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!

NASA Finds Evidence of Recent Flowing Water on Mars

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the some-bound-to-claim-theory-is-all-wet dept.

NASA 238

SonicSpike writes to mention that Scientists are claiming that they have evidence of water flowing on Mars within the last five years. From the article: "Subsurface aquifers or melting ground ice were floated as possible sources of the water. One of the springs even appears at a fault line, according to Malin, just as they often do on Earth. The shortness of the gulleys, which seem to flow for but a few hundred yards, might be accounted for by a process similar to a volcano's eruption on Earth, with water instead of magma building up underground, and ice, instead of fire, characterizing the resulting flow."

cancel ×

238 comments

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

I bet.. (2, Interesting)

xx01dk (191137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136598)

they are going to be looking at a lot of before / after pictures now. I'm looking forward to as well. Very interesting.

Re:I bet.. (1, Offtopic)

nickron (1036524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136806)

They just need more funding. This is again a lot of 'may be' and 'might be' stuff coming back to us.

Mod parent up (4, Insightful)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137228)

They just need more funding.

You probably can't get closer to the reality. BBC [bbc.co.uk] is reporting it too and there they say:

"Other scientists think it possible that gullies like this were caused not by water but by liquid carbon dioxide.

One of the reasons for favouring CO2 was that computer models of the Martian crust indicated water could exist only at depths of several kilometres. Liquid carbon dioxide, on the other hand, could persist much nearer the surface where temperatures can drop as low as -107C."

But for funding it just has to be water, that's science and that's sad.
(I don't blame them, I know game too, different league, same rules.)

Re:I bet.. (2, Funny)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137294)

They just need more funding.
Funny, that's what every government agency says all of the time.

Lots More Pictures (4, Informative)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137486)

This has also been picked up [dailymail.co.uk] by the major media [msn.com] .

On a side note [slashdot.org] , the HiRISE team [uanews.org] is now posting new large images [arizona.edu] on the HiRISE Website [arizona.edu] every week on Wednesday. (A file size and format warning is needed. The full super high resolution photo of the Opportunity landing site [arizona.edu] is 677 MBytes in JP2 format)

Of course, there are some pics that I wouldn't mind a little more investigation on. I happen to be interested in something I call Gulliver's Golf Ball [usgs.gov] , something that looks like a perfect sphere, roughly 200 meters across.

INNACURATE! This is Hype! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136614)

Keep your pants on:

"Nothing in the images, no matter how cool they are, proves that the flows were wet, or that they were anything more exciting than avalanches of sand and dust," Allan Treiman, a geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston said in an e-mail.

nuff said.

Get your ass to Mars

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (1)

thehickcoder (620326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136712)

When was the last time you saw shiny, reflective sand or dust? (Ok, sand can be a little shiny, but I don't think it would have as much contrast against the plain old martian ground)

But, I agree, let's send someone up to take a look and find out.

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (4, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137166)

But, I agree, let's send someone up to take a look and find out.

Did you just volunteer?

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137382)

If I thought for one second I was NASA-worthy, I'd volunteer in a heartbeat, and I'll wager many others here would too.

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (1)

Z1NG (953122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137800)

If I thought for one second I was NASA-worthy, I'd volunteer in a heartbeat, and I'll wager many others here would too.

You don't think that you are worthy of flying through space for 286 days and then missing your final destination because of a units mismatch? NASA has done some impressive things but I wouldn't risk my life on one of their trips to Mars - their track record isn't stellar.

Volunteers (1)

Darlantan (130471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137860)

You could probably ask for volunteers for a one-way mission to Mars and get enough responses from slashdot alone to fill the roster.

Finding volunteers for spaceflight is a non-issue. Finding qualified ones...well, that's probably still a non-issue. It's the nerd equivalent of offering Joe Sixpack tickets to the Super Bowl if he'll just smear hot grits all over Natalie Portman.

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137868)

Yes, I do. I do not think they'll have any problems crewing a mission like that.

Perhaps, but we can keep dreaming (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136876)

Yesterday on Technocrat there was an announcement [technocrat.net] about the upcoming NASA press conference. NASA has kept nerds in suspense for utterly minor announcements before, so I wasn't expecting much from the announcement. Indeed, anything as important as the discovery of life (or, rather, the discovery of fossils of life) would probably have leaked out before and be all over the news.

