Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Curiosity Finds Evidence of Ancient Surface Water

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the drill-baby-drill dept.

Mars 79

An anonymous reader writes "Curiosity has wheeled its way over to the low point in Yellowknife Bay and has found veined rocks, evidence that water once percolated through this area. Scientists are excited because it is the first evidence of precipitation of minerals and water. There is also cross bedding that can be seen, thin layers of rocks oriented in different directions. The grains are apparently too coarse for the wind to have created, alluding to flowing water. Even with this discovery, much is still not known about Mars' past." Rather than quickly moving along to Mount Sharp as planned, they're going to spend some time drilling into the rock.

cancel ×

79 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So does this mean (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42605817)

we've finally discovered dehydrated water?

Re:So does this mean (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606671)

Or that the Rover is really just tooling around Northern Canada.

Re:So does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42607193)

That might be closer to what I read (misread). There was no mention of Mars anywhere. So, I kept ready, who was curious enough to find ancient water, and exactly what ancient water was.

Regarding the lame ass names, are they really necessary? It's not like anyone will live there anytime in the near future, and I doubt the computers, the only ones actually navigating those landmarks use them as reference.

Re:So does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42608901)

People are currently examining Mars, whether from the perspective of Curiosity or from maps or computer projections. And as long as people stare at maps long enough, they will come up with names for certain features for easy reference. It's not about living there, it's about studying it.

Too course (4, Interesting)

slapout (93640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42605901)

"The grains are apparently too course for the wind to have created"

Are they assuming Earth-like winds?

Re:Too course (5, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606019)

IIRC from previous discussions, we're talking an order of magnitude in size between wind based fines and water modified particles. Also the structure tends to differ. Of course, the summary is light on specific details so if you really distrusted it, you could wait for the formal paper. But I'm inclined to believe that the rocket scientists over at JPL know what they are doing....

Re:Too course (-1, Flamebait)

smg5266 (2440940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606317)

While rocket scientists likely have lots of education involving fluid dynamics, I doubt they specialized much in erosion.

Re:Too course (5, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606383)

While rocket scientists likely have lots of education involving fluid dynamics, I doubt they specialized much in erosion.

WHAT THE FUCK? You seriously don't think NASA has geologists to study geology???

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606627)

This is my most favorite post ever

Re:Too course (4, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607221)

You seriously don't think NASA has geologists to study geology???

Sure, NOW they do... but before we got to the moon the organization was over run with Cheese Scientists!
Neil Armstrong's dusty boots crushed a lot of dreams that day.
We had hoped for gruyère, but it was just no gouda...

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42608791)

WHAT THE FUCK? You seriously don't think NASA has geologists to study geology???

Well, sure, but how would that help with areology?

(...paging Ann Clayborne...come in, Ann Clayborne...)

Re:Too course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606045)

Do they perhaps mean... coarse?

Re:Too course (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606183)

The course is too coarse, of course, of course.

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606511)

Do you not mean "off course, of course."?

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606093)

Are they assuming Earth-like winds?

No.

Are you assuming that the grain size will differ?

Re:Too course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606105)

Probably not. Scientists tend to overlook these kinds of things. You'd better tell them about their mistake before they waste any more of our hard-earned tax money on it.

Re:Too course (0)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606129)

Are you assuming they're to stupid to know the difference between the Martian atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere?

Re:Too course (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606301)

Are you assuming they're to stupid to know the difference between the Martian atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere?

Everyone knows Slashdot commentators are more qualified than any so called "expert". I know that when I have questions about areography I come here, not to NASA or JPL.

Yes! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606499)

Are you assuming they're to stupid to know the difference between the Martian atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere?

See, we here on Slashdot are what the Yiddish call kibitzers [wikipedia.org] .

See, we all have pathetic little egos and pathetic little lives and we waste countless hours up here talking out of our collective asses - sure there occasionally is someone who actually knows WTF they're talking about, but they get lost with all the other ass talkers who somehow get mod'ed up +5; so it's pretty difficult finding the folks who really know.

Now, the parent is under the assumption that since he's so good at what he does (my assumption), he is in fact qualified to comment on things that are completely out of his field with complete confidence. I call this the smart person's dilemma. Some celebrities suffer from it.

