Topic: Liquid water once "soaked" Mars...

[ChrsLWlstr]

 CNN Link

Great news indeed.  

[Scott Allen Abfalter]

I am a big proponent of space exploration and I wish we would spend a lot less on blowing people up and a lot more on finding out new science.

But I am not exectly sure I understand the implications behind this, or why it's such great news.

Basically, as I understand it, we've pretty much agreed that a lot of the land features on Mars were created by running water sometime in the past.  So we know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".

Now we find more microscopic evidence showing that there was water, but it is not there where we are looking.  So we instead of just knowing "there used to be liquid water on Mars" we now know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".

What am I missing?  If the rover found actual liquid water, or ice crystals that could be harvested, I would see this as a fantastic discovery and welcome news for a future manned Mars mission.  But that is not what they found.  They found geologic evidence of liquid that isn't there now, but was there once.  Which they already could infer from looking at the landscape evidence.  

What am I missing?  Why is this great news?  Are they just happy that they have better proof that they were right all along?

 

[Clark Kent]

Quote:

Basically, as I understand it, we've pretty much agreed that a lot of the land features on Mars were created by running water sometime in the past.  So we know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".  

LMAO
i'm a big fan of science, but at the same time I realize its faults.  Through science, no actual knowledge can be obtained.  Everything in science is based on assumptions and hypothesis and observations that do not contradict either of the former.  And we all know the problem with assuming, right?  
CK

[Death_Merchant]

Quote:

What am I missing?  Why is this great news?  Are they just happy that they have better proof that they were right all along?
 

Yea, that's kinda it.
We've gone from "pretty sure" to "almost positive". Where "positive" would be a nice camera image of a Martian puddle with a rover wheel splashing in it.

What's exciting is what this infers:
1) Where did the water go? Is it all frozen in the ice caps? Sub-surface ice? Sub-surface liquid water???
2) When was liquid on the surface? A million years ago? 100? Some hypothesize Mars may go through a global climate cycle, where liquid water is possible on the surface for long periods at a time....
3) Go to the Antarctic: No liquid water on the surface.....Some liquid trapped under rock & ice or kept liquid by sub-surface volcanism. Same deal on Mars????

Most of these questions will only be answered after a successful return mission brings rocks back to Earth.

- then it crashes in the Arizona desert
- Some local Sheriff opens up the capsule
- Everyone dies except a crying baby and some old coot on sterno
- "Doctor, there is a wildfire"
- "Establishment gonna fall and go boom"  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

- then it crashes in the Arizona desert
- Some local Sheriff opens up the capsule
- Everyone dies except a crying baby and some old coot on sterno
 

Then, after days of frantic research and a ton of money in a top-secret facility,  (and two hours of me sitting on my butt in the theater) we learn that everything would have turned out just fine if all the heros in the movie had sat on their hands and done absolutely nothing.

Geez, but i hated that movie!    Good reference, though, DM.  Everything was cool about the movie except the ending.  I went back and read the novel later, and the ending had even less climax.

-S'Cipio

[Death_Merchant]

LOL,
I loved that movie. Even the "cop-out" ending. It gave me the "Boy, we got lucky this time. Maybe we won't be next time" feeling.
Creepy....

Unlike much sci-fi of the era, it still plays well today.

FYI: The original draft of the book was not done in the "realistic style". It was a rewrite suggested by his editor...  

[ChrsLWlstr]

 CNN Link

Great news indeed.  

[Scott Allen Abfalter]

I am a big proponent of space exploration and I wish we would spend a lot less on blowing people up and a lot more on finding out new science.

But I am not exectly sure I understand the implications behind this, or why it's such great news.

Basically, as I understand it, we've pretty much agreed that a lot of the land features on Mars were created by running water sometime in the past.  So we know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".

Now we find more microscopic evidence showing that there was water, but it is not there where we are looking.  So we instead of just knowing "there used to be liquid water on Mars" we now know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".

What am I missing?  If the rover found actual liquid water, or ice crystals that could be harvested, I would see this as a fantastic discovery and welcome news for a future manned Mars mission.  But that is not what they found.  They found geologic evidence of liquid that isn't there now, but was there once.  Which they already could infer from looking at the landscape evidence.  

What am I missing?  Why is this great news?  Are they just happy that they have better proof that they were right all along?

 

[Clark Kent]

Quote:

Basically, as I understand it, we've pretty much agreed that a lot of the land features on Mars were created by running water sometime in the past.  So we know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".  

LMAO
i'm a big fan of science, but at the same time I realize its faults.  Through science, no actual knowledge can be obtained.  Everything in science is based on assumptions and hypothesis and observations that do not contradict either of the former.  And we all know the problem with assuming, right?  
CK

[Death_Merchant]

Quote:

What am I missing?  Why is this great news?  Are they just happy that they have better proof that they were right all along?
 

Yea, that's kinda it.
We've gone from "pretty sure" to "almost positive". Where "positive" would be a nice camera image of a Martian puddle with a rover wheel splashing in it.

