• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Water Close To Being Discovered On Mars

Dryson

Dryson

Commodore
Commodore
https://www.space.com/41272-mars-liquid-water-below-ice-cap.html?utm_source=notification

The Red Planet just got quite a bit bluer, with scientists announcing the discovery of what they believe is a lake that's about 12 miles across and hidden below a mile (1.6 kilometers) of ice at the south pole of Mars.

What I think that scientists have found on Mars is the bottom of the oceans of Mars. Mainly the circulatory systems that would be needed so that water could evaporate into an atmosphere and the condense back into water.

See the Miller-Urey experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

On Mars the same Miller-Urey experiment would need to take place in order to create a circulation effect of the gases in the atmosphere of Mars.

Over hundreds of millions of years after the water evaporated, winds on Mars broke the high mountains down into grains of fine sand like material that covers Mars today. I would have to say that if science drilled down to where erosion has been found to not have taken place that the volume of soil on top it and all across the surface of Mars would be more than enough to build plateaus.

When we look at Mars, especially in the regions where water has been discovered that those areas are in fact part of the circulation system of Mars once vibrant oceans.
 
"Life means water, but water doesn't mean life"

I'm glad the article made that distinction. Everywhere NASA finds some hint of liquid water in the solar system there's always this argument for the possibility of life there being thrown around. Water under the ice sheet is something interesting, I guess. It may be useful to astronauts in the far distant future, but honestly ... unless NASA provides us with images of aliens throwing a Frisbee around under an alien sun of a distant planetoid, I just can't get that excited about findings of this kind ...
 
Great news.
I hope they will find the first form of extraterrestrial life there.
 
2takesfrakes said:
"Life means water, but water doesn't mean life"

I'm glad the article made that distinction. Everywhere NASA finds some hint of liquid water in the solar system there's always this argument for the possibility of life there being thrown around. Water under the ice sheet is something interesting, I guess. It may be useful to astronauts in the far distant future, but honestly ... unless NASA provides us with images of aliens throwing a Frisbee around under an alien sun of a distant planetoid, I just can't get that excited about findings of this kind ...
Click to expand...
If they were to find methane venting from the vicinity of the lake, or organic chemicals that could have formed from methane percolating through to the surface, that would be pretty much the silver bullet for at least some form of life on Mars. For some reason the standards for proof of life on Mars are far more extreme than I think they should be. For some scientists, they're not going to call it until it's the WB Frog dancing around in front of them on a Martian lillypad.

and I can understand why. If you show life, even at some archea or bacterial form, exists on Mars, it lowers the odds tremendously that life forms on worlds that have, at some point, friendly conditions to life. And that makes, sense, honestly. Life on earth formed extremely early in the geological history of our planet. It seems to have developed as soon as it could, specifically as soon as it cooled and the icy comet bombardments provided enough water. If the general scientific consensus is that Mars does have life or had it at some point, we must begin to operate from a different proposition than previously, that Goldilocks-zone worlds and icy moons are all presumed biospheres. That wouldn't change too much the care that is currently taken to autoclave landers sent to these worlds to prevent contamination, but it may cause us to rethink the idea of planetary settlement and terraforming.
 
Water alone on other planetoids gets all the hype in the media, as if that's all it takes, or ever took. That's like believing a bag of flour is all you need to bake a cake. NASA's under extreme pressure to "justify" the billions it spends, so every so often, we get these meaningless, bullshit theories based on non-specific results to make it sound like they're onto something. I see this shite all the time, I'm an Artist. Well ... truth be told, I DO have a day job, but that's the price you pay for being a Fine Artist who has yet to Break the Ice™ as it were. It's part and parcel of having a showing, or just selling Art, generally, that you blow smoke up the buyer's ass. The buyer in this case, though, is the American Public who flips the bill for NASA's prestige missions. So, NASA has to keep publishing bullshit it keeps vague enough to allow for egghead spin doctors to work their magic. Dinosaur Museums do this, too.