Bill Nye is trained as a mechanical engineer (only a BS) but he seems to be all over the place commenting on things that have nothing to do with ME - like climate change, evolution and child development.

Then there's that Japanese-American Physicist, who's name escapes me right now, who does the same - he jibber jabbers about everything scientific.

Unfortunately, they very often make fundamental errors when talking about things outside their field, word then gets out, and they subsequently discredit the scientific community to the general public.

And folks here wonder why John Q. Public is so "anti science" or believe in non-sense.

What Nye and that physicist should do is when asked to comment on something outside their field and expertise, they should refer them to an expert in that field instead of talking through their asses on national TV.

Re:Yes! (0)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607137)

Whoa...hold on. Are you qualified to comment on the expertise of everyone here? Do you have a masters in expertiseology? We're all allowed to make comments here. Believe it or not, you don't have to be a martian geologist to have anything intelligent to say on this.

Re:Yes! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42607431)

Whoa...hold on. Are you qualified to comment on the expertise of everyone here? Do you have a masters in expertiseology? We're all allowed to make comments here. Believe it or not, you don't have to be a martian geologist to have anything intelligent to say on this.

You don't have to be a martian geologist, but you should at least assume NASA consulted one. I mean, the top ranking comment right now is asking if they forgot Mars has a different atmosphere than Earth.

Are you f-ing kidding me? That's not anything intelligent. It's a totally stupid arrogant question and deserving of ridicule.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42609427)

the Yiddish

Who are the Yiddish?

Re:Too course (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607189)

Are you assuming they're to stupid to know the difference between the Martian atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere?

Keep in mind that they did manage to crash a billion dollar probe into the planet because they made a mistake converting standard into metric.
Also, one of the original rovers failed after 30 days because of a bug in the software they hadn't caught that would only show up after the clock had been running for 30 days. They'd never run the software for that long before landing.
Then there's the entire Space shuttle design...

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606523)

No they're not, Curiosity is currently on Mars and they plan on keeping it there.

NASA is smarter than you jackass.

Re:Too course (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606943)

No they're not, Curiosity is currently on Mars and they plan on keeping it there.

I'd be quite impressed if they didn't plan on leaving it there.

Re:Too course (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606945)

Are they assuming Earth-like winds?

Honestly, I seriously doubt it.

Re:Too course (1)

Theovon (109752) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606973)

No. More like water-like sort of wind. :)

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42608615)

WTF /. Interesting? I'm sure they assume Venus-like winds.

Re:Too course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42610005)

With the thinner atmosphere of Mars it would take much stronger winds to move the same sized grains. Even if Mars' atmosphere were the same density as Earth, wind moves only sand-size grains and smaller. For wind transport on Earth they usually have to be mm-size or smaller unless we're talking hurricane speeds.

Basically if you have a deposit full of pebbles, it ain't wind-deposited.

Why are we wasting money on this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42605915)

We could be spending this cash to help fatten the deadbeats who are doing no work today. That would be money well spent as they breed more deadbeats and commit crimes. Science has no place in a society that lets the lazy ride the coat tails of the productive souls.

Re:Why are we wasting money on this? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606005)

Are you asserting the "deadbeat" trait is genetic and can be bred for?

Re:Why are we wasting money on this? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606079)

Cultural not genetic, and class mobility is dead dead dead so basically yes.

Re:Why are we wasting money on this? (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606083)

I don't think anyone believes it's genetic, but most of us grow up to be like our Dads, whether we strive to or not.

Re:Why are we wasting money on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606465)

I take offense to that. I am nothing like my dad.

My dad used to walk down the isle of the grocery store asking me to pull his finger all the time.

Now that I do my own grocery shopping, I have never asked my son or any one else to pull my finger before I farted in the isle.

Re:Why are we wasting money on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606177)

Not at all. I'm assuming that deadbeats breed more deadbeats because we know that those on the dole are likely to have children who go on the dole. It's a learned way of life.

Re:Why are we wasting money on this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606099)

We could be spending this cash to help fatten the deadbeats who are doing no work today.

no, we've already spent enough money on you

Dear wired.com (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606009)

Dear wired.com,

It is not necessary to re-load the entire page each time I click on a thumbnail. There is this thing called JavaScript which allows you to programmatically react to user events and alter document elements.

