Flowing water on Mars + we're on the way via the Moon circa 2039 (maybe)

_Tombstone_

Announcement Tomorrow maybe (Monday)

A Brief History of Water on Mars


NASA considers SLS launch sequence for human Mars missions in the 2030s


Why NASA's road to Mars plan proves that it should return to the moon first

How can NASA's Road to Mars be made more affordable?

coylemj

Announcement today (Mon. Sept. 28th) at 11:30 EDT (16:30 Irish) on NASA TV .....

NASA to Announce Mars Mystery Solved

NASA will detail a major science finding from the agency’s ongoing exploration of Mars during a news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EDT on Monday, Sept. 28 at the James Webb Auditorium at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The event will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency's website.

maquiladora

Scientists have discovered the strongest evidence yet that "flowing liquid water" exists on Mars, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said Monday morning.

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter identified evidence of "hydrated minerals" called perchlorates that have formed streaks on slopes on Mars' surface, the agency said.

Scientists have discovered the strongest evidence yet that "flowing liquid water" exists on Mars, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said Monday morning.

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter identified evidence of "hydrated minerals" called perchlorates that have formed streaks on slopes on Mars' surface, the agency said.

Some perchlorates are able to keep water from freezing even at temperatures as cold as -94 degrees Fahrenheit. The perchlorates on Mars are forming the streaks, called recurring slope lineae (RSL), on the Martian slopes during the planet's warm season, when temperatures climb above -10 degrees Fahrenheit. The streaks then disappear during the cold season.

"Something is hydrating these salts, and it appears to be these streaks that come and go with the seasons," Lujendra Ojha, one of the researchers on the project, said in a statement. "This means the water on Mars is briny, rather than pure. It makes sense, because salts lower the freezing point of water. Even if RSL are slightly underground, where it's even colder than the surface temperature, the salts would keep the water in a liquid form and allow it to creep down Martian slopes."

The team is publishing its findings in the journal Nature Geoscience.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/28/ter-nasa.html

coylemj

Can't wait to hear the Daily Mail take on this.

But seriously, I hope this story doesn't generate hype such as what followed the release of the Mars meteorite story a few years ago. IIRC it went something like this: (1) we found a meteorite in Antarctica (2) we think it came from Mars (3) we can see these squiggly thingies under the microscope...... ergo (drum roll).... WE'VE DISCOVERED LIFE ON MARS.

cowboyBuilder

Sorry, what's new about water on Mars ?

Didn't they know this for years ?

Mountainsandh

maquiladora wrote: »

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/28/ter-nasa.html

Thanks, can't seem to see the live feed, anyone here has the live feed going or is it just me ?

edit : the ISS feed is working, but nothing on Nasa TV.

seamus

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Sorry, what's new about water on Mars ?

Didn't they know this for years ?

Flowing water indicates some level of continuity, i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans.

Water ice in the soil and permafrost are one thing, but not particularly conducive to life. And there may not be any real continuity, it could be the result of air currents. Flowing water indicates the potential for subsurface oceans. And where you find oceans you have a far better chance of finding life.

Up to now the closest potential for this has been Europa, which is at least hundreds of years away from any kind of worthwhile discovery mission. Mars is not, it would mean that we could potentially discover living exobiologicial species within a 50 year timeframe.

coylemj

But isn't the Martian atmosphere too thin to allow surface water to exist - as in it would evaporate and be lost to the atmosphere?

I'm hearing vague suggestions about the 'possibility of water' and the guy on the radio news just mentioned the dreaded 'possibility of life on Mars' - here we go again :rolleyes:

seamus

Subsurface oceans though wouldn't necessarily evaporate. The amount of subsurface water on earth is huge, so there's no reason to think that Mars couldn't similarly contain it. Though the question obviously being that if it's liquid, how come it hasn't been lost over time? Even subsurface water will evaporate and find a way out.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

Subsurface oceans though wouldn't necessarily evaporate. The amount of subsurface water on earth is huge, so there's no reason to think that Mars couldn't similarly contain it. Though the question obviously being that if it's liquid, how come it hasn't been lost over time? Even subsurface water will evaporate and find a way out.

