Mars rocks once 'water drenched' | BBC (NASA's big news!)

[Ediacara]

Mars rocks once 'water drenched'


Nasa has two rovers on the planet

--SNIP--

Nasa says the rocks at the site, which are layered, show unmistakeable signs of having come into contact with lots of water in the geologic past.

"These rocks were modified in liquid water and may have been precipitated in water," said scientist Steve Squyres.

More (but not much) at the BBC

[aquart]

1. Like Velikovsky said? Why, yes.

[Archae]

4. Velikovsky was a crank.

Many scientists and fiction writers surmised that Mars probably used to have lots of water.

Carl Sagan tore Velikovsky to shreds in one of his books.

http://skepdic.com/velikov.html

[mobuto]

81. Velikovsky was the crank of cranks

Its hard to think of a man who's theories could be less reasonable, let alone scientific.

[JasonDeter]

2. Of course they are.

Anything otherwise and we wouldn't need to spend a trillion dollars going there.

[LibInternationalist]

5. what does that mean?

[JasonDeter]

8. I can just see the litte rover reach into its little pocket

and pull out a rock and then examine it and say, "Ya Ya I just found some water! Thats the ticket!" Or how about, did the wind cause the changes in the rock or did water?

[AlienGirl]

10. Do you believe Mars is/was waterless?

If so, upon what do you base this belief? All evidence seems to be pointing toward a wet-Mars theory.

Tucker

[JasonDeter]

11. Theres no conclusive evidence for water!

Don't praise them in the morning because you just might curse them in the evening. I'm a wait and see fellow. Was it the wind or was it the water? Time will tell.

[Demonaut]

12. Explain the boats then??

and they found old fishing lures in some of the dried out river beds

[JasonDeter]

19. LOL! I didn't see those! That changes to whole discussion.

Hey I lost a great fishing lure last year...I wonder...

[AlienGirl]

13. No conclusive proof yet

But there's plenty of evidence, and it just keeps mounting! :bounce:

Tucker

[Beetwasher]

16. Wrong!

"Were these rocks acted upon, were they altered by liquid water? The answer to that question is, definitively, yes."

He said there were several key lines of evidence to support the conclusion, including the presence in the rocks of sulphates and small spherules that were probably precipitated out of water.

The rocks' physical appearance, such as niches where crystals grew, also helped to prove the case."

Did you even bother to read the article? Wind erosion wouldn't explain the evidence.

[JasonDeter]

20. You say definitively they say 'probably'. I say potato. You say potatoe.

time will tell.

[Beetwasher]

23. You Need to Brush Up on Your Reading Comprehension; Again

"Were these rocks acted upon, were they altered by liquid water? The answer to that question is, definitively, yes."

I assume you know what definitively means? That's not my word, that's this guy's:

"These rocks were modified in liquid water and may have been precipitated in water," said scientist Steve Squyres.

He works for NASA. He knows what he's talking about. NASA scientists don't throw around words like definitively without some damn good evidence.

I don't think you read the article. You really should read something before you comment upon it.

[JasonDeter]

47. I can read press releases all day.

Does that mean I'm going to jump both feet singing the praises of NASA, "THEY FOUND WATER ON MARS! WOOHOO!! THAT FOUND WATER ON MARS!! GET THE SPACESHIP READY HONEY, WE'RE GOING TO MARS!!"

No. I'm going to need a little bit more than the excitable chatter of scientists who have a dog in this hunt. They WANT to go to Mars and they want us to pay for it, and yes I thing going to Mars is BS. Why? Because bush* wants to go to Mars and that makes me suspect anything that comes out of the bush* NASA that would support what this moron pResident wants.

I want the Hubble Telescope kept up and in running order. Mars will be there 20, 50 or 100 years from now. There are more pressing issues facing America than going to Mars. Hey, How come we can't colonize the bottom of the Oceans?

[Beetwasher]

50. Who Said That?

No one is saying that.

This is an important and exciting discovery. Too bad you're too cynical to appreciate it.

Bush is an asshole, but it doesn't take anything away from this accomplishment by NASA.

It also doesn't excuse your ignorance as to the facts of story or the findings and your propogation of falsehoods.

[JasonDeter]

72. I didn't have to read it nor want to read it. But now that I've read it

I still say BS! You might be happy to know (maybe not) I've read 2 articles now on the Mars subject and both of them mentioned prominantly that NOW THAT WE'VE FOUND WATER ON MARS we must go there to bring some samples home. Thats the whole point of the way they brought this out, oooh we HAVE to go to Mars. BS. We HAVE to fix the problems on earth first. Let some individual make it his business to go to Mars if its such a big deal. I want health care for all human beings. I want to tell the oil companies stick the oil in your ear we don't need it anymore. Theres too many important issues facing the world to waste money going to Mars.