Hope this helps,

Anonymous Coward

Re:Dear wired.com (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606127)

Dear Anonymous Coward,

No, they can't do that! That would be like the ajaxy web-too-point-ohs, which is magically bad because get off my lawn I'm against this popular thing and that makes me cool and edgy why isn't anyone looking at meeeeeeeee!

Sincerely,
The rest of Slashdot

Re:Dear wired.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606863)

But to get it to work right on multiple browsers, you have to use bloated libraries, and STILL have to test on multiple browsers. Web front-end programming is back in the 80s': lack of abstractions or screwed-up abstractions. It's a sorry state of affairs.

Re:Dear wired.com (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42615121)

Dear Anonymous Coward,

What's wrong with loading the full-size picture in a new tab?

Sincerely,

Those who don't want websites running arbitrary, unnecessary code in their browsers.

How do they know water? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606035)

Not a "trick" question....a real question: How do they know it was water and not something else like liquid amonia (like some other space bodies)?

Re:How do they know water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606087)

Probably pretty easy to tell based on what minerals they were. For example - do those particular minerals dissolve in water? Do they dissolve in ammonia?

Re:How do they know water? (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606187)

Your solvent was a trick question, because water and NH3 are both polar so there is at least some overlap in solubility. Also they dissolve ridiculously well in each other. If you spec'd liq methane or some weird liq fluorocarbon then there's practically no overlap given methane is non polar.

Anyway yeah its the solubility thing which is indirectly related to pH. Its not very hard on earth to figure out if something was sitting in a water tank or an ammonia tank same thing on mars.

Also temp and pressure. Maybe you could do something weird with NH3 at 10 bar and 500 deg that looks kinda like water related corrosion, but no one will believe that happened on martian surface.

Re:How do they know water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42608475)

Oh, I have been to more than 10 bars....oh....you mean pressure - LOL! Thanks for the answer!

Re:How do they know water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42609559)

My blood's a weird fluorocarbon you insensitive clod!

Re:How do they know water? (1)

EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC (2816391) | about a year and a half ago | (#42613837)

I doubt AC picked NH3 to be "tricky". It's still valid to ask "could this be the result of a non-water liquid?"

It should be safe to assume NASA does what it can to rule out other liquids because, obviously, water is the one that gets them excited. One method might be mineral solubility; however, the only methods I've heard or read about are erosion and associated/ancillary processes such as sediment transport.

Is it because I'm not a geologist that I don't understand why erosion can only be caused by water? Any geologists or areologists out there want to fill me in?

mod d0wn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606139)

Curiosity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606141)

I have someting to show that is very curious : Curiosity [youtube.com]

Rounded edge grains (5, Informative)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606157)

Some of the grains have "rounded edges", not sharp edges, very good 'evidence' Mars has had water in the past.

In a Jan. 15 press briefing, NASA's Mars Science Laboratory researchers showed close-up photographs of the shallow depression, dubbed Yellowknife Bay, where the rover is located, about 500 meters west of its landing site. High-resolution photos of sand and rocks taken by Curiosity show signs of the presence of water in the past. Individual grains of sand have rounded edges from being "knocked around, busted up by some process," said Aileen Yingst of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson and deputy principal investigator for the Mars Science Lab. "Because they're relatively large on the sand size spectrum, [that] indicates water."

http://m.iwgov.com/264939/show/a1412b9dd084473569011d6612b77cf8/ [iwgov.com] ?

Re:Rounded edge grains (4, Funny)

ianare (1132971) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607325)

So we can expect an imminent Apple lawsuit then?

Can We Please Settle This? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606173)

I don't think that anyone still doubts that there was water on Mars. Even at the time of Mars' discovery there was such clear evidence of water activity(erosion) that they thought that there were still water filled canals on Mars. WE KNOW IT HAD WATER, once upon a time. I don;t see any reason for more of these pseudo excited articles about "new evidence of water on mars".

Should they discover large quantities of liquid water or ice still on the surface, that would be interesting. We know there use to be lots there, but not anymore.

Re:Can We Please Settle This? (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606437)

I don't think that anyone still doubts that there was water on Mars. Even at the time of Mars' discovery there was such clear evidence of water activity(erosion) that they thought that there were still water filled canals on Mars. WE KNOW IT HAD WATER, once upon a time. I don;t see any reason for more of these pseudo excited articles about "new evidence of water on mars".