But this announcement is cool because it means that Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars [amazon.com] , undoubtedly the most inspiring work of space colonization science fiction for many of us here, may still be timely. Much of Robinson's plot depends on the existence of subsurface aquifers. Even if there's no life, we can still dream of such an awesome concept as terraformation made possible through water still present underground.

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17137828)

True. Alternatives are *possible*. However, the trick is, the deposits do look different from other, known deposits produced by dust avalanches elsewhere on Mars, and, furthermore, the erosive channel systems above the deposits look consistent with a water interpretation and seepage from underground, rather than a "dry debris flow" interpretation (e.g., the channels converge at the top in tributary systems and meander towards the bottom on lower slopes, which is more characteristic of fluids than dry flows).

Here's the NASA press release [nasa.gov] with some pictures. There are many more pictures at the Malin Space Science Systems [msss.com] web site (they're the ones that ran the MGS until it was lost a few weeks ago). Also at the same time as the "possible water" press release, they were releasing information on recent cratering -- i.e. craters formed within the last few years. The published article is supposed to be in the Dec. 8 issue of Science [sciencemag.org] , but it isn't released yet and you'll probably need a subscription to read it when it is.

Re:INNACURATE! This is Hype! (3, Informative)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137940)

"Nothing in the images, no matter how cool they are, proves that the flows were wet, or that they were anything more exciting than avalanches of sand and dust," Allan Treiman, a geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston said in an e-mail.

Well, yes, but according to the scientists at the press conference all disturbances of the martian soil so far have shown up as darker than the undisturbed soil, not lighter as these images show. Also, the shapes of the light spots are more consistent with those a relatively thick muddy liquid would make than with what you'd see in a landslide. They did allow that yes, these images could be showing some previously unseen dry phenomenon, but that the shapes and color are both indicative of liquid.

Oops. (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136628)

Um, that wasn't water. I had had a lot of juice earlier, and there wasn't a gas station or anything to be found... sorry about that.

Re:Oops. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17137098)

Actually, Mars gets this unwanted liquid discharge every 28 days or so. They don't call it the "Red Planet" for nothing...

Re:Oops. (1)

lottameez (816335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137686)

Oh, cool. I thought I'd left the Mars faucet open.

Sorry guys. (-1, Redundant)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136630)

NASA Finds Evidence of Recent Flowing Water...

Sorry, for the trouble folks. That was me, just stepped out to take a leak.

interesting (1)

crankshot999 (975406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136632)

so was mars warm and cooled, or was it cool and warmed up and froze again? or did earth beam it with lasers until the ice melted?

Re:interesting (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137980)

Don't you mean "frickin' lasers"?

Wow! (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136656)

Not just scientists, but Scientists with a capital S!

This looks like the real deal. It appears that it's being reported everywhere; CNN, etc. When I saw the original article I was slightly skeptical, but NASA ain't screwing around, it appears.

Re:Wow! (1)

kevinx (790831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136918)

I was highly skeptical too.. but I heard rumor that this has been confirmed by Woo Hwang.

I am OP (3, Informative)

SonicSpike (242293) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137398)

I am the original poster and the summary or even the link is NOTHING like I submitted. I guess the /. editors take 'editorial liberty' to the extreme! No resemblence to the orignal at all.

Oh well, at least I got credit for it and good karma ;-)

Awesome! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136660)

Finally, conclusive proof of the existence of SPACE DINOSAURS living under the Martian surface in a network of vast subterranian caves, probably plotting to invade Earth any day now. Why else would there be water on Mars? Think about it.

Great! US will be there in no time! (4, Funny)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136718)

Dinosaurs = Fossils = Fossil Fuels = INVASIO^H^H^HLIBERATION!

I farted in my space suit... (0, Offtopic)

heauxmeaux (869966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136670)

...it smells like burnt rubber.

Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (5, Insightful)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136678)

It would be cool if NASA could keep a few micro-probes in reserve in Mars orbit that could be de-orbited as needed to investigate these kinds of phenomenon as they are discovered. Nothing large and complicated like a rover, just a very hi-resolution camera and some very basic devices to measure the local environment. The real trick would be getting pinpoint accuracy on the landing. To save weight and increase simplicity they need not even be designed to survive landing, just to deliver a high speed data squirt to an orbiter as they collect the most relevant and valuable data on their way down by parachute. If they do survive the landing they only need enough power to last long enough to send a few more surface condition measurements -- again the emphasis on cheap and expendable.

At the other end of the scale we need to develop landers that can investigate hard to get to locations like the very bottom of Valles Marineris. I assume this is where what little atmosphere there is would be the most dense, warm, and possibly moist. This would also be the most sheltered location on Mars from all forms of ionizing radiation.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136770)

deliver a high speed data squirt to an orbiter
Ballmer, is that you?

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (5, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136858)

I can see it now...


"Look, there is some water! Quick, lets crash a probe there and create a nice impact crater where very possibly the last life on Mars exists!"


No WONDER life on Mars has been so hard to find; it is hiding out of fear.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (4, Funny)

kmcrober (194430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137308)

Listen, pal, if there's life on Mars we're going to wind up bombing the hell out of it sooner or later. They might as well get used to it now.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (5, Funny)

Jonas the Bold (701271) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136934)

No. I'm sorry. We cannot allow "Squirt" to enter our vernacular as a word for sending data wirelessly. No way.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137156)

if I can google something, I can squirt something.

Squirt is direct. Google requires your imagination. I assure you that my imagination can be far worse.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (2, Informative)

trentblase (717954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137542)

When you google [google.com] something, you run an internet search.

When you squirt [squirt.org] something, you're trying to find a gay hookup.

Think about it.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137666)

When I "squirt", I am cumming on someone's face.

When I "google", I am shitting in someone's mouth.

Which would you prefer heading your way?

Still a data transfer (2, Informative)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137766)

So? "Squirt" in the lewd sense is *still* a rapid data transfer. Works better for the intended purpose, however, when one end is a responder - rather than both ends being initiators.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (1)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137266)

No. I'm sorry. We cannot allow "Squirt" to enter our vernacular as a word for sending data wirelessly. No way.

SECONDED BY SUPPORT TECHNICIANS ALL ACROSS THE EARTH!!!

"My Internet is squirting hacker thingies at me!"

NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137944)

"My Internet is squirting hacker thingies at me!"

      Depending on the site you visit, I suppose you get to squirt back. It's only fair.

too late to keep that out of the language ;) (1)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137430)

As I understand it, it's already common slang in some fields for sending data via satellite ("squirt the bird").

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (1)

Isao (153092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137698)

We cannot allow "Squirt" to enter our vernacular as a word for sending data wirelessly.

Too late. In fact, common parlance for initiating a transmission from a ground station to a satellite is "squirting the bird", as in "The antenna is locked on the beacon, are we ready to squirt the bird?"

How bad could it be (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137796)

Lemme grab my "gizmo" and squirt one off.

Ok yeah given the sloven stereotype of geeks, I guess it could be pretty bad.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137020)

It would be cool if NASA could keep a few micro-probes in reserve in Mars orbit that could be de-orbited as needed to investigate these kinds of phenomenon as they are discovered. [... snippage ...] If they do survive the landing they only need enough power to last long enough to send a few more surface condition measurements -- again the emphasis on cheap and expendable.

  "Cheap and expendable" and "in orbit around Mars in reserve for an indefinite amount of time" are mutally exclusive.

I vote we mod down (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137424)

anyone you use 'squirt' to say transfer.

Re:Hmmm, how to get a closer look? (1)

pureCaffeine (1029554) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137692)

I'm SURE "de-orbit" is a weasel word. At the very least, it's a euphemism for "let it fall out of the sky and hope it lands on something soft". But I like it :-)

The rush to colonize (3, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136692)

In related news, Starbucks announced it is booking passage on the next flight to the Red Planet. "This enables us to continue our mission of providing coffee to the races of the solar system," said its CEO. "I look forward to asking our first Martian customer, 'Would you like a double mocha latte, Mr. Xzart'FooKniznak?'

