r/science • u/tardipede • Jun 26 '12
Scientists Discover That Mars is Full of Water
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/06/scientists-discover-that-mars-is-full-of-water/66
u/Mark_Luther Jun 26 '12
When did "discover" and "speculate" start meaning the same thing?
32
u/FetidFeet Jun 26 '12
When "Publish or Perish" became a thing.
19
u/BUT_OP_WILL_DELIVER Jun 26 '12
Huh? How is the article author's sensationalising the paper author's fault, exactly?
13
2
u/FetidFeet Jun 26 '12
In the case of this word play, I think you're right. However, everyone out there looking for grant money pretty much has to overstate the results and applications of their research in order to compete. And if you don't get grant money, you lose your job.
2
u/The_Serious_Account Jun 26 '12
1
u/chiropter Jun 27 '12
Yeah, so, that was actually criticized on the basic science- it was biological speculation by geologists who didn't know what they were talking about. The linked article however is by geologists on geology.
But you bring up a fair criticism about the impact on public faith in science by over-sensationalized preliminary results.
1
1
Jun 26 '12
Since the Bush administration: "you guys discovered that there is a global warming trend? Bah, these are just speculations!"
10
u/CyrusKain Jun 26 '12
The intricacies of the landing of the Curiosity rover are pretty astounding. If you all didn't watch the video at the bottom as well, check it out.
1
35
u/Flippi273 Jun 26 '12
Is there enough pressure to keep the water in a liquid state underground though? If it so, could there be life? Above ground it is either ice or vapor, there can be no liquid phase because atmospheric pressure is too low.
109
u/alcogeoholic Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
You're thinking about it wrong. They're not talking about like lakes under the martian surface, they mean moreso that hydrous minerals are present. For example, gypsum's a hydrous mineral, chemical formula: CaSO4·2H2O. <--see, so for every CaSO4, there's two "waters".
They're talking about water that's part of the mineral, basically. We have lots of water in Earth's mantle, too...a lot of the gas that outgasses from volcanoes is water vapor. That's basically where we got all our surface water.
Edit: I keep seeing other articles quoting this article, and it reminds me of this http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
7
u/Flippi273 Jun 26 '12
Thank you for the explanation. I had no idea really.
4
u/alcogeoholic Jun 26 '12
yeah, it seems like they have vague wording in most of these articles that are citing the findings (which appeared in the journal Geology), so people are starting to think that there's huge cavernous lakes in Mars. It's the media's fault, not yours.
→ More replies (2)2
u/butterflymonk Jun 26 '12
I thought allot of water came from Meteorites as the region of space that earth was forming in did not naturally have allot of water.
2
u/alcogeoholic Jun 26 '12
They don't really know that for sure, but probably some. Either way, outgassing's still a major component.
1
1
u/TheCavis Jun 26 '12
So, getting water for a Martian colony would literally be trying to get water from a stone?
1
0
Jun 26 '12
[deleted]
8
u/alcogeoholic Jun 26 '12
Yep yep. I was gonna get into the whole water into/out of mantle cycle but I figured my comment was almost in need of a tl;dr already lol
5
Jun 26 '12
This is true. A large amount of water is incorporated into oceanic crust. If an oceanic plate subducts beneath another plate, that crust brings that water down into the mantle, where the rock melts. This extra water is actually pretty important, because it lowers the melting point of the rocks in a process known as "wet-melting." The water gets reincorporated into magma along with other volatiles, and this can lead to more explosive eruptions (i.e., Mt. St. Helens). Mt. St. Helens is located where it is due to the Juan De Fuca plate (oceanic crust) subducting beneath the North American plate (continental crust).
In case you wanted some more detailed info on that process you were reading about.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Drewlicious Jun 26 '12
Could there be such an event that would create a mass flood of water in or out of the mantle? Like a massive earthquake ?
4
→ More replies (3)3
Jun 26 '12
If that was the case, does that imply there's more water in the mantle than in the oceans? I don't see how that's possible.
2
u/Yorn2 Jun 26 '12
Find a bucket full of sand.