If there is subsurface water, there will be no solar energy to power an ecosystem so it's going to be a pretty barren place.

seamus

Don't necessarily need solar energy to power an ecosystem, any kind of energy will do, including geothermal. Recent theories suggest that life on earth started deep in the oceans, far beyond the reach of light. Obviously solar energy is more than just the light that plants synthesise, but nevertheless we know that life can exist provided that there's some kind of energy.

The prospect of anything beyond simple organisms is basically non-existent, but even retrieving some samples of anything alive would be an incredible leap forward, not only allowing us to confirm life beyond earth but also giving us insights into the origin of life, evolution and lots of other things.

mickmackey1

seamus wrote: »

The prospect of anything beyond simple organisms is basically non-existent, but even retrieving some samples of anything alive would be an incredible leap forward, not only allowing us to confirm life beyond earth but also giving us insights into the origin of life, evolution and lots of other things.

It could still be possible that microbes were blasted from Earth to Mars by meteorites in the distant past. Finding life on Mars and proving that it originated on Mars are two different things.

Manach

Interesting news but the practical part of me wonders how soon before Irish Water will be delivering the first bills to the Green men of mars.

Maximus Alexander

This is pretty cool.

cowboyBuilder

seamus wrote: »

Flowing water indicates some level of continuity, i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans.

Water ice in the soil and permafrost are one thing, but not particularly conducive to life. And there may not be any real continuity, it could be the result of air currents. Flowing water indicates the potential for subsurface oceans. And where you find oceans you have a far better chance of finding life.

Up to now the closest potential for this has been Europa, which is at least hundreds of years away from any kind of worthwhile discovery mission. Mars is not, it would mean that we could potentially discover living exobiologicial species within a 50 year timeframe.

Thanks, I was a bit premature posting, didn't realise it was flowing, anyway regarding Europa, I'm not sure it's 100s of years away for an unmanned mission, there was talk of one launching in the next decade.

They have allready landed on Titan, it's not too far fetched to get a lander with a drill for Europa (would be an amazing mission)

_Tombstone_

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It could still be possible that microbes were blasted from Earth to Mars by meteorites in the distant past. Finding life on Mars and proving that it originated on Mars are two different things.

Or it hitched a ride on Rover...

Why can’t we just send our rovers to look for life on Mars?

Mars Life Search Hindered by Planetary Protection Concerns, Scientists Say

Current policies designed to safeguard Mars against biological contamination from Earth are hampering exploration of the Red Planet and should be relaxed, some scientists say.

These "planetary protection" requirements impose heavy financial burdens on Mars missions, partially explaining why no robots have searched for life on the Red Planet's surface since NASA's twin Viking landers ceased operations three decades ago, researchers Alberto Fairen of Cornell University and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University write in a commentary published online today (June 27) in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Further, such restrictions are unnecessary, because Earth life has doubtless made it to the neighboring Red Planet already inside chunks of rock blasted off our planet by asteroid strikes, the scientists say. [The Search for Life on Mars (A Photo Timeline)]

"If Earth micro-organisms can thrive on Mars, they almost certainly already do; and if they cannot, the transfer of Earth life to Mars should be of no concern, as it would simply not survive," Fairen and Schulze-Makuch write in the commentary. "We cannot see how our current program of Mars exploration might pose any real threat to a possible Martian biosphere."

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDb3UZPoTpc

JupiterKid

This is an important announcement. I've been a firm believer that the gullies on Mars were created by flowing water.