What's exciting is what this infers:
1) Where did the water go? Is it all frozen in the ice caps? Sub-surface ice? Sub-surface liquid water???
2) When was liquid on the surface? A million years ago? 100? Some hypothesize Mars may go through a global climate cycle, where liquid water is possible on the surface for long periods at a time....
3) Go to the Antarctic: No liquid water on the surface.....Some liquid trapped under rock & ice or kept liquid by sub-surface volcanism. Same deal on Mars????

Most of these questions will only be answered after a successful return mission brings rocks back to Earth.

- then it crashes in the Arizona desert
- Some local Sheriff opens up the capsule
- Everyone dies except a crying baby and some old coot on sterno
- "Doctor, there is a wildfire"
- "Establishment gonna fall and go boom"  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

- then it crashes in the Arizona desert
- Some local Sheriff opens up the capsule
- Everyone dies except a crying baby and some old coot on sterno
 

Then, after days of frantic research and a ton of money in a top-secret facility,  (and two hours of me sitting on my butt in the theater) we learn that everything would have turned out just fine if all the heros in the movie had sat on their hands and done absolutely nothing.

Geez, but i hated that movie!    Good reference, though, DM.  Everything was cool about the movie except the ending.  I went back and read the novel later, and the ending had even less climax.

-S'Cipio

[Death_Merchant]

LOL,
I loved that movie. Even the "cop-out" ending. It gave me the "Boy, we got lucky this time. Maybe we won't be next time" feeling.
Creepy....

Unlike much sci-fi of the era, it still plays well today.

FYI: The original draft of the book was not done in the "realistic style". It was a rewrite suggested by his editor...  

[ChrsLWlstr]

 CNN Link

Great news indeed.  

[Scott Allen Abfalter]

I am a big proponent of space exploration and I wish we would spend a lot less on blowing people up and a lot more on finding out new science.

But I am not exectly sure I understand the implications behind this, or why it's such great news.

Basically, as I understand it, we've pretty much agreed that a lot of the land features on Mars were created by running water sometime in the past.  So we know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".

Now we find more microscopic evidence showing that there was water, but it is not there where we are looking.  So we instead of just knowing "there used to be liquid water on Mars" we now know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".

What am I missing?  If the rover found actual liquid water, or ice crystals that could be harvested, I would see this as a fantastic discovery and welcome news for a future manned Mars mission.  But that is not what they found.  They found geologic evidence of liquid that isn't there now, but was there once.  Which they already could infer from looking at the landscape evidence.  

What am I missing?  Why is this great news?  Are they just happy that they have better proof that they were right all along?

 

[Clark Kent]

Quote:

Basically, as I understand it, we've pretty much agreed that a lot of the land features on Mars were created by running water sometime in the past.  So we know "there used to be liquid water on Mars".  

LMAO
i'm a big fan of science, but at the same time I realize its faults.  Through science, no actual knowledge can be obtained.  Everything in science is based on assumptions and hypothesis and observations that do not contradict either of the former.  And we all know the problem with assuming, right?  
CK

[Death_Merchant]

Quote:

What am I missing?  Why is this great news?  Are they just happy that they have better proof that they were right all along?
 

Yea, that's kinda it.
We've gone from "pretty sure" to "almost positive". Where "positive" would be a nice camera image of a Martian puddle with a rover wheel splashing in it.

What's exciting is what this infers:
1) Where did the water go? Is it all frozen in the ice caps? Sub-surface ice? Sub-surface liquid water???
2) When was liquid on the surface? A million years ago? 100? Some hypothesize Mars may go through a global climate cycle, where liquid water is possible on the surface for long periods at a time....
3) Go to the Antarctic: No liquid water on the surface.....Some liquid trapped under rock & ice or kept liquid by sub-surface volcanism. Same deal on Mars????

Most of these questions will only be answered after a successful return mission brings rocks back to Earth.

- then it crashes in the Arizona desert
- Some local Sheriff opens up the capsule
- Everyone dies except a crying baby and some old coot on sterno
- "Doctor, there is a wildfire"
- "Establishment gonna fall and go boom"  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

- then it crashes in the Arizona desert
- Some local Sheriff opens up the capsule
- Everyone dies except a crying baby and some old coot on sterno
 

Then, after days of frantic research and a ton of money in a top-secret facility,  (and two hours of me sitting on my butt in the theater) we learn that everything would have turned out just fine if all the heros in the movie had sat on their hands and done absolutely nothing.

Geez, but i hated that movie!    Good reference, though, DM.  Everything was cool about the movie except the ending.  I went back and read the novel later, and the ending had even less climax.

-S'Cipio

[Death_Merchant]

LOL,
I loved that movie. Even the "cop-out" ending. It gave me the "Boy, we got lucky this time. Maybe we won't be next time" feeling.
Creepy....

Unlike much sci-fi of the era, it still plays well today.

FYI: The original draft of the book was not done in the "realistic style". It was a rewrite suggested by his editor...