Scientists: Mars once 'drenched' with water

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, March 3, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

NASA scientists announced today that based on data collected from the rover Opportunity they have determined part of Mars once was "drenched" with water.

While they say the Red Planet was once wet enough to support life, the rover has not found any evidence of living organisms.

"Opportunity has landed in an area of Mars where liquid water once drenched the surface," said Edward Weiler, associate NASA administrator for space science, at a news conference. "This area would have been a good, habitable environment."

The rover's study of layered rock detected evidence of sulfates and other minerals that form in the presence of water. Scientists assert that at the time the rocks were formed, the water would have provided the living conditions needed for an organism to flourish.

"NASA launched the Mars Exploration Rover mission specifically to check whether at least one part of Mars had a persistently wet environment that could possibly have been hospitable to life," James Garvin, a lead NASA scientist, said in a statement. "Today we have strong evidence for an exciting answer: Yes."

Said Steve Squyres, a Cornell University scientist who is involved in Opportunity's research: "We've been able to read the telltale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion."

The Associated Press reports the rover conducted a chemical analysis of the outcrop, including a rock named El Capitan by scientists, and found a concentration of sulphur rich in magnesium, iron and other sulfate salts. Opportunity's instrument also detected jarosite, an iron sulfate mineral.

On Earth, such minerals would have formed in water, and the presence of jarosite suggests an acid-rich lake or hot springs environment, scientists said.

Scientists said more study of the rocks on Mars is planned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, March 3, 2004

Quote of the Day by visualops

[petertare]

whoopdeedo

[nightdriver]

"Opportunity has landed in an area of Mars where liquid water once drenched the surface," said Edward Weiler, associate NASA administrator for space science, at a news conference. "This area would have been a good, habitable environment."

I call Bee Ess!

The planet is in equilibrium after being in existence for umpty-ump millions of years, and it's atmospheric pressure is below the saturation pressure of water whenever the surface temperature ever gets over freezing. That means water would just boil off.

The present atmospheric water content is only 250 parts per million. That says that there is just plain no water there, at least not on the surface.

[Prince Caspian]

I'm sure your sentiment was shared by a large number of people in Spain in the late 15th Century when they happened to overhear a rumor of the exploits of one C. Columbus.

[Simmy2.5]

I'm stunned silent. </sarcasm>

Well, at least it got Hoagland on Coast to Coast today.

[cartoonistx]

One theory is that once Mars had a dense atmosphere and oceans but lost most of the atmosphere after a very close encounter with another planet (which may have been torn apart by the encounter and now is the asteroid belt) or by a large meteor impact.

[stylin19a]

Water was on Mars and it longer is = Global Warming...and not an SUV in sight.

I'm waiting for the eco-wackos to start saying "See ...See..."

[nightdriver]

"One theory is that once Mars had a dense atmosphere and oceans....."

It's OK for a theory, but remember that Mars has a gravitational attraction of only one-third that of the earth. It cannot hold any more atmosphere than it now has.

[Robert_Paulson2]

so...
where did the abundant flowing, liquid water all go?
IF it evaporated, it would have precipitated after cooling. WHERE is it?

any interesting theories about how all that much water could be extant in the past, but not present now?

[stylin19a]

agh....should be "and it no longer is....

[nightdriver]

"where did the abundant flowing, liquid water all go?"

A more pointed question might be "how did the water get there in the first place if the present physical conditions cannot maintain it?"

[smadurski]

You didnt hear they found the remains of an SUV with a "global warming is a myth" bumpersticker :)

[Dave Elias]

Old Christobel would have to have been the most over-rated explorer in history.

[Brilliant]

Don't see why we needed to send a spaceship there to find that out. It should be obvious that if a comet hits Mars, there's going to be water. Of course, the real issue is how long was it there? Could have been just a matter of days.

[ngc6656]

A more pointed question might be "how did the water get there in the first place if the present physical conditions cannot maintain it?"

Brought there by the impact of comets, maybe?

[Phil V.]

. . . A more pointed question might be "how did the water get there in the first place . . .

The same way it "got on" comets with even less gravitational pull.

[upcountryhorseman]

Years ago, there was talk about "canals of Mars". Telescopic observations of Mars at that time seemed to
indicate well defined "lines" on the planet.

[cartoonistx]

[js1138]

There is, however, a difference between canal and channel, even if both carry water.

[JimRed]

One theory is that once Mars had a dense atmosphere and oceans but lost most of the atmosphere after a very close encounter with another planet (which may have been torn apart by the encounter and now is the asteroid belt) or by a large meteor impact.

"Worlds in Collision", circa 1950, by Immanuel Velokovsky, expounds part of this this theory. It is an interesting read.