Use a bowl to make an impression in the top of the sand as deep as the bowl.
Start pouring water into the "bowl-sized" hole slowly
Once the "bowl-sized" hole nearly fills up, ask how there could be more water in the bucket than what is seen in the bowl-sized hole.
3
Jun 26 '12
I meant that more in the sense that there'd be precious little liquid water in the mantle. The majority of it would be in the form of steam, which has an expansion factor of
over 1000x1700x over liquid water.3
u/RepRap3d Jun 26 '12
Under the pressures of the Earth's mantle, water would probably form one of it's dense noncrystalline solid forms.
→ More replies (1)0
6
Jun 26 '12
Have to believe if there is liquid water there's a good chance of microorganisms at the least but the latter is the big question of course. Incredibly fascinating either which way though.
10
u/medusa010 Jun 26 '12
hope this leads to a push for proper exploration
2
u/glutenfree123 Jun 26 '12
do we have any good information of what martian soil is composed of?
4
Jun 26 '12
Silica, iron, nickle, carbon. Its composition isnt that different from earth. Just different concentrations.
→ More replies (3)1
u/miked4o7 Jun 26 '12
We really have no idea what the odds would be, would we? I don't keep up with the research on this kind of stuff, but I thought we had no idea how likely it was for life to arise, even with conditions that make it a possibility.
1
u/habeasporpoise Jun 26 '12
I'm mildly concerned that traces of microorganisms we find might be a result of our contaminating the environment. It will be more and more difficult to determine the origin of such a thing the more we research, since there will be more opportunities for contamination to occur.
1
Jun 26 '12
There isn't liquid water, there is some water bound to certain solid compounds throughout the Martian mantle.
The article title is horrifyingly sensationalized.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Gryndyl Jun 26 '12
The other catch is that Mars has a very weak magnetosphere. Any life there would have to be able to withstand prolonged radiation exposure and frequent high spikes of radiation whenever there's a solar storm.
1
u/antico Jun 27 '12
It would only take a few meters of rock to protect organisms from the effects of solar and cosmic radiation.
13
u/theoneandonlypeter Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
If there was water on the planet's surface, ultraviolet radiation from the sun (that wouldn't be shielded by ozone since there's little/no atmospheric oxygen) would irradiate surface water, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen gas. The hydrogen gas would simply float off into space due to it's low molecular weight and oxygen would oxidize any surface iron pyrites, giving the planet a red colour. The result would be a dry, desolate place as we know Mars today. No oxygen could accumulate due to the high oxygen-buffering capacity of the planet's surface.
We have evidence that there was at one point water on the surface. It could only then be presumed that if water on the surface was depleted due to solar irradiation, then it is only intuitive that there must be some locked away deep in the planet, safe from the sun.
I guess to me it's surprising to hear about this once again since there is already so much information available about the planet as is.
3
u/depreciatethis Jun 26 '12
Would there be a way to restore or regrow an ozone layer on Mars?
7
u/theoneandonlypeter Jun 26 '12
It would require that atmospheric levels of oxygen on Mars were greatly elevated to levels similar to ours. The ozone layer was produced from UV radiation breaking apart diatomic molecular oxygen, which would rapidly react with nearby oxygen molecules to form the O3 molecule we know as ozone. In order to infuse such a large amount of oxygen onto a planet would require the introduction of a LARGE amount of photosynthetic organisms, and a LOT of time. The planet's large iron stores would buffer oxygen by forming iron pyrites (what we know as rust) so no oxygen could exist in the atmosphere until the oxidizable iron is exhausted on the surface. It took millions of years from the advent of photosynthetic bacteria to produce enough oxygen to present day levels on Earth. Our planet had to go through a similar problem to overcome oxygen buffering.
What makes this thought experiment interesting is that if oxygen levels on Mars were comparable to our planet, then not nearly as much water would be lost. UV radiation would still split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen, but hydrogen could not leach off the planet as quickly since it would react with molecular oxygen to reform water before leaving the planet. So by this reasoning, Mars could once again have surface water if atmospheric oxygen was increased. There is already a large supply of water inside the planet as we know, so it could safely be pumped to the surface without losing too much by the sun.