It would be ideal if we could target a lander mission to those gullies but given the nature of the topography this might prove difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Perhaps a future manned mission could include an excursion to the gullies.

seamus

A couple of the guys from the mission did an AMA on reddit yesterday. Two of the most pertinent things that came across to me:

1. These are absolute trickles of water, like you haven't properly turned a tap off. So not indicative necessarily of any large bodies of water, though there does need to be a "source" of some kind

2. None of the existing rovers or any planned missions can go near them. The risk of contamination is too great, and the equipment is not set up to test for life. A very specifically prepared probe would be needed to go search for alien life anywhere we think there may be flowing water.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

Don't necessarily need solar energy to power an ecosystem, any kind of energy will do, including geothermal. Recent theories suggest that life on earth started deep in the oceans, far beyond the reach of light. Obviously solar energy is more than just the light that plants synthesise, but nevertheless we know that life can exist provided that there's some kind of energy.

some bacteria photosynthesis with the infra red glow from black smokers at the bottom of the sea

The prospect of anything beyond simple organisms is basically non-existent, but even retrieving some samples of anything alive would be an incredible leap forward, not only allowing us to confirm life beyond earth but also giving us insights into the origin of life, evolution and lots of other things.

asteroids have come from Mars to Earth and presumably visa versa so probably already some cross contamination.

But if a Martin organism was found to use very different chemistry that would be interesting.

The water would be full of perchlorates. The good news is you might be able to use them as oxidisers for powering rockets. Bad news if you want to handle Martian soil without processing it fully first.

seamus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But if a Martin organism was found to use very different chemistry that would be interesting.

I guess an organism that didn't fit anywhere into earth's biological tree is kind of the holy grail. So many things it can reveal - so many new questions it can generate.
It would effectively prove that the occurrence of life is far from unique and would reveal so many things about evolution under different environments - it would basically create the entire field of exobiology.

Equally though I suppose an organism which actually did fit into earth's biological tree but could be shown to have evolved entirely separately would be incredible, though it wouldn't satisfactorily answer any questions about abiogenesis.

_Tombstone_

George RR Martin: our long obsession with Mars

_Tombstone_

George RR Martin: our long obsession with Mars

Ken.

I am 37 years of age and I don't think we'll have boots on Mars in my lifetime. I'd love it if we did but the costs and the fact any travellers would be pretty much going to their death would be a big turn off for many.

shedweller

ken wrote: »

I am 37 years of age and I don't think we'll have boots on Mars in my lifetime. I'd love it if we did but the costs and the fact any travellers would be pretty much going to their death would be a big turn off for many.

Its funny you mention the cost of it. We are currently paying an ungodly amount of money globally to private shareholders to do nothing more than put zeroes on computer monitors.
Now that is futility on a gargantuan scale.
Space exploration is in the hapenny place by comparison.
As you can tell, this is pissing me off no end!

syklops

This explains what happened to the Spirit Rover. It drowned. :pac:

Ken.

Me too but I think were heading down the road of another global war and until that is sorted out space is going to take a back seat. Except for space guns of course. If even a tenth of global military spend was put into space exploration we could be further out than Mars with people by now.

syklops

ken wrote: »

the fact any travellers would be pretty much going to their death would be a big turn off for many.

The reason we wont get to Mars any time soon is not going to be due to a lack of volunteers.

Ken.

syklops wrote: »

The reason we wont get to Mars any time soon is not going to be due to a lack of volunteers.

I don't doubt that for a second. My post was more about how willing any politician or government are to send the aforementioned volunteers. I don't think they will till they can get them home and that's what has me believing we won't go there in the next 40-50 years.

My thinking is this, while everyone would be cheering on the volunteers when they left, as soon as the first one died a fickle public would be demanding something be done to get them back.

I am most likely and I hope I am wrong.

Capt'n Midnight

Don't worry about going to Mars with NASA.

By requiring the development of a new launcher they have doomed the project before it starts. There is no shortage of rockets that can put 20 tonnes into LEO. There's no shortage of spacecraft that dock in space.

So you could order existing off the shelf hardware from US, EU, Russia, Ukraine, Japan or China and they could start construction tomorrow.

For India, if they can get to Mars then docking in orbit is trivial, the only delay would be wanting to wait until they've tried their proven launcher with an extra pair of boosters. Again using off the shelf hardware.


But no. NASA will spend the next decade reinventing the wheel before deciding it's too expensive.

Maximus Alexander

Elon Musk is going to have human boots on Mars inside the next 20 years. I don't doubt him for a second.

maquiladora

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Elon Musk is going to have human boots on Mars inside the next 20 years. I don't doubt him for a second.