Ever notice how they never publish "recent" findings? It's always from a couple years back, or so. What they're really doing is timing this release of information to coincide with school bus tours and the whole bit, when these museums need revenue. Is it unreasonable, though, to expect another planet in a solar system already known to contain life, to have some of its own? No, on the surface, it makes perfect sense. In fact, in World War II days, the general assumption actually was just that, until The Sixties came along and revealed Mars as a dead planet. Ever since, there's been nothing but hype to keep blowing money on it, anyway. It's the most visited, studied planet, other than Earth, with I don't even know how many sattelites around it, right now ... a dozen or more, there has to be. I'd love to be proven wrong, to have NASA discover a new form of life there, because it only benefits us. To have that life to compare to ours will open new doors in medicine we never expected ... we may even cure the Common Cold. But spinning theories over readings that are hardly conclusive is just blowing smoke up everybody's ass and I hate when NASA does it.
 
2takesfrakes said:
Water alone on other planetoids gets all the hype in the media, as if that's all it takes, or ever took. That's like believing a bag of flour is all you need to bake a cake. NASA's under extreme pressure to "justify" the billions it spends, so every so often, we get these meaningless, bullshit theories based on non-specific results to make it sound like they're onto something. I see this shite all the time, I'm an Artist. Well ... truth be told, I DO have a day job, but that's the price you pay for being a Fine Artist who has yet to Break the Ice™ as it were. It's part and parcel of having a showing, or just selling Art, generally, that you blow smoke up the buyer's ass. The buyer in this case, though, is the American Public who flips the bill for NASA's prestige missions. So, NASA has to keep publishing bullshit it keeps vague enough to allow for egghead spin doctors to work their magic. Dinosaur Museums do this, too.

Ever notice how they never publish "recent" findings? It's always from a couple years back, or so. What they're really doing is timing this release of information to coincide with school bus tours and the whole bit, when these museums need revenue. Is it unreasonable, though, to expect another planet in a solar system already known to contain life, to have some of its own? No, on the surface, it makes perfect sense. In fact, in World War II days, the general assumption actually was just that, until The Sixties came along and revealed Mars as a dead planet. Ever since, there's been nothing but hype to keep blowing money on it, anyway. It's the most visited, studied planet, other than Earth, with I don't even know how many sattelites around it, right now ... a dozen or more, there has to be. I'd love to be proven wrong, to have NASA discover a new form of life there, because it only benefits us. To have that life to compare to ours will open new doors in medicine we never expected ... we may even cure the Common Cold. But spinning theories over readings that are hardly conclusive is just blowing smoke up everybody's ass and I hate when NASA does it.
Click to expand...


How do you not prove that water exists on Mars without spending billions in the proof?

If early sailors would never have challenged the "It is what it is" mentality of the world being flat and royalty spent millions in gold doubloon then America would never have been found and the Flat Earthers would be in charge of the planet.

Like you said you hate NASA blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

Ever notice how they never publish "recent" findings? It's always from a couple years back, or so.

It takes NASA a few years to translate the data to get the correct information that way instead of smoke they are tickling your ass with a pretty feather.
 
The "couple years back" comment was specifically about findings made in paleontology. Museums and so forth get the most bang for the buck releasing dinosaurian discoveries and facts the way they do, to make money. Dinosaurs have been extinct for quite some time, so there's no urgent need for information about them. In fact, if you're ever curious about what dino-innards were like, just buy a whole chicken. Same thing. But NASA, of course, has no choice but to be timely with its results because there's no cause to delay ...
 
IMHO, the reason the scientific community is so guarded about this topic is anything that opens the door for potential signs of life or past life is seen as a societal hot-potato. This goes for Mars, Enceladus, Europa, Titan, etc...

To those who aren't resistant to the idea of extraterrestrial life, the idea that there may still be some liquid water on Mars or elsewhere is hardly bombshell news. We all know that the conditions on Mars doesn't lend itself towards standing water on the surface, but considering its history it makes sense that there would probably be some residual sheltered spots that could still support some water (or at least...mud).

What I don't like is how Nasa's probes always seem to be ill-equipped to search for traces of life/microbes. It's like they automatically assume life isn't there so the instruments don't have what it takes to determine it one way or another and so any tests they do are inconclusive. Even if the prevailing opinion is that there isn't life, they should send proper instrumentation regardless so as not to fuel the paranoid conspiracy set.
 