Re:The rush to colonize (2, Funny)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137022)

Reminds me of Conan O'Brien's "In the Year 2000" skit where he foretells:

In the year 2000, McDonald's will be forced to close its restaurant on Mars, due to the high cost of shipping acne to its workers.

Re:The rush to colonize (1)

Bob The Cowboy (308954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137562)

mochas and lattes are different drinks you insensitive clod!

Yellow River? (0, Offtopic)

glowingsnowball (973747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136704)

Yellow River by I.P. Freely....

coast 2 coast (2, Informative)

deft (253558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136726)

Richard Hoagland (sp?) was talking about this last night on coast 2 coast... the radio show normally infested with funny alien abductees and anal probe recipients.

He apparently had seen this stuff in mars rover pictures and predicted it.... guess nasa has finally came to the same conclusion.

I bet they were just more thorough or cautious in their analysis before declaring anything.

Re: (sp?) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136884)

You, in fact, did spell his name incorrectly. The correct spelling of his name is as follows:

W-h-a-c-k J-o-b

Re: (sp?) (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137676)

No kidding!!! If i hear him say "hyper-dimensional" one more time, I'm going to kick HIS ass to Mars.

He's a nut... But on a more serious note, he's just some public has-been seeking to recapture the lime-light he once had in the past. In any case, it's sad to see someone's reputation degraded to that of nut. He has no one to blame but himself.

Re:coast 2 coast (4, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137162)

He apparently had seen this stuff in mars rover pictures and predicted it.... guess nasa has finally came to the same conclusion.

Actually, the water is really the face on Mars [nasa.gov] crying.

Probably because of something you did.

Where's their sense of adventure? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137226)

I bet they were just more thorough or cautious in their analysis before declaring anything.

NASA is more cautious than anal-probe radio-show guy?

What a bunch of pansies! That's no way to do science.

Re:coast 2 coast (2, Informative)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137920)

The possibility of water on Mars was confirmed in 1971 when Mariner 9 discovered ancient river valleys at several places on the planet. Since then, the conjecture was always how long ago did Mars have liquid water on the surface of the planet.

Beach front property (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136732)

McMurdo Panorama [fotoausflug.de]

Flow Means Bi-directional Movement (4, Interesting)

moehoward (668736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136750)


For water to flow, it has to have gotten to the source of the flow first. So, there has to be a mechanism for transport back to the source of the flow. Like rain moves water on Earth back to higher ground. The article offers no speculation on this transport mechanism. I would, of course, suspect evaporation and then dew/frost. But, that would be picked up easily from our probes and even from Earth-based observation.

What am I missing here?

Re:Flow Means Bi-directional Movement (4, Informative)

syrinx (106469) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136788)

From what I understand, they think it 'bubbled' out of an underground aquifer, ran down the slope for a bit (leaving the trail that was spotted), and then sublimed away.

Re:Flow Means Bi-directional Movement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136860)

What am I missing here?

The summary says that the water may have come from a spring. The spring is fed by an underground resivoir. Why do you need add precipitation, condensation, or melting? It's really not necessary.

Re:Flow Means Bi-directional Movement (1)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137366)

Easily explained by pumps, which feed the canals and were built by the natives [pacbell.net] .

Move over... (2, Interesting)

BinarySkies (920189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136774)

Move over, Dasani, Poland Spring, and Evian... Here comes Lunar Liquid!

Re:Move over... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136840)

Move over, Dasani, Poland Spring, and Evian... Here comes Lunar Liquid!

Thats no moon.

Re:Move over... (1)

Zonnald (182951) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137000)

Um, Martian Liquid? Perhaps?

Re:Move over... (2, Funny)

NullProg (70833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137012)

Move over, Dasani, Poland Spring, and Evian... Here comes Lunar Liquid!
Martian Martini?