Just boots, no humans?

dr.fuzzenstein

shedweller wrote: »

Its funny you mention the cost of it. We are currently paying an ungodly amount of money globally to private shareholders to do nothing more than put zeroes on computer monitors.
Now that is futility on a gargantuan scale.
Space exploration is in the hapenny place by comparison.
As you can tell, this is pissing me off no end!

But there's so much more than having to generate trillions to make stock market gamblers slightly richer!
There's also huge money needed to make newer and shinier gizmos so porn and celebrity gossip can be spread faster, billions has to go into developing ever newer and flashier ways to kill each other and to make sure poor countries stay poor, where would we end up if everyone had western standards of living?

Just the amount of money spend on science fiction movies over the last 20 years (and I do enjoy them), could have sent a thousand people to the Moon and Mars. My suggestion would have been instead of making Star Wars I-III, donate the money to the space programme. We would be at least to the Moon by now. And the world would be a better place for it and Jar Jar Binks would never have existed. I don't see a downside.
Sorry, we need to spend our money on looking good, getting gossip, killing each other and keeping the other half down where they belong, the dirty animals. Plus we need to spend billions on then having to sort out (i.e. shoot aimlessly at stuff) their wars (caused by our greed and selfishness) and taking in the refugees. And then complain loudly about it. I'm afraid there is no room for space exploration and the advancement of mankind, we're too busy watching the X Factor.

The Moon landing was on par with the first primitive creatures crawling out of the ocean, apes coming down from the trees, Columbus landing in America and then they all said "Nah, can't be arsed with this crap, what's on telly?". And that's where we have been ever since. We've tried that space crap, it wasn't as much fun as listening to tone-deaf idiots screeching their way through classic songs to entertain morons.
And that is why mankind is doomed.
If there is anything other than a few token unmanned probes over the next 20 years, I will eat my hat. And my shoes, my car, my house, my wife and the entire neighbourhood.

Going back to the unmanned exploration:
So, leaving the ocean was a mistake then? Getting down off those trees? Leaving Africa to see what is over that next hill? Vasco Da Gama, Magellan, Columbus, Scott, Shakelton, Gagarin, Apollo 11, all a waste of time? Why would we bother our hole evolving from single celled organisms?
And the final argument for the people who say "There's no need to leave this planet", well Asteroids are nature's way of saying "How's that space program coming along?" Plus other planets may be nicer and not so full of horrible people as this one.

Can anyone here imagine what would happen if we decided to all pull together purely for the advancement of humankind, instead of the usual selfishness, greed, stupidity and just downright primitive violence? Sorry, don't know why I said that. Silly question. Sometimes this planet is a crab bucket.
Sorry, I couldn't put this in R&R, because most wouldn't understand what I'm on about.
But (if you haven't guessed), I am rather pessimistic, because I have been reading articles like this since the 1970's, e.g. "thousands will live and work in space by the mid 80's", rubbish!
I DO hope it does happen, but I've been disappointed for many, many years and maybe many years more than most people on here...
Meanwhile Apple will spend twice the next Moon mission budget on making their next iPhone ever so slightly shinier. No, what am I saying, they will spend that on the marketing alone. The movie Idiocracy was initially meant to be a comedy. Sadly it has turned into a documentary over the years...

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Elon Musk is going to have human boots on Mars inside the next 20 years. I don't doubt him for a second.

Quite frankly, I do. There is nothing of any corporate value in that mission, there is no immediate multi billion profit in it, no shiny gizmos to be sold to the masses, no shares that can go up and inflate a companies value to billions that only exist on some stock market gambler's monitor and mean he can buy the latest Ferrari instead of having to wait for a week.


edit:
BTW: I really, really, desperately want to be wrong about this.

Maximus Alexander

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Quite frankly, I do. There is nothing of any corporate value in that mission, there is no immediate multi billion profit in it, no shiny gizmos to be sold to the masses, no shares that can go up and inflate a companies value to billions that only exist on some stock market gambler's monitor and mean he can buy the latest Ferrari instead of having to wait for a week.


edit:
BTW: I really, really, desperately want to be wrong about this.