The surface of Mars is sterilised by Solar and Cosmic radiation and is drier than the driest desert on Earth. Surface life, were it to exist at all, would not, could not, be in such an abundance that the simple instruments NASA could cram on a lander could detect anything. When NASA packs its rovers with instruments, the name of the game is the most utilitarian value for every dollar spent. In short ... it would be a waste of money. I seriously doubt Life can just exist in solitary pockets like what Mars could provide, anyway. On Earth, all life is interdependent, however sheltered it may seem. And whatever resources were there to keep that life going in these solitary spaces on Mars would not find themselves being replenished. They would eventually die out because they'd run out of food and they'd poison themselves with billions of years worth of pissing in the well. But let's say in some magical, mystical way, there's still life on Mars. It exists in areas inaccessible to these rovers we keep sending, because they're not bulldozers. It's just not possible for NASA to directly detect life on Mars.
 
2takesfrakes said:
The "couple years back" comment was specifically about findings made in paleontology.
Click to expand...

The thing about recent findings in terms of paleontology is that it literally takes years for findings to be corroborated which is why you never see things happen over night. There's lots of deliberation going on behind the scenes and they only ever release information when they feel they're ready to publish a find. It's got nothing to do with school groups and everything to do with how their part of the scientific community works. I had a similar discussion with a Paleontologist uncle of mine years back who explained to me how his field of work worked. It's never overnight due to what's involved in the whole process of determining something, and sometimes that process can take as much as 10 years or more. These periods of discovery will come with new trends and beliefs to come out of their community. It's why feathered dinosaurs, historically speaking, is technically an old theory that never took until rather recently.
 
Owain Taggart said:
It's got nothing to do with school groups and everything to do with how their part of the scientific community works. I had a similar discussion with a Paleontologist uncle of mine years back who explained to me how his field of work worked.
Click to expand...
16332418070_b50e79b486_o.jpg
 
2takesfrakes said:
The surface of Mars is sterilised by Solar and Cosmic radiation and is drier than the driest desert on Earth. Surface life, were it to exist at all, would not, could not, be in such an abundance that the simple instruments NASA could cram on a lander could detect anything. When NASA packs its rovers with instruments, the name of the game is the most utilitarian value for every dollar spent. In short ... it would be a waste of money. I seriously doubt Life can just exist in solitary pockets like what Mars could provide, anyway. On Earth, all life is interdependent, however sheltered it may seem. And whatever resources were there to keep that life going in these solitary spaces on Mars would not find themselves being replenished. They would eventually die out because they'd run out of food and they'd poison themselves with billions of years worth of pissing in the well. But let's say in some magical, mystical way, there's still life on Mars. It exists in areas inaccessible to these rovers we keep sending, because they're not bulldozers. It's just not possible for NASA to directly detect life on Mars.
Click to expand...

If that is true then how did life survive on the surface of the Earth before water was present? Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars. Until the core of the Earth formed a proper EM field to repel the same solar and cosmic radiation life shouldn't have been able to exist on Earth.

The core of Earth had to take several hundred million years to form properly before life formed on Earth based on what you are saying.
 
Dryson said:
If that is true then how did life survive on the surface of the Earth before water was present? Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars. Until the core of the Earth formed a proper EM field to repel the same solar and cosmic radiation life shouldn't have been able to exist on Earth.

The core of Earth had to take several hundred million years to form properly before life formed on Earth based on what you are saying.
Click to expand...
The current thinking is that water must have been present on the Earth for life to get started - somewhere around 3.8 billion years ago or 750 million years after the Earth formed.
 
Earth is in the goldilocks zone but how big is that zone, could we have been a little closer or further then our present orbit? How close to our orbit could Mars have been to support life as we know it?
 
Dryson said:
If that is true then how did life survive on the surface of the Earth before water was present? Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars. Until the core of the Earth formed a proper EM field to repel the same solar and cosmic radiation life shouldn't have been able to exist on Earth.

The core of Earth had to take several hundred million years to form properly before life formed on Earth based on what you are saying.
Click to expand...
We know that most of the water in the oceans and the rest of the planet is very ancient - on the order of 4 billion years old. Life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago. Interestingly, Earth's Magnetic Field is 3.5 billion years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top