[Beetwasher]

73. Whatever

I think that it's pretty pathetic that you come in here spouting nonsense about an article you admit you didn't read and about a subject you therefore knew nothing about. You're opinion of BS is noted in that light.

[JasonDeter]

74. Oh, I hurt your feelings cause I don't jump on the go to Mars bandwagon!

LOL! Hey start a company and go to Mars if its such a big deal! LOL!

[Beetwasher]

77. You Give Yourself WAY Too Much Credit

But that is to be expected...Some people do have a hard time admitting they were wrong...

[Zhade]

26. Did you even read the article? You're wrong.

"Were these rocks acted upon, were they altered by liquid water? The answer to that question is, definitively, yes."

They say 'definitively', not 'probably'. I mean, that's not even debatable.

[jpak]

29. All the evidence presented today indicated the presence or action

of liquid water.

The geochemistry was most compelling.

Wind action cannot account for what was obseved.

dream on...

[pmbryant]

37. I'm not aware of the details yet, but...

I'd be hesitant to describe anything in science as "definitive" after only a few days/weeks. Even if one scientist uses that word.

Especially when the results are presented at a press conference, rather than via the traditional route of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

--Peter

[jpak]

41. It will all come out in good time in a peer reviewed journal

But it will take time.

I don't see any real harm in presenting a synopsis of the data in a news conference.

They just summarized what they had found to date - in much the same way other scientists present unpublished data at conferences or symposiums.

and it was WAY cool...

(my opinion anyway)

:)

[pmbryant]

42. This wasn't a conference or symposium, though

This was a big, highly-publicized press conference at NASA headquarters.

I'm sure it is cool, but this is not the way normal scientific results are presented. And to have the lead scientist describe the results as "definitive" is misleading, I think.

I read about this at the NY Times web site, and I got the distinct impression the result, while compelling, is not at all definitive.

And in time, a lot more objections or alternative hypotheses will be brought up. How those objections/alternatives stand up is yet to be seen.

--Peter

[Beetwasher]

52. I Agree

I still find the whole thing very exciting.

I was merely correcting another poster who posed the possibility that wind erosion could possibly explain the evidence and that is just NOT true.

[pmbryant]

55. I find press conferences like this somewhat irresponsible

Science is normally presented to other scientists, so that the authors are forced to respond to probing questions and criticism.

By presenting these results to the uncritical press, all that is accompished is hype. I've read several articles about this and have yet to read a substantial comment from anyone not on the NASA team.

If months and years down the road, other scientists manage to refute much of what this press conference said, what will be left in the public mind?

Deter is right to be skeptical of these results. And right to be suspicious about the method of publication.

--Peter

[Beetwasher]

59. That's Not What My Issue Was w/ Him

and that's not what his issue was either...

Re-read the posts...He didn't even read the article (or read it very poorly) and started spouting off nonsense...Among other things, he attributed the "definitive' statement to me, when it was a NASA scientist who used the word...

I'm very aware that peer-review process have yet to truly begin and that this press conference was only so much hype...It's still quite exciting though, at least to me. Regardless of how they presented the findings, I find it hard to believe that they would make such statements without some damn good evidence, but time and peer-review will tell...

[Art_from_Ark]

63. This is old news

I was listening to one of my old tapes of news from 1976, when Viking first landed on the surface. Scientists were claiming at the time that one of the Martian ice caps contained frozen water, indicating that "at one time, water flowed in rivers and streams on Mars".

[pmbryant]

68. It's long been believed

But that belief was based on photos from orbiters (such as Viking's orbiters) that showed features that resembled drainage patterns.

If the current evidence pans out, that will be far more conclusive.

--Peter

[Ediacara]

53. there IS conclusive evidense of water

It's at the poles. Plus, there are many sedimantary structures indicitave of liquid water.

[Ediacara]

54. Fluvial and Eolian structures are easy to distinguish in section

Plus, the story seemed to indicate that some of the minerals were precipitates.

[dave29]

22. At some point

it was habitable.

[hang a left]

27. I think he was saying that they had to find something in order

to justify the trillions of dollars they want to spend going up in space.

[Beetwasher]

3. Very Exciting News!

n/t

[denverbill]

6. You see. Lowell was right!!!

They probably built all those canals to take water from the wet regions to the arid regions.

Actually, it does bring up an interesting follow-up question. What the hell happened to all that water? If it's all frozen into the polar caps and permafrost, then why did Mars get colder? Was it just the planet cooling? Is there anyway we can reverse engineer Mars' climate to warm it up and release the frozen water? If there was once life on Mars, does that mean there might be oil there!

