NASA about to announce flowing water on Mars?

[Eric Mc]

Yep - you can't beat a bloke with a shovel - even on Mars.

[jmorgan]

MartG said:

Eric Mc said:

Boots on the ground needed before too long.

Definitely

The rovers are good, but one geologist ( areologist ? ) on the ground could have covered the same amount of ground and done the same amount of work in a couple of days instead of several years

Around 5 miles and 20 odd miles for Spirit and Opportunity, since 2004.

But one thing that keeps coming back to my mind over this man vs machine is Orange soil.

[Derek Smith]

jmorgan said:

MartG said:

Eric Mc said:

Boots on the ground needed before too long.

Definitely

The rovers are good, but one geologist ( areologist ? ) on the ground could have covered the same amount of ground and done the same amount of work in a couple of days instead of several years

Around 5 miles and 20 odd miles for Spirit and Opportunity, since 2004.

But one thing that keeps coming back to my mind over this man vs machine is Orange soil.

There was an article in a science magazine suggesting that the reason we've been able to retain our atmosphere is that the collision, which gave birth to the mood, also brought energy to the iron core, and increased its mass and so gave us our magnetic field. Had this not happened we might well be the same as Mars.

The implications are not that new but at least there is confirmation.

Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 29th September 15:56

[Eric Mc]

I don't think it confirms anything regarding our molten iron core. Mars' lack of an active molten iron core can be explained due to the fact that it cooled more rapidly than earth - as it is a much smaller planet.

We don't need a collision theory to explain our molten core.

And the collision theory for the formation of our moon is still only a theory.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

I don't think it confirms anything regarding our molten iron core. Mars' lack of an active molten iron core can be explained due to the fact that it cooled more rapidly than earth - as it is a much smaller planet.

We don't need a collision theory to explain our molten core.

And the collision theory for the formation of our moon is still only a theory.

I think it was the New Scientist. There was no confirmation, just a suggestion that, according to the theory of planetary formation, the energy in 'our' molten core was more than could be accounted for. The impression I got was that the collision hypothesis was supported by the evidence of the energy levels.

Isn't all science 'only' theories? At the moment, and in last week's NS, there were suggestions that Einstein was wrong.

[Eric Mc]

There will always be guesses going on - especially when we are talking about events that happened four and a half billion years ago.

The planetary collision theory came about as a way of explaining why the Apollo astronauts found little or no volatiles in moon rock. In more recent years, volatiles HAVE been found in the Apollo samples (better analytical techniques reveals that they are there) so maybe the planetary collision theory is already beginning to fade a bit.

It may well be correct but it has lost part of its original; "raison d'etre".

[Simpo Two]

Derek Smith said:

Isn't all science 'only' theories? At the moment, and in last week's NS, there were suggestions that Einstein was wrong.

Einstein was right until someone found a slight improvement.

Newton was right until someone found a slight improvement.

Stig of the Dump was right until someone found a slight improvement.


I'm amused that gravity is still officially only a theory. It seems totally consistent to me.

[Derek Smith]

Simpo Two said:

Einstein was right until someone found a slight improvement.

Newton was right until someone found a slight improvement.

Stig of the Dump was right until someone found a slight improvement.


I'm amused that gravity is still officially only a theory. It seems totally consistent to me.

Do you want certainties? If so, then science isn't for you.

Gravity exists of course, but the explanation of its causes and effects are only theories. Principia was the work of genius, not to mention Newton's other inventions. He was, of course, spot on and 300 years or so later men flew to the Moon using Newtonian physics. Yet he was wrong.

The test of a theory is whether it predicts. But that doesn't mean it is set in stone.

Quantum physics is, it seems, largely accepted by scientists but I would suggest that most would only be too pleased to hear an alternative explanation.

[drdino]

(Scientific) theory-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Eric Mc]

Veering badly off topic.

[patmahe]

This discovery has been amazing, nature almost always finds a way given any conditions to support life. I'd imagine if we investigate more we'll find signs of at least micro-life forms, especially when you consider some of the areas life is sustained here on Earth.

Interesting times

[Eric Mc]

As ever, the media went off on a tangent discusing the likelihod of "Life on Mars". The REALLY important aspect of this confirmation of flowing liquid water on Mars RIGHT NOW is that it makes a human trip to Mars a lot more feasible.

[jmorgan]

Yeah, but part of the problem will be "Keep Mars uncontaminated" protests from the usual suspects.

I reckon the first person on Mars should drops a certain sweet wrapper to rub it in.

Edit. Probably be "Keep Mars for the Martians"

[Eric Mc]

Too many people seem to think humans are some sort of disease.

[Hooli]

Eric Mc said:

Too many people seem to think humans are some sort of disease.

More of a parasite I'd say.

[Eric Mc]

No more than any life form is. It's the nature of life - especially animal life - to live off other biology as well as the resources a planet has to offer.

[Guvernator]

Ok, this may sound like a stupid question but why is finding water on Mars important news? Is it that it makes a trip to Mars for Humams easier\more likely or am I missing something else obvious?

[Guvernator]

ash73 said:

Combination of factors

1. Water may mean life. Finding life on another planet would mean life on Earth is not unique. That would completely change many people's philosophy regards our place in the cosmos.

2. The salts they detected are basically rocket fuel, and water (if found) can be separated into hydrogen fuel and life sustaining oxygen; and potentially enable us to grow food in hydroponics.

It could change everything. But all they've really found are some hydrated salts, and there are lots of other problems (e.g. radiation).

Ok so I get point 2 could be another important step on our trip to the stars, all well and good but I don't see how point 1 could possibly change the viewpoint of anyone but the most ignorant. Surely anyone with a modicum of intelligence already knew that the possibility of some form of life on other planets was almost a given unless you subscribe to the theory that the Earth is unique which is pretty far fetched for even the most determined bible basher.

If they'd dug up some Martian fossils I'd be a bit more surprised\impressed but finding what might be evidence of water which probably occurs on countless millions of planets in our galaxy alone, sorry but meh, surely we already knew the answer to that without having to go see it or is the whole point to be smug and say "see, we were right"?

[alock]

Guvernator said:

Ok so I get point 2 could be another important step on our trip to the stars, all well and good but I don't see how point 1 could possibly change the viewpoint of anyone but the most ignorant. Surely anyone with a modicum of intelligence already knew that the possibility of some form of life on other planets was almost a given unless you subscribe to the theory that the Earth is unique which is pretty far fetched for even the most determined bible basher.

Depends what you mean by life? It's worth reading up about the concept of The Great Filter in the Fermi Paradox

[Guvernator]

alock said:

Depends what you mean by life? It's worth reading up about the concept of The Great Filter in the Fermi Paradox

Oh I'm very much aware that the chances of finding intelligent life within the human timespan and distance are very very remote, however the chances of finding water or evidence of SOME sort of life, even if it's micro-organisms or some such is WAY more likely, enough to be considered a dead cert in comparison I'd say so not really sure why in those terms, this is seen as such a big deal?