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.
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.
Andromeda Strain?
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.
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
On MGS's Weekly Weather report for May 7, 2002.
Malin shows the "Erosion of North Polar Layers and Genesis of nearby Sand Dunes" and summarizes with The new views of the martian north polar cap obtained in 1999 and 2001 suggest that it may not contain as much water ice as previously believed. Indeed, the amount of ice may be as little as half of what was once thought.
Quite different from the latest revelations.
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?
We can not be the only living planet.
If we don't do it, somebody else will, and we will be playing catch up.
There's your explanation. It's another NASA hoax. They need funding and find it useful to generate hype.
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
Although the discovery of vast ice reserves brings forward the prospect of a manned landing on Mars, the American space agency (Nasa) is in no hurry to embark on a formal effort.
The agency will certainly not make any such commitment this week when the latest study results from the Mars Odyssey probe are officially published in Science magazine.
If the crew is relying on technology to manufacture its rocket fuel to get home from the hydrogen and oxygen locked up in the Martian ice then it had better work - first time
But the idea of a manned mission to the Red Planet is always there as the unstated climax to a series of ever more sophisticated robotic missions - probes that will roam across the Martian surface and bring back rocks to Earth for analysis.
For many, the promise of the Red Planet, and our generation's place in history, is only partially fulfilled if we do not eventually send people to Mars.
When and how are secondary issues. Somehow, there is something deep within our nature that will be unsatisfied if we just let the robots do it all.
Political will
Be assured, a manned mission will take time to devise and execute - something like 20 years in the current climate. That means the first person to walk on Mars is probably currently in his or her teens.
It would be a mission that lasted several years
The US went to the Moon for politics and then abandoned the satellite because the case for staying did not sway the politicians. There is no Mars race between superpowers in the offing, so going to the Red Planet will be for other reasons, and will take longer.
But then, hopefully, the commitment will also last longer than for the moonshots.
Getting to Mars will certainly be much more difficult. The Moon is only three days away; Mars is 300.
A round trip will take two and a half to three years and require a substantial stay on the Martian surface.
Return ticket
Recycling will be a major issue. A spacecraft cannot possibly carry all the food and water it needs for a crew of several. Our current recycling technology is good - but not good enough.
Mars facts
Equatorial diameter - 6,791km
Martian day - 24 hours, 37 minutes, 23 seconds
Martian year - 687 days
Mars-Sun distance - 227.7m km
Moons - Phobos and Deimos
No humans will have ever been so far away from Earth as the first Mars crew. How will that affect them psychologically? How will they get along with each other cooped up in such a small space for a year?
The crew will have to be specially selected to be able to cope. Should it be a mixed crew or all men, or all women?
And what of the technologies these emissaries will need to use when they land on Mars?
Knowing that vast swathes of water-ice just below the surface are there is one thing - being able to dig it up and turn it into fit drinking water or rocket fuel is another matter altogether.
All people
And remember, there will be no second chances on Mars. If the crew is relying on technology to manufacture its rocket fuel to get home from the hydrogen and oxygen locked up in the Martian ice then it had better work - first time.
One question intrigues me: who should put the first human footprint on Mars?
Should it be an American - as surely only the US will be in a position to mount such a mission for a long time to come?
[BARF]
One appealing suggestion I heard a few years ago is that included in any crew should be a representative of the poorest nation on Earth and that this individual should make the first footfall on another world as a pledge to the poor of planet Earth.
And if this person did become the first human to stand on the red soil of Mars, what would they say? Discuss.
See what happens when people start to believe garbled, conflicting, and exaggerated news on the all of these British websites? The Drudge Report and Slashdot were waving the first BBC story around for most of Sunday with the original title "Ice Oceans found on Mars". Now CTV et al have jumped on this bandwagon exaggerating hints about human missions to Mars in UK reports into rumors of an impending, full-blown announcement.
I was the only reporter in the room when Jim Garvin actually made his comments last week. No mention whatsoever was made of an impending announcement to send humans to Mars. He simply spoke of an upcoming announcement (sans a specific date) regarding subsurface water on Mars.
For what it is worth, NASA has never stopped looking at how to send humans to Mars - they just haven't done a lot of it in recent years. The human Mars mission announcement claims made in the CTV, Sunday Times, and Independent articles just don't pass the sanity test either. Were NASA to make such an important (and potentially expensive) announcement - you'd expect the NASA Administrator - likely in the presence of the President - to make such an announcement - not by Jim Garvin at an AGU conference or by anyone else at NASA.
lazy reporters; it figures
These reporters need to stop talking to each other - and expanding on each other's articles - and start talking to someone at NASA.
One final note: the irony is certainly not lost on me that the editor of NASA Watch (of all people) is chastising someone else for printing unsubstantiated and exaggerated rumors - or news that says one thing one day - and then something else the next.
Also, I would most certainly love to be dead wrong about all of this since I think such a commitment to a human mission to Mars would be a good idea.