Funny (2, Interesting)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136812)

There's been pictures indicating recent water flowing for years. Guess the evidence got overwhelming. There's been also strong evidence of seasonal darkening as if the ground was damp during summer months. I found a camera shot years ago that showed the ground next to the rover that seemed to show a patch of water maybe the size of your palm. The ground around that was dark. NASA definately suffers from dogma. The current dogma had been for a dry Mars. Just glad they are surrendering finally and accepting the evidence. Given the resistence to change I think it'll take samples brought back from Mars to prove life. There was evidence as far back as Viking but still no missions looking for direct signs of life. I'd love to see that resolved during my lifetime but I have my doubts. It may have to wait for the manned mission and even then there'll be debate for years if something is found if NASA brought it there themselves.

Re:Funny (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136964)

I don't think NASA suffered from Dogma - more of an abundance of caution. Even know, I don't know how they can tell that the structures seen in the pictures are actual water, and not just sand that behaves similarly to a liquid.

Personally, I'll believe the H2O theory when someone actually pokes one of those areas, and they find water in either ice or liquid form.

Seconded. (1)

Darlantan (130471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137988)

I'd say they're just being overly cautious. Announcing the discovery of water on Mars is big news. Having to retract that and say, "Oh, nope, it's just...really odd dust." would really suck from a PR perspective. Better to say, "Well, we might have water, but we're not positive." right up until a probe goes and picks some up in a sippy-cup and sends it back home.

Not 100% (5, Informative)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136832)

Not all scientists are convinced that it was actually water.
 
"Many scientists believe the gullies were carved by liquid water, although others have argued they are due to avalanches of carbon dioxide gas or rivers of dust," from The New Scientist [newscientist.com] .
 
  Also, here [nasa.gov] is the NASA release from their site.

James Kim, dead at 35 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17136850)

I just heard some sad news on Digg. Celebrated internet journalist James Kim has been found dead in the Oregon area. There weren't any other details. Even if you didn't something something truly an American icon.

Not quite on the surface (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136852)

If you look at the high res images (from NASA here [nasa.gov] )
You can see the flow emerges from the side of an impact crater.
The water was most likely locked underground (as expected by the briney moist soil effect the rovers noticed just under the surface)

Its like diggign a hole in the sand at the beach, eventually water will start to seep in.

Dunno what to think... (1, Insightful)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136890)

I find it interesting that NASA also mentioned this week that they want to build a forward base on the moon in order to allow for further exploration of the Solar System, specifically Mars.
Are they trying to drum up some support for their project ? Or just coincidence ?

Re:Dunno what to think... (3, Interesting)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136998)

That moon base plan has been the works for a long time, but the timing of the announcements may not be a coincidence.

Re:Dunno what to think... (2, Informative)

sandrift (636291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137514)

Don't kid yourself - NASA PAO isn't nearly well-enough organized to strategize about when to release stuff like this. The paper is being published this week, so that's what dictates the announcement schedule. And believe me, you never know exactly when your paper will get published, so trying to time such disparate announcements to coincide would be very difficult anyway.

Re:Dunno what to think... (0, Flamebait)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137962)

Don't kid yourself - NASA PAO isn't nearly well-enough organized to strategize about when to release stuff like this.
Whatdayamean ? They managed to fake the moon landing, didn't they ?

/ducks fast

So is this evidence, (1)

adaminnj (712407) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136956)



of martian global warming too?

and if so did we on earth cause it?

I think I would get hot too getting probed that much.

(not that kind of hot get your mind out of the gutter)

Re:So is this evidence, (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137286)

and if so did we on earth cause it?

It was George Bush's fault.

The Submitter is SonicSpike? (0, Offtopic)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17136984)

Sonic... submitted this story faster than me? *snickers* I think they just blew out my ironic-o-meter!

Supply and demand (2, Funny)

myth24601 (893486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137004)

If they have found water on Mars this could send the price of water down.

White stuff around the crater rim (1)

Mr.Sharpy (472377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137008)

What's that white stuff around the crater's rim? Is that just a trick of the light? If it's not could whatever it is be the same material as the 'flow?' It has a similar intensity to the light-colored 'flow.'

"Looks like it blew a seal". (1)

fuego451 (958976) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137600)

Nah, that's just a little ice cream.

I'm sorry. The Devil made me do it.

Dan Quayle reportedly excited, gasping (3, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137050)

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen that means we can breathe." -- Dan Quayle, 8/11/89

Re:Dan Quayle reportedly excited, gasping (1)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137132)

Well, it's good to see that for NASA, space is still a high priority.