That makes sense for a normal person, but his entire goal in setting up SpaceX was not to make money, but specifically to make space travel cheap enough to put a million people on Mars. He's a weirdo - my kind of weirdo.

dr.fuzzenstein

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That makes sense for a normal person, but his entire goal in setting up SpaceX was not to make money, but specifically to make space travel cheap enough to put a million people on Mars. He's a weirdo - my kind of weirdo.

I like him already! You know where you stand with weird. I wouldn't trust a completely normal person as far as I could throw them, they're all about the bottom line and turning a profit at any cost. There may be hope for us yet.

Capt'n Midnight

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

BTW: I really, really, desperately want to be wrong about this.

Asteroids are the future.

One more reason why people might not go to Mars any time soon.
From the movie The Andromeda Strain - 1971
We face quite a problem. How to dis-infect the human body, one of the dirtiest things in the known universe 2/_That is, without killing the human-being at the same time

Google et al. are working on self driving cars down here. So we should have better robot explorers coming on line.

We have surgeons who can operate remotely. So one option would be to have humans in orbit or on one of the moons controlling stuff on the ground. Add in a couple of satellites and it's near real time.

_Tombstone_

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I like him already! You know where you stand with weird. I wouldn't trust a completely normal person as far as I could throw them, they're all about the bottom line and turning a profit at any cost. There may be hope for us yet.

He wants to send Nukes up to Mars - lots of them one after the other - to create mini suns over both Poles and kick start climate change up there to make it more habitable. I sorta am agreeing with your earlier post now though, you come across quotes from Astronauts/scientists/clever folk buried in alot of these stories about getting to Mars by 2030 and they all say it's b*llox/not a chance/not in our lifetime.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3258168/Elon-Musk-details-plan-BOMB-Mars-constant-nuclear-pulse-explosions-create-double-suns-heat-planet.html

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Plus other planets may be nicer and not so full of horrible people as this one.

They'll be the first ones up in First Class once they know it works right.

Mountainsandh

I like Elon Musk.
He thinks outside the box, but instead of dismissing his crazy ideas, he goes for it/them.
Nice write ups about him there (great blog Wait But Why, lots of interesting articles) : http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html

edit : to stay on topic, I'm in my forties, I'm very hopeful that there'll be humans on Mars within my lifetime. Hope I still have my senses to watch it unravel.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One more reason why people might not go to Mars any time soon.
From the movie The Andromeda Strain - 1971
We face quite a problem. How to dis-infect the human body, one of the dirtiest things in the known universe 2/_That is, without killing the human-being at the same time

that won't stop anyone going to Mars, the Moon or any where else

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

that won't stop anyone going to Mars, the Moon or any where else

Yea, shure they couldn't even do the rover properly...they won't even bother after awhile.

_Tombstone_

So here's what the first folk to mars are gonna live in,

A 3D printed Ice Igloo

3-D printed ice shelter for Mars wins $25,000 Nasa award

http://www.marsicehouse.com/

dr.fuzzenstein

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

So here's what the first folk to mars are gonna live in,

A 3D printed Ice Igloo

3-D printed ice shelter for Mars wins $25,000 Nasa award

http://www.marsicehouse.com/

I wonder if sublimation is going to be a problem. I suppose the good thing is that repairs can be carried out with a bucket of water and just brush it onto the affected area. :pac:

shedweller

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wonder if sublimation is going to be a problem. I suppose the good thing is that repairs can be carried out with a bucket of water and just brush it onto the affected area. :pac:

Can you imagine the mutterings of the astronaut whose job it is to do that!

dr.fuzzenstein

shedweller wrote: »

Can you imagine the mutterings of the astronaut whose job it is to do that!

It's Lister!

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Yea, shure they couldn't even do the rover properly...they won't even bother after awhile.

Mars Is Pretty Clean. Her Job at NASA Is to Keep It That Way.

_Tombstone_

What's Killing Mars?

The Red Planet once had an ocean and a magnetic field. A new mission is setting out to discover what happened to them.