[Loonman]

7. Mars lost it's electro-magnetic field

The atmosphere gradually wisped away.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. A planet doesn't need an electro-magnetic field to keep an atmosphere

All that is needed is gravity.

[Peregrine]

25. But without a magnetic field

Mars gets beat up pretty badly by the sun. It has sufficient gravity to maintain an atmosphere, but the solar winds just knock it out of there.

It is believed that Mars is solid (no molten mantle like Earth), resulting in the loss of its magnetic field.

[HereSince1628]

31. Yes, that my understanding too. No magnetic field spells doom

because there is no protection from solar wind.

The issue is whether life emerged before planetary conditions went bad.

Because the null hypothesis can't be proven, if we don't find evidence of life the issue remains unresolved. For the exo-biology folks there is always either the need to keep looking, or on the day something is found, the need to come to terms with positive evidence.

It's no wonder that NASA uses the "extraterrestrial life card" whenever it can. It's a scientific "get out jail, and go directly to 'GO' and collect $200 dollars" sort of situation.

[Occulus]

32. If that's true, then

there's your answer. But- why is a molten mantle/core necessary for the propagation of a planet's magnetic field?

[Squeegee]

79. Dynamo-theory

For the Earth, it is thought that convective currents in the molten mantle on or near the surface of the core carry electrical charge. Electrical charge circulating around the mostly iron and nickle core generates the magnetic field, much like electricity flowing around an iron bar will create an electromagnet. These convective currents in the mantle are also supposedly responsible for plate tectonics at the surface.

A planet's magnetic field doesn't require a "mantle" of motlen rock, just a moving material that can carry or generate some sort of electrical charge. In the case of Jupiter, a circulating interior of hot liquid metallic hydrogen around an iron core does the same thing that the mantle does for the Earth. For the sun, it would be hydrogen and helium plasma.

For planets and satellites with no magnetic field, there is also very little evidence for an actively convective interior. For instance, the moon and Mars have no evidence of plate tectonics.

[Dookus]

80. dat's my squeegee

so smort

[Ediacara]

56. without the magnetic field

solar wind will literally blow the atmosphere into space.

[hang a left]

30. Men are from Mars. I am scared.

[On the Road]

39. The Planet Cooled Because It's Too Small

Volcanoes spews lots of global-warming gases into the atmosphere. Mars intially had volcanic activity, but it's too small to maintain a hot enough core. Result -- no global warming and the planet cools.

[cally]

9. So what happened to the water?

Did Mars lose something similar to the ozone layer or have global warming from some cause? Anyways, this is fun news.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. God used it all to flood the earth, of course.

Silly!

[Ripley]

17. I heard that the poles flipped.

The magnetic poles. And when that happened it lost any protection from all those nasty rays from the sun. Dried it up like a prune.

[Occulus]

34. But that's happened here on Earth too

and we haven't lost ours. I read once, somewhere, that in fact what we consider to be the "normal" polarity here and now is actually a reversal of what it "used to be", or just a temporary- on a planetary time scale- change.

If the poles flip, that's it. They just flip. Magnetic north becomes magnetic south. Why? How? I don't know.

I do remember reading about this quite a while back, though. Were it to happen today, oh boooooy would our society be screwed up for a while. Just try to imagine the implications.....

[reprobate]

48. I believe the polarity has flipped about every 100K years.

It's expected to flipp again before very long.

[Ediacara]

58. The implications would be minor

Unless you think our society revolves entirely on compasses :-)

[Ediacara]

57. sort of correct

There is no magnetic field on Mars, so the magnetic poles didn't flip. What happened though is the PHYSICAL poles moved rather rapidly to lower latitudes (around 45 degrees N and S lat). This caused the polar ice (dry and wet) to rapidly melt, cause the floods that seem to vanish, and quickly sublimate into the atmosphere. The polar ice was reformed as the atmospheric water snowed into the new poles.

[pmbryant]

38. Well, that'd be the next big question if this one pans out

I'd still like to wait for the peer review process to kick in and work its magic on this data before I say anything about this result is definitive.

The bad experience with NASA's 1996 'science by press conference' regarding the Martian meteorite that some thought contained fossil lifeforms was an eye-opener.

But if this result pans out, then figuring out what happened to the water will be the next "Big Question" about Mars.

--Peter

[cally]

66. Thanks

I was hoping you would offer some insight.

And thanks to all other DUers for the info. I guess we'll have to wait to figure it out.

[reprobate]

45. What happened to the water? Enron bought it.

It's now stored in underground tanks and will be for sale once the price rises to their profit expectations.

[Neoplatonist]

14. Halliburton to build pipeline from Mars to Earth

Newsflash! Just in! Halliburton has been contracted by the Bush Administration to build a pipeline to the planet Mars as a contingency for future U.S. water shortages. The cost? 1000 zillion zillion dollars. Dick Cheeney rebuffs accusations by the Democratic front-runner John. F. Kerry that the Bush Administration gave the no-bid contract to Halliburton for campaign contributions. LMAO!