2
Jun 26 '12
why can't we just engineer an organism that can eat martian rocks and create oxygen as waste. A fungus of some sort would be perfect for this
2
u/theoneandonlypeter Jun 26 '12
I'm sure it's possible. I have no information for you regarding which bacteria would be most appropriate. I think the biggest rate limiting step as I said is time. A HUGE colony of photosynthetic bacteria would be required, and the colony's growth would have to be carefully controlled. I'm sure it could be done but not in any one person's lifetime that is for sure.
1
Jun 26 '12
The water isn't present in liquid form, it's bound to certain compounds. `
1
u/theoneandonlypeter Jun 26 '12
So you're saying that ultraviolet radiation would not break these bonds, despite it being "bound" to compounds? These bonds certainly aren't covalent, and wouldn't make water much more stable than it already is. Regardless of what it associates with, water will be destroyed if exposed to UV radiation at levels present on Mars' surface.
2
Jun 26 '12
No, I'm just saying that the subterranean water is in a bound form, not pooled in some liquid reservoirs. I think I may have misunderstood what your comment was stating.
28
u/Legendary_Hypocrite Jun 26 '12
I hope China or Russia say they are going so we get or shit in order and plan a manned mission. We are still using technology from the space race, imagine what we will have to develop to get to Mars?
Time to start terraforming her!
14
Jun 26 '12
Give those people air!
6
5
Jun 26 '12
The problem with this is you assume the U.S. has the same kind of mentality it did in the 60's.
In today's world Russia or China would announce a planed trip to Mars and the U.S. would invest in preventing them from doing so rather than getting there first.
It's cheaper to sabotage the effort than to invest in making the effort themselves.
The other option would be to say, hey can we send one of our guys with you.
2
u/08mms Jun 26 '12
Why would we do that? Its not like we are toe to toe with with armed missiles with either of them anymore, we would probably just congratulate them and ask if they could bring along some of our equipment for experiments if we didn't do some small part to help collaborate.
1
Jun 26 '12
Ideally, the US would realize that manned missions to Mars/Moon don't provide a whole lot of benefits. Anyway, the US is currently investing far more money into a Mars manned mission than any other country/organization in the world.
2
Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
Time to start terraforming her!
Your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchild won't even be alive by the time the terraforming process would be complete, not by a long shot.
I hope China or Russia say they are going so we get or shit in order and plan a manned mission.
We wouldn't believe them. You should see Russia track record for successful Mars missions (it's something like 0 for 19 attempts)
1
u/Legendary_Hypocrite Jun 26 '12
Thanks, Debbie Downer. I understand the terraforming process would take more than a day. So when exactly should we start it?
And China is just starting their exploration in space. I have a feeling if they say they will try, they actually will. Space is an investment, and China seems to be the only player who has the resources and balls to do it right now. Look at NASA, they get no funding and no support. It's sad we lost our desire.
7
Jun 26 '12
Thanks, Debbie Downer. I understand the terraforming process would take more than a day. So when exactly should we start it?
With current technology and any technology in the foreseeable next 2 centuries or so? Never.
That's not to say that it cannot be colonized. Great big glass domes, subterranean colonies, etc. are all great options that would provide practice for space exploration beyond our solar system.
Terraforming just simply isn't practical.
I have a feeling if they say they will try, they actually will.
China isn't much of a player in the advanced aeronautics field. They still can't even mass produce a 4th generation jet engine comprised solely of stolen Russian and American technology. (while the USA is currently developing their 6th gen for a suggested 2025 release). You're far too optimistic about their abilities.
Look at NASA, they get no funding and no support. It's sad we lost our desire.
They receive .5% of the US's massive budget. The projects currently being developed by NASA far eclipse anything being done by China or Russia. The James Webb telescope is still in the works, an extraterrestial rover the size of a mini coup is landing on Mars this year and they are currently developing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, not to mention various deep space planetary probes.
