Very exciting. I couldn't find it posted on FR after a search I I posted this. If it was posted previously please accept my apologies.
Posted on 05/27/2002 8:58:45 AM PDT by vannrox
This is truly amazing and a profound discovery. The chances of life being found on the planet could be great. Micro organisms could very well exist on this planet or just under the surface
This is a tremendous discovery.
A few people back in 1492 probably said the same thing about the New World. Did you read the part where there's enough water to cover the planet in earth-like oceans? If we created some genetically-engineered primative life forms that could live on Mars we could eventually turn the place into Earth II.
Andromeda Strain?
I saw that. If true, why doesn't it anyway? What conditions need to be met to create a state of earth-like oceans on Mars?
For years NASA would not say water was on Mars despite positive proof, at least publicly. They would dragged their feet poo poing the idea. It took something like this to hit them over the head where they could not deny water exists.
Insiders suggest that, partly as a result of this finding, Nasa may now commit itself to a manned landing within 20 years.
should read: "Insiders suggest that, partly as a result of this finding, Nasa may now commit your money taken from you without your consent to a manned landing within 20 years.
Any thoughts?
They may not even find traces of water. This was discovered from orbit, not from actual samples.
They wasted no time using this discovery to call for a manned Mars landing. I'm not saying there is no water on Mars and I'm all in favor of exploration, but this sounds more like a play for more funding then an actual discovery to me.
I would doubt that, but it's certainly something to consider.
THE US space exploration agency NASA will this week announce plans to put a man on Mars, following the discovery of huge ice fields beneath the planet's surface – which means astronauts 42 million kilometres from home could have fresh water, if not on tap, at least on hand.At a conference of planetary scientists in Washington, Jim Garvin, head of the Mars exploration program at NASA, will say the agency plans to send a manned mission to the red planet within 20 years.
Until now, nobody has seriously planned such a mission because of the impossibility of providing enough water.
Mr Garvin will disclose that NASA's Martian explorer satellite, Odyssey, has detected millions of tonnes of ice underground. The deposits are so big they could be the remains of former oceans. If so, there is a good chance the planet once held life.
The presence of ice means astronauts could mine for what could be potable mineral water. Geological evidence shows areas where ice appears to have melted near the Martian equator and burst to the surface.
Abundant supplies, scientists say, could enable them to create conditions suitable for colonising Mars.
NASA tentatively announced earlier this year it had detected large amounts of hydrogen, one of the components of water. But this week scientists will go further.
William Boynton of the University of Arizona, who has analysed the Odyssey findings, said the signal for water had been seen by three instruments.
Colin Pillinger, professor of planetary science at Britain's Open University, said: "If there was water on Mars then there could have been life too – and there may still be signs of it now. That is what we'll be looking for."
The Sunday Times
This is big news. We should be able to create an atmosphere with that much water. I would really like to know what happened to it?
Indications are that 3 different instruments have detected the signs. That's a pretty good start at making an estimate in my opinion.
Maybe we should land an SUV there and just let it idle. :) The thin atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide so should support plant life which then produces oxygen. Mars and Earth at one point were very much alike. Mars may not have enough gravity to sustain an earth like atmostphere but it should be possible to build a super astrodome.
Do these instruments use different methods or the same, and do any of them test actual samples?
That's a pretty good start at making an estimate in my opinion.
I would agree, except the findings are being reported along side a call to go to Mars. Not that I'm opposed to exploration, but let's do it for the right reasons, IE. to see what's there, not to pour money into trying to prove the theory of life on Mars.
A complete geological and astro-biological survey of the planet would be a good start. From there, we should be able to determine the economic payback for our investment. Economics is what will push space exploration as opposed to just scientific endeavor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.