Should they discover large quantities of liquid water or ice still on the surface, that would be interesting. We know there use to be lots there, but not anymore.

I have to agree. Coming up, a shocking article about a discovery of nerds trolling slashdot.

Re:Can We Please Settle This? (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606481)

Should they discover large quantities of liquid water or ice still on the surface, that would be interesting. We know there use to be lots there, but not anymore.

The presence of water ice is hardly interesting, numbnuts. In fact, I'd say we all know Mars has water ice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_polar_ice_caps [wikipedia.org]

Re:Can We Please Settle This? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42607415)

No, we don't know that for sure. We know it has water ice at the poles, though this has only relatively recently been confirmed.

We know it has surface patterns that look like erosion, but a lot of things can cause those patterns. Spirit found no evidence of past water despite landing in the middle of what we believed was a dried lake bed.

We assume it had water of some sort, but the question is whether it had large bodies of standing water (seas, lakes) for long periods of time (millions of years).

If it did, then the question is whether life arose in those bodies of water.

If that's true, the question becomes whether life is still there or not.

I get your point, you don't like science. It's boring and nerdy to you. You want something shiny and new to play with. iPhone 6 will be out soon.

You needn't waste your time commenting, this is interesting to a lot of people who are into such things.

Are we sure this time? (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606243)

The last time I saw a Mars article on here, it was faked. I'm still feeling the troll-burn from that. And this article is on a website I've never heard of also.

Re:Are we sure this time? (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606271)

Here's a more trustworthy link, at least for me: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20130115.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Are we sure this time? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606573)

I personally think the most reliable reports about Mars come from our very own tackhead [slashdot.org] .

Not a Surprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606245)

The ENTIRE surface of the planet is coated in a thick layer of iron oxide - i.e. rust - which cannot be created naturally without oxidizing the living shit out of some iron. Considering the tiny fraction of the atmosphere that's composed of oxygen (it's almost all carbon dioxide, which IIRC can't cause rust) then just how exactly do they thing all this rust was formed without water?

The question has never been if Mars ever had water - that much is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, of course it did. The question is how did SO MUCH water disappear, when, and if we ever do finally start a colony there, how do we prevent our own water supply from also vanishing.

Re:Not a Surprise (3, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606841)

Your question is one that has been answered [wikipedia.org] Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago, allowing solar radiation to strip away its atmosphere. Water vapor was flung into space by this process over the billions of years, and any surface water will boil away due to the low atmospheric pressure.

Re:Not a Surprise (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607279)

Why is this modded insightful? His question was NOT answered and still isn't. We have postulated that Mars lost it's water because it no longer had a functioning magnetosphere. However, we have absolutely no clue why it lost it's magnetosphere or how to prevent the same from happening to earth.

Describing a process does not mean you understand why the process started in the first place.

Re:Not a Surprise (2)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607729)

Why is this modded insightful? His question was NOT answered and still isn't. We have postulated that Mars lost it's water because it no longer had a functioning magnetosphere. However, we have absolutely no clue why it lost it's magnetosphere or how to prevent the same from happening to earth.

Describing a process does not mean you understand why the process started in the first place.

We know exactly how Mars lost its magnetosphere, and we sure as hell can't prevent the same thing from happening to Earth (despite what a really bad movie might have told you). Eventually, the Earth will lose it's magnetosphere the same way that Mars did: the mantle core will cool down, and you're no longer going to have a bunch of molten iron moving at the center of the planet.

Re:Not a Surprise (1)

G00F (241765) | about a year and a half ago | (#42609575)

It is speculated our very large moon keeps our mantle nice and hot. But will it keep it hot enough and long enough who knows. Our core isn't as hot as it once was millions of years ago, and our rotation is slowing down.

Now, you may think that our gravity should be keeping the moons core hot, but the moon is locked, the same side if facing us, so no friction.

So, in theory, if we gave mars a large stable satellite, we could heat things up inside.

Re:Not a Surprise (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | about a year and a half ago | (#42615153)

Shouldn't you have put that in the death star petition instead? :-)

Re:Not a Surprise (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607739)

The answer is it lost its magnetosphere, which brings up the question of how did it loose it's magnetosphere.

