Mars Odyssey Detects Signs of Water

BBC ^ | Friday, 14 December, 2001, 16:50 GMT | David Whitehouse

[grimalkin]

The Mars Odyssey (MO) spacecraft has made its first significant discovery: it has detected large deposits of hydrogen - possibly water - near the Red Planet's poles.

Reporting MO's preliminary observations, scientists said the first pass by the probe's neutron spectrometer had revealed evidence of the element in soil at high latitudes.

"It is big," Bill Feldman, of Los Alamos National Laboratory, said of the strength of the signal picked up by Odyssey.

The results indicate large amounts of hydrogen on the surface, a likely sign of water-ice. The observations "are precisely what you would expect for a very hydrogen-rich environment", Feldman said.

Water, water, everywhere?

American space agency (Nasa) scientists said they were excited by the initial indications of hydrogen deposits, describing the readings sent back as clearer, more definite and much earlier than had been expected.

"We were expecting that it would take many orbits to determine the presence of hydrogen," said Stephen Saunders, a MO scientist. "But we saw it the very first time."

Scientists already know that water exists on Mars; it is frozen in the polar icecaps and exists as vapour in thin clouds.

There is also good evidence that water flowed on the planet's surface in the recent past, carving out deep channels and canyons.

Mapping mission

Significant water-ice deposits easily accessible from the surface would make it much more likely that life existed at some stage on Mars.

The MO is currently tightening its orbit around the Red Planet for a mapping mission that will get underway in January. It will use a battery of instruments to survey the planet's surface.

As well as the neutron spectrometer, its gamma-ray spectrometer will chart the chemical composition of the surface. Its infrared camera will peer at areas on the night side of Mars.

"We think it will be a very exciting winter and spring," James Garvin, a Nasa scientist, told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

[RadioAstronomer]

I do the probability is at least 1 due to the fact we are here!

[PatrickHenry]

I do the probability is at least 1 due to the fact we are here!

Too pessimistic. One can't really know for sure, not yet anyway, but the "odds" seem better than that. It's 100% certain that the chemical components for life abound. So if those materials find themselves in the proper environment (planet with an earth-like orbit, liquid water, etc.) it would seem almost inevitable that some kind of life would pop up: bacteria, algae ... something. And that's just for planet-based life. All kinds of funky stuff awaits us on comets, asteroids, and perhaps other environments. It's a fairly safe bet either way, because none of us will be around when a definitive answer comes in, but my bet is that there's life virtually everywhere it can get a toe-hold (or pseudopod-hold).

[PatrickHenry]

Ooops. I thought you said "1%" but on re-reading, you probably meant to say "100%".

[Exnihilo]

Again, why does our existance on this planet have any relation to the existance of life on any other planets? Have you ever taken a course in probability?

[RadioAstronomer]

Have you ever taken a course in probability?

ROFL! All I said was the probability of life in the universe is 100% guaranteed. It is here (us). I like using the Drake equation to determine the probability of life existing elsewhere.

[Exnihilo]

True, but all that can be said is that the probability of life is 100% on one planet in the universe. This says nothing of other planets.

[Johnny Shear]

Can anyone answer this??

NOTE....I mean NO disrespect to ANYONE!!

I used to work with a guy who was a Fundementalist Christian...At least that is the best way I can describe it. Basically, his religion believes the bible is literally correct. Everything...The earth is only 7000 years old. It took God literally 6 days to create the earth...And other such stuff...

They also believe that earth is the ONLY planet with life on it....Period!

Now...My first question is this...

Do more "Traditional Christians" (Or, any other religion for that matter) believe the same thing about life ONLY being on earth? Because God created life on earth ONLY?

And if so....If we are to find some kind of life on Mars or anywhere else, what happens to these people? Seems like societal breakdown to me. All their beliefs would be proven false...

[Joe Hadenuf]

You may be right. But I am sure you are wrong.

[RadioAstronomer]

You are totally correct. Life on this planet does not "prove" life on others. However the Drake equation gives us a prediction of how much life MAY be found elsewhere.

I did not spend 7 years of my life building and operating a radio telescope looking for SETI if I did not think that life (tool building life :)) was possible somewhere else in the universe.

[Exnihilo]

But why do you feel that this life is likely, as opposed to merely possible? What is the drake equation and what possible assertions can it make about life on other worlds? Sure, I readily concede that life on other planets is *possible*, but is it probable? That's the question.

I mean, let's be honest. What is the probability of life from non-living matter (ie. abiogenesis)? Saying that it is 100% because we are here is illogical since biological origins are a total mystery. That is unless you're basing all of this reasoning on the philosphical assumption made by all of science, that being naturalism which itself cannot be empirically verified with respect to biological origins.