[GermanDJ]

21. Very interesting press conference today,

Where Steve Squyres explained nicely how all these separate observations and measurements led to the conclusion that those rocks at the Opportunity landing site were altered by water. And he also pointed out that the science team at JPL is not sure, if those rocks were sediments (which could contain traces of ancient Martian life) or volcanic layers.

On the one hand this leaves a lot to discover for the two mars rovers. By driving to and peeking into one of the bigger craters at the landing sites they maybe could answer the question, if there once were oceans: A look into those craters might reveal sediments.
On the other hand this findings will certainly result in exciting new robotic missions to Mars.

Well, I can say for certain that I blossom on behalf of these exciting, positive news.
Was about time that the media report some good news, wasn't it?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

70. ...if these rocks are sedimentary...woah!

That would indicate some long time periods where water was present on the surface, wouldnt it?

[Zynx]

24. Don't care. Why should I?

[dave29]

28. Sigh

If you have any curiosity about your own origins, or answers to any of the big questions no one likes to talk about, space exploration would be fascinating to you.

Science is about the only thing out there where the the fundamental quest is the search for "truth".

[HereSince1628]

36. I wouldn't say science searches for truth

I would say that science hopes to obtain a coherent, internally consistent conceptual understanding of the universe and its many parts that is free of mistakes and lacunae.

"Truth" in the popular sense may be beyond science. Truth as in truth tables is, well--honestly it's boring for most biologists, being largely off the radar of scientists involved in either surveillance or experimentation. Truth tables are an issue for theoreticians, likelihoods are the realm of statisticians. Most everyone doing science is too busy to worry about TRUTH.

[Skittles]

43. I don't know if that's the reason

but I find it all facinating nonetheless!!! :D

[Zynx]

44. How does determining if anything ever lived on Mars tell me about my

origins? Furthermore, why should I care about inconclusive scientific evidence about my origins.

[dave29]

61. Actually you shouldn't care

I don't know what I was thinking.

[belle]

75. Because knowledge for its own sake is one of the joys of living?

As for the rest, well, it may tell us a great deal. Personally i think it's thrilling.

[AlienGirl]

35. Do you care about the long-term future of humanity?

Earth won't last forever. Humans as a species have a much greater chance of survival if they colonize other planets.

Would you like humans to exist a million years from now? A billion? If you would, you need to support space travel.

Tucker

[pmbryant]

40. That's an interesting argument, but not one I agree with.

If you are worried about timescales of millions or even billions of years, than there is plenty of time, and it is probably advisable to leave "space travel" for later, when technology will presumably make it cheaper and more practical.

--Peter

[dave29]

62. As long as we don't get offed

by an asteroid or comet, or some other unknown - you are correct, we could always wait until later.

I am amazed at the lack of curiosity towards the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of the Universe out there.

[Zynx]

46. Mars is not habitable unless there is a shitload of water under the surfac

e and I doubt it.

[dave29]

64. Have you ever heard of

terraforming?

[w4rma]

33. Was Mars once farther away from the Sun than it is now? (n/t)

[pmbryant]

51. No, I don't think so (n/t)

[slack]

49. Mars Express sees its first water (23 January 2004)

http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEM8ZB474OD_index_0.html

One of the main targets of the Mars Express mission is to discover the presence of water in one of its chemical states. Through the initial mapping of the South polar cap on 18 January, OMEGA, the combined camera and infrared spectrometer, has already revealed the presence of water ice and carbon dioxide ice.

[NewHampster]

60. Even better pic at MSNBC

Article link at MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4202901/


Could be Lake Meade in Late Summer

[Khephra]

65. Wow...who would have thought that a thread on water on Mars

would piss me off as much as a GD Primary thread. The cynicism and anti-science views expressed here are just sickening.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

67. But are you surprised, really?

I mean, it's hip to be all cynical and ignorant. Especially when it involves a government agency. God knows that the government is incapable of doing something, anything positive, right?

Ye gods above, tell me that we're not all damned to eternal superstition and stupidity.

[Khephra]

71. I wish I could

I really wish I could....

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

69. Pretty sad

I think its fascinating. The geology of this place gets more interesting the more we find out.

[belle]

76. Yeah: how did we get from "cool! Mars had water!" to "It's a plot!"

...to take us all to Mars or somesuch? Maybe a couple of blowhards in the media are saying silly things, but so the hell what? It's research, it's learning, it's about our own development as humanity: figuring out how the universe around us works.

[htuttle]

78. Reading back over the thread...

...it appears to have started to diverge at post #2.

(previously said #8, but read back further)