Ice "Oceans" found on Mars

BBC News - Science and Technology (Linked via DRUDGE REPORT) ^ | Monday, 27 May, 2002, 09:31 GMT 10:31 UK | By Dr David Whitehouse - BBC News Online science editor

[callisto]

I hope not. I "posted" before reviewing what I had typed. I'm trying to go through the articles published in the last couple of days to find the reference. One of them refered to the north pole I'm sure. It stuck in my head because I thought they hadn't reimaged that area yet, but it could have been some "journalistic opinion" based on the writer's misunderstanding of the information he was given. Let me see what I can find for a more definitive answer.

[DoughtyOne]

[callisto]

Unmanned exploration is already planned for the near future. The Athena Rovers and Mars Express will liftoff in 2003. Long-range planning (20 years) for a manned mission should begin now, imho, especially while the public is behind it and the scientific research justifies it.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

let's do it for the right reasons, IE. to see what's there

The 'right reason' is not to explore, but to colonize.

[gcruse]

 Nasa may now commit your money taken from you
without your consent to a manned landing within 20 years.

If Congress appropriates the money, then given that
we elect our congressional representatives, the money
will be taken with our consent.  See how it works yet?

[callisto]

Found where I let myself be mislead by the reporter. I should be ashamed of myself! The author stated,

The same design of instrument was used on the Lunar Prospector spacecraft that discovered ice in the shadowed regions of the Moon's poles in 1998.

Also on board Mars Odyssey is a neutron spectrometer that registers evidence for underground ice in the same regions of the planet.

The BBC article says,"Researchers suspect the same to be true of the northern hemisphere, but cannot make the appropriate observations until later this year due to the Martian winter in the north.

My sincere apologies to all for posting the incorrect data. And thank you, Confederate Keyester, for bringing it to my attention so I could correct the information."

[callisto]

So true! LOL!

[aruanan]

First, that comment was posted by me, not WW, and second, what is your point?!?

First, I know. Second, if you can't tell, I was right in having directed the remark to WW and not you.

However, the point is that there are many reasons to go to Mars. If there was no point at all, then none of them would be good enough. If there is a point, then it doesn't make any difference if what someone considers to be a less-than-adequate reason is what gets us there as long as we get there.

[RightWhale]

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I have a couple of inconsequential thoughts on this.

First, the Look for Life should not be the goal. If life is found during the course of exploration, then, fine. Otherwise it is no more than a new search for the Fountain of Youth in Florida. Fiscal youth.
Second, it has been apparent for several years that there is at least some water on Mars. Now more has been spotted. Is Congress going to ask NASA to land men on Mars because of this?
Third, aside from demonstrating that NASA can send men to Mars, what would be the point? Apollo went nowhere, Mars could also go nowhere; at this time there is no indication that a Mars colony would ever repay the initial investment. A landing on Mars is far from establishing a settlement, but it's all they will do.

Fourth, where are we going overall, and what will we do when we get there?

[tictoc]

This has got to be the cutest satellite I've ever seen.

The long snout like an aardvark's, a pair of catcher's mitts for arms, the propeller sticking out of its cap, and best of all the adorable pair of bug eyes!

Where do I get my miniature replica?

[Balto_Boy]

Second, if you can't tell, I was right in having directed the remark to WW and not you.

Since I wasn't the only one who didn't get your point, you would have been right to not direct your post at anyone.

However, the point is that there are many reasons to go to Mars.

Since this an open forum, I would expect that it's OK to post an opposing point of view. My only point was that spending billions to prove that life existed there millions of years ago is not a good reason. If we go and find that's the case, then fine, but let's go to find out what's there, not just to prove someone's theory.

[sandydipper]

Beam me up Scotty - I volunteer to be the cook. I betcha all kinds of life was on Mars at one time and we'll find it.

We can not be the only living planet.

[texlok]

We need to land people on Mars and get a colony going, if only to have a presence there. I believe we should go back to the moon as well. We don't need other nations getting the jump on us. There are going to be those who say we have no business being on other planets. These people, had they lived hundreds of years ago, would have looked down on emmigration to the "New World" and would have had you believe the earth was flat.

If we don't do it, somebody else will, and we will be playing catch up.

[Moonman62]

Off-world economic expansion is an eventuality.

The problem is that all we've seen is plans for massive off-world government spending. At $100 billion, I guess the space station isn't a big enough money pit.

[green team 1999]

we must go to mars and find the truth.

[GrayBox]

Insiders suggest that, partly as a result of this finding, Nasa may now commit itself to a manned landing within 20 years.

There's your explanation. It's another NASA hoax. They need funding and find it useful to generate hype.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

A landing on Mars is far from establishing a settlement, but it's all they will do.

Columbus' first voyage also did not establish a permanent settlement, but a fair amount came from it in fairly short order. With water it is fairly likely that a self-sustaining colony could be established on Mars, which is far more hospitable than the Moon.

[BradyLS]

How about temperatures warmer than the freezing point of water?

I'd thought of that, but it doesn't immdeiately follow that raising the surface temp to O+ºC above will immediately cause water to bubble out of the ground or the topsoil to suddenly sink beneath the waves. Melting ice could just as easily sink further into the ground. All I'm asking for is a plausible scenario that connects the dots.