[Exnihilo]

You may be right. But I am sure you are wrong.

Why? I take the approach to extraterrestrial life that atheists take to God. There is no evidence for God, so there is no reason to believe in God. God is possible, and so is extraterrestrial life. At best you should be agnostic with respect to extra-terrestrial life. I still fail to see how one can make any assertions about the probability of life on other planets without some knowledge about the probability of life on other planets, which is a tautology.

[RadioAstronomer]

Honestly, I do not BELIEVE in other life. I SUSPECT there is other life. SO I look for it with the best available tools we have (radio telescopes). If I find intelligent life, this will have a profound impact on our own view and relationship in the universe. If we never find life out there, this too is a profound statement. So what I endeavor is a win win situation. Either way we learn a little more about our place in the universe.

[Exnihilo]

I agree with you on that! :)

[RadioAstronomer]

And if so....If we are to find some kind of life on Mars or anywhere else, what happens to these people? Seems like societal breakdown to me. All their beliefs would be proven false...

Not false per say, but there would be some fast shuffling! :)

[RadioAstronomer]

I agree with you on that!

Cool! :)

[Joe Hadenuf]

I still fail to see how one can make any assertions about the probability of life on other planets without some knowledge about the probability of life on other planets, which is a tautology

They are my beliefs, and I base my beliefs on the shear size of the universe and the material in the universe, consisting of trillions of suns, vast island galaxies of stars with millions of planets orbiting billions of stars systems. I have heard estimates that there are probably a million stars for every single grain of sand on Earth.

No offense but If you had lived hundreds of years ago, I am confident you would have been one of the people that believed the Earth was flat because there was nothing known about the size or shape of the Earth, therefore, it must be flat, or maybe when the sun was eclipsed, you would have thought the sun was being eaten by the sun monster.

I am going to risk the lable of practicing tautology again, by saying, yes, it is possible that no other life exists outside of the microscopic, tiny object we call Earth, but I would seriously doubt it. Try and open your mind a little and dwell on the size of the Galaxy, which is microscopic compared to the Universe. Try to imagine a piece of string with only one end. The Human mind will have difficulty with that image. The vast size of the Universe is beyond Human imagination. Lots can happen outside our little home called Earth.

[Exnihilo]

No offense but If you had lived hundreds of years ago, I am confident you would have been one of the people that believed the Earth was flat because there was nothing known about the size or shape of the Earth, therefore, it must be flat

No offense taken, because you're wrong. I would have indeed said there was at that time no evidence (known) that the Earth were round, however I would not have made the conclusion that therefore it must not be round. I would have withheld my conclusion until some empirical evidence was had. Please note I have not made any assertions about life in our universe, I simply see no reason to believe that life exists anywhere but on Earth. Pointing to the vastness of the universe says nothing whatsoever about the probability of life existing elsewhere.

[Exnihilo]

I am going to risk the lable of practicing tautology again, by saying, yes, it is possible that no other life exists outside of the microscopic, tiny object we call Earth, but I would seriously doubt it.

And again, I'd ask why you doubt it. What is that doubt based upon? Again, I'd point to the *fact* that the vastness of the universe says absolutely nothing about the probability of life existing elsewhere but on Earth.

IF we were to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible, which we have not (in fact every attempt has failed miserably), then we would have the first bit of evidence. We would still need to then determine what precursors are necessary for said abiogenesis, and then after that we would need to determine the ratio of planets with these precursors to planets without these precursors based on a sample of known planets, and then after that we would need to determine the probability of abiogenesis occuring once the needed precursors were in place. None of these things has been done, and many people, such as myself, suspect they never will be done. I for one, do not believe abiogenesis can occur. Life from non-living matter is, in my humble opinion, not possible. When and if it is shown otherwise, I will update my belief. Until then, we can make no assertions one way or the other about life existing anywhere else in the universe.

On the other hand, you can make the assumption of scientific naturalism and base your conclusions off of this assumption, but as I mentioned, naturalism is a scientific philosophy, not empirically verified by science with respect to biology.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I'd point to the *fact* that the vastness of the universe says absolutely nothing about the probability of life existing elsewhere but on Earth.

Of course it does. If there were only two other planets in the Universe you may have a point, but there are millions, possible billions of planets. This makes the odds of life elsewhere great. Think about it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I simply see no reason to believe that life exists anywhere but on Earth.

And Again, if you see no reason, thats fine, and there may not be life else where. I am confident however, that there is, and there is only one reason I feel this way, and that is the shear immense size of the Universe.