Just because an answer brings up further questions that doesn't mean that the original question was not answered.

Re:Not a Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42607033)

It's going to be pretty hard to start a colony on a planet without a megnetosphere. Those ionizing rays that magnetospheres deflect are pretty nasty.

Free Mars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42606685)

Free Mars!

Daniel Plainbot (2)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606819)

If there's water, there's oil. I DRINK YOUR MARS SHAKE.

not first (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606833)

They announced finding rounded stream gravel a few weeks ago. Other fossil water traces would not be a surprise then.

enough with the surface water (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606963)

Enough with the surface water already, show us the diatoms!

Good, send up another one (3, Interesting)

jpvlsmv (583001) | about a year and a half ago | (#42606967)

Now that NASA has demonstrated that the rover technology in Curiosity works, why aren't we sending more of them up?

The Skycrane landing had never been attempted before, but Curiosity landed intact. The analysis machines are working well, and are delivering good results from the rocks that are within 2 meters of the probe, but what about the rest of the planet? At the end of Curiosity's time on mars, we will have less than a square kilometer of the surface explored in detail.

Why don't we send a few (dozen) more up to explore other valleys? This is like trying to figure out the Earth's geology by driving from Chicago to Gary, IN. (and only looking out the right side of the car)

--Joe

Re:Good, send up another one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42609609)

They are. [nationalpost.com]

Re:Good, send up another one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42611283)

Because US citizens do not like to let their govt spend any money on pretty much anything.

Best headline ever (2)

dsvick (987919) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607197)

I hope that the first life on Mars that curiosity finds is a cat, and that it runs it over and kills it ...

Of course they "found something" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42607643)

Billions of wasted dollars, wasted hours, manpower and resources. Did anyone really think they wouldnt "find something"? Or do people truly believe they would blow all of that for absolutely nothing and then say "Well, we didnt find shit. But hey atleast we tried am I right?" They have to do something to justify everything and to keep people interested so they can continue to get the funding.

But really any evidence or things they find have no real proof. We have to go 100% by what they say. And we all know governments, companies in bed with governments, big programs requiring millions in funding and so on would never ever lie or tell a half truth to anyone ever for their own personal gain right?

Space programs in general are the last thing america needs to be blowing money and resources on. We need to fix our problems here in america on earth first. If that money, manpower, resources and thinking/problem solving had gone into whats wrong here it would have been better spent instead of shooting a tin can in space that unless it stumbles across a rock it can bring back that cures all diseases or gives us unlimited power whats the point? So we can find something that doesnt do jack to actually help people, improve our countries problems or give us something viable?

Space exploration is important and has potential to advance us as a species through technology or new ways of doing things but lets face facts, the chances of that happening are (pardon to pun) astronomical. And right now we should be worrying about things down here, were just not in a posistion to waste all of that on 1 in a multi trillion chance we will find anything useful.

Oh and that headline is fucking ridiculious. They didnt find any proof guarenteeing water was there. They found something and "assumed" it was due to water a long fucking time ago. They didnt find any evidence at all.

They forgot one minor detail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42607841)

Did NASA not notice the massive canyons that scar the entire surface of mars? They also forgot about all the ice they found already? Obviously mars had water on it, I learned that in the 6th grade for peet's sake...

*yawn* (1)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | about a year and a half ago | (#42607925)

*yawn*

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'm starting to get really tired of NASA's 'water' discoveries every 6 months. Yeah yeah all the rovers and landers have discovered water now.

Can we PLEASE send some biology detection experiments now?

Viking landers detected signs of biological life, then discredit the findings and has since refused to send any more biological detection experiments to the planet.

Why?

Some of it looks like mud (1)

theunixbomber (2023818) | about a year and a half ago | (#42609547)

Surounding the large rock in the upper left of the picture looks like mud to me. Specifically just to the right of the shadow.

Take a look at the high resolution image. Kind of looks like this to me:
http://godschildrenblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/img_2063.jpg [wordpress.com]

Mars is a dead planet (1)

tjstork (137384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42611289)

I think the big non-story is actually the interesting one. It seems like while Mars might have had water and still has it perhaps in places, it might also be that the other chemicals on the red planet preclude it from ever having developed life.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>