be there by now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I've read that story [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It helps if the planet in question has a more substantial atmosphere than
about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals
if youre wanting to grow plants
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, next step, let's find some plants that might be able to grow there. Let's make Mars a green planet.
Actually the soil is fine to plant things in, you literally just have to accommodate for the temperature. At least from what the last rover showed us.
Cool. Start in a big geodesic dome at nice temperature and gradually change the atmosphere to make O2!
Re: (Score:2)
The only practical planet to terraform is Venus.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes it not enough? In any case, at least you can land a person on mars now, and grow plants inside some kind of protected environment. Venus would take ages to even get it suitable to get anything on the planet that won't melt.
Of course, for now it looks like neither will even start happening in any of our lifetimes.
Re:Great, let's send plants (Score:5, Informative)
Magnetism, actually. The magnetosphere (all the best names have been taken by old discoveries, btw) keep solar winds from stripping away the atmosphere of a planet. [wikipedia.org] That and, you know, gravity to keep the air stuck to the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, there is a atmosphere right now, what makes you say it can't possibly be enough? Did you do the math?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes it not enough?
Wikipedia says that Mars' atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of earth's. Thats not a good starting point.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, terraforming the planet would be hard, but filling a dome with oxygen is a good step. And yes, it has to be geodesic. Because it looks like the future.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you landed your plants along the equator, some should be able to live. Find some high desert plants or lichens. Land them on Mars and wait 30 years to see what happens. Unfortunately, some boring people oppose putting foreign life forms on the surface of Mars. Boo. This is the most important and interesting study of climate and evolution we could possibly ever make.
Re: (Score:2)
Lichens FTW; those hardy little fuckers can grow any-damn-where.
Re: (Score:2)
Where would these plants you speak of get the carbon dioxide and oxygen they need? You gonna give them little tiny scuba tanks?
Re: (Score:2)
Where would these plants you speak of get the carbon dioxide and oxygen they need? You gonna give them little tiny scuba tanks?
C'mon now, wiki is your friend. Mars atmosphere (what there is of it) is 98% carbon dioxide, and through photosynthesis, plants turn water (in the soil, see TFA) and carbon dioxide into oxygen and chemical energy for the plant.
Wow, helping my daughter with her biology homework finally paid off...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy carp. So all that's really needed (at least on the short term (without a strong magnetic field)) is heat.
I wonder if we can ignite one of the moons?
Re: (Score:3)
Imperial Dilemma (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Europeans use Wales as a measurement of area
>Criticize the US for using "comparative measurements"
Look at the troll. Look at the troll and laugh.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
âoeAbout 2 percent of the soil on the surface of Mars is made up of water, which is a great resource, and interesting scientifically.â
Re: (Score:2)
The Imperial system has dumbed Americans down to the point where they can only understand measurements by comparing distances, sizes, weights and volumes to things like football fields, elephants, bowling balls and water bottles.
Dumbed down! Are you kidding? The metric system is so simple and intuitive a two year old child can understand it! The American system of football fields and elephants is so complex and convoluted it takes a genius to get any real work done with it!
How deep is the love (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I RTFA and the other and my question still stands.
""If you take a cubic foot of that soil you can basically get two pints of water out it -- a couple of water bottles like you'd take to the gym, worth of water,""
A cubic foot (or should I convert to metric (sigh)) can be measured a varying number of ways from 1x1x1 to 1x2x.5 where depth can 1 foot to a few inches. To obtain water from such a shallow surface area would preclude the need for a large land source. I think it is grand that water could be th
Re: (Score:2)
h20 is pretty useless.
H2O is much better.
So? (Score:2)
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with;
1. suicide
2. homicide
3. radiation
4. equipment failure
5. missed supply missions
6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Water is only one part of the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
You're fun at parties, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with;
1. suicide
2. homicide
3. radiation
4. equipment failure
5. missed supply missions
6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Water is only one part of the equation.
All of which can happen right here on earth, I am sure people have died in droughts from "funding cuts" (not meeting aid promises), and missed supply missions. The chances are just higher on mars. Suicide and homicide, we don't really have any statistics to show how likely that is to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with;
1. suicide
2. homicide
3. radiation
4. equipment failure
5. missed supply missions
6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Water is only one part of the equation.
Pretty much just like here, then.
Yes (Score:3)
Because finding water on Mars was their greatest challenge.
While this is good news, they still need to be (Score:3)
very careful. They need to make sure that they bring plenty of appropriately sized filters or else something bad can happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waters_of_Mars [wikipedia.org]
Some good news about mars colonization. (Score:2)
3 things (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, my foot probably contains about two pints of water.
Re:burns the eyes! (Score:5, Funny)
Witch! It's 13.5 minas to the hogshead!*
*I spent way too much time working that out.
Re:Colonists will be great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just a matter of values but of fear of risk. Risk tolerance has become quite low and seems to just be getting worst as the place gets safer and the perception of the world gets smaller.
Risk is a relative concept. (Score:2)
Risk is a relative concept. When you think of how working conditions used to be when most people worked in factories or on farms, it's easy to see how people of the time would view the risk Apollo astronauts took as acceptable. But along with moves toward large scale agriculture and automation, the standards changed. It's not a bad thing, as production has become cheaper, there should be more resources available to make exploration safer. The reason the Space Shuttle disasters were so shocking is they shoul
Mars needs women (Score:2)
Thirsty ones.
Not everything must have "practical value." (Score:4, Insightful)
Not every human endeavor must have "practical value." You must be a lot of fun at parties. I'm just kidding, you obviously don't got to parties because they are an endless money/resource sink with no practical value.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but this obviously untrue. Pennies on the tax dollar actually go un-wasted. I agree that's not a good situation, but that's how it is. Also, I'm not the one who decides how to spend the tax-money. I wish they'd only take what they are willing to put to good use (or maybe nothing at all) and if that were the case, maybe we could use the money left over to fund a private space venture. But as long as they're taking it and wasting it, they might as well waste it on something interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy to give NASA a few extra $$ every year for them to "waste" - they don't get enough as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes. For the people in that sector. The rest of the economy which was far from world-leading was the disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they did: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/answering-mars/ [wired.com]