NASA Once Again Ignores Electrical Explanations (0)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137056)

I suppose you have to at least give them points for consistency.

There is plenty of reason to be skeptical of this *interpretation* of the images. For instance, pull up Figure B at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/images/pia0 9020.html [nasa.gov] . Now, in a separate, parallel window, open up the following image: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041126 craters-lab.htm [thunderbolts.info]

Can we really say for *sure* that this was an *impact*? Or were the craters formed by electrical discharge between the planet and an object as it fell towards the planet? This would explain the multiple impact craters and this is after all exactly what happened when a large copper ball was shot towards the Tempel 1 comet. I wonder if the "impacts" correspond to high points on the land? Nobody seems to be asking these sorts of questions because electricity is assumed to not be an important part of terraforming for the planets.

We have plenty of evidence already for electrical dust devils on Mars. Why is the electrical explanation consistently ignored when the morphologies appear almost identical?

There are all sorts of mysterious phenomenon on Mars that lose their mystery once you consider that electricity may be active on that planet.

Re:NASA Once Again Ignores Electrical Explanations (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137296)

Golly! You're right! As the electron shells of the copper molecules in the impacter neared the electron shells in the molecules of Tempel 1, their mutual repulsion forced the crater to form.

Re:NASA Once Again Ignores Electrical Explanations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17137302)

You're an idiot.

Re:NASA Once Again Ignores Electrical Explanations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17137392)

There are all sorts of mysterious phenomenon on Mars that lose their mystery once you consider that electricity may be active on that planet.
such as?

Re:NASA Once Again Ignores Electrical Explanations (1)

wheels4u (585446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137462)

Do energy lifeforms need water? Did I watch too much Star Trek or was it that AE 3000 animated movie?

Life!? (1)

Ben174 (853174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137084)

This is interesting because it's been stated time and time again: Where there's water there's almost surely life.

Martians (0, Redundant)

PWill (1006147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137120)

I, for one, welcome our new Martian overlords.

netcraft (0, Redundant)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137194)

has netcraft confirmed this water?

Lucky we created www.marshydro.com in 2000 then!.. (1)

Wonderkid (541329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137314)

Would you buy water from mars at $10,000 a litre? If the rich and famous spend thousands on a diamond encrusted mobile phone, would they spend that sort of figure on a bottle of space pop [marshydro.com] ?

To all sceptics: here's proof (5, Funny)

olden (772043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137400)

A photo that Nasa published over a year ago already unquestionably demonstrated the existence of water on Mars, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050401.html [nasa.gov]
(And if you're still not convinced you can even try this at home...)

i don't trust the press (1)

Mantooth (991503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137418)

Keep in mind that many of the 'major' discoveries of the MER mission announced at press conferences turned out later to be wrong, and the subsequent peer reviewed literature reflects the fact that the press release science was wrong.

There's a party over there (2, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137464)

This sounds like every party, ever.

"Aw man, I can't believe you left our chess club bash last night. FIVE MINUTES after you left, the entire cheerleader squad stumbled in and started making some unconventional moves with the bishops!"

"Dude, you JUST missed it. The keg floated FIVE MINUTES ago, and the stores are all closed now."

"Man, I'm telling you, the water was just here FIVE YEARS ago. What took your ass so long to get here?!?"

Sewage (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137672)

Actually on closer inspection its sewage run-off. Definetly clear evidence of little green men living underground. ;)

One man knows the answer (2, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137722)

Great, who's couch is Tom Cruise going to ruin this time over this finding? Maybe Scientology was right after all.

Am I blind? (0, Redundant)

pureCaffeine (1029554) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137834)

It's so obviously a weap0n of mass destructi0n - time to move in! (Maybe should have got these same NASA analysts to examine the satellite surveillance photos of Iraq - if they took several years to come to this conclusion they're obviously more thorough and methodical) :-)

Keep in mind... (1)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137848)

Keep in mind that MGS is now off-line and presumed "end of mission".

Looking to the near future, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Mars Reconnaissances Orbiter (MRO) [nasa.gov] delivers a more clear picture of whats going on up there...

Load More 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>