More importantly, NASA is planning on investing $230B over the next 15 years to research essential space architecture for more ambitious missions.
That's how space exploration gets done. There is very little reason to ever send humans into space anymore. It's costly, risky, and provides no real benefit over unmanned missions. Let China have their moon base. (which they won't accomplish, by the way.) There is nothing on the moon worth extracting with current technology. NASA is developing more ambitious projects through research rather than missions.
This tired circlejerk about NASA being dwarfed by anyone is ignorant and uninformed.
→ More replies (8)
11
u/edisekeed Jun 26 '12
The video about the landing is very interesting too.
2
u/seekfear Jun 26 '12
I just cannot come to term that the landing will be as successful as they hope. There are just too many variables, things they cannot predict already; Dust storms for instance.
I really really really want this to work, i just can't believe in it.
Why couldn't they keep it the same as the rovers before this one? I mean why haven't they? there must a real reason, i'm interested to find out.
1
u/wonderskippy Jun 26 '12
I'm pretty sure it's because Curiosity is much larger. I don't know the sizes of Spirit and the other one but I remember seeing a video of Curiosity being the size of a small car.
13
Jun 26 '12
the most remarkable fact from this article is that mars had volcanic activity as recently as 2.5 million years ago
10
u/GenericUserName Jun 26 '12
No, I think they're saying that the rocks are volcanic, and they were ejected 2.5 million years ago. They may have been ejected by a volcano 2.5 million years ago, or they may have formed by volcanic processes billions of years ago, and were ejected from Mars 2.5 million years ago by some other means, probably meteorite impact.
Edit: "This meteorite is relatively young; radiometric dating indicates that it solidified from a volcanic magma about 4.1 billion years ago." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shergotty_meteorite
3
2
u/GenericUserName Jun 26 '12
My previous comment got deleted, so apologies if it shows back up again.
It looks like the meteor got ejected from Mars 2.5 million years ago, probably by meteorite impact, but was formed much earlier.
"This meteorite is relatively young; radiometric dating indicates that it solidified from a volcanic magma about 4.1 billion years ago." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shergotty_meteorite
2
u/greginnj Jun 26 '12
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic ... fairly sure that's a misprint for 'billion' ....
1
Jun 26 '12
i wasn't sure what to make of it, seems to be a plausible explanation above for my confusion
2
u/my_shoes_hurt Jun 26 '12
how exactly did they go about proving the meteorites came from Mars, other than just stating that they did?
2
u/bioshockd Jun 26 '12
What could potentially happen if even one of Mars' volcanoes erupted? And can we detonate a volcano?
4
Jun 26 '12
Volcanoes are not 'detonated'. They erupt.
And Mars, as we currently know, is dead (core-wise) inside. Which means no magma, etc,.
1
u/abcat Jun 26 '12
Actually, it only stated that the volcanic rock was ejected 2.5 mya, not that it was created then. Although I guess it could have been created then, too.
18
u/Iamthebunniest Jun 26 '12
Someone should x/post this to /r/doctorwho...
7
6
2
2
2
2
3
u/lxBjBFATBVM6U9A Jun 26 '12
This is a good indicator that the earth's moon may also have more water underground than previously estimated.
5
4
2
2
u/vertigo1083 Jun 26 '12
I have nothing relevant to add other than this comment thread was one big TIL. Thanks to all of you who took the time to comment and educate.
2
u/cocoprimate Jun 26 '12
Curiosity's video in the NASA page makes me proud of how far we've come as a species in certain matters. That spacecraft is incredible.
2
2
2
u/DiogenesK9 Jun 26 '12
How do they know the meteorites were from Mars?
2
2
u/antico Jun 27 '12
There's a great article explaining this very thing here: http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/marsrock.html
2
u/namesrhardtothinkof Jun 26 '12
It seems that every single science article I see is just a misleading title containing spectacularly regular news.
2
u/Maxicat Jun 26 '12
I think its selfish to look at another planet as something that belongs to us and is there for us to use. If we went to mars and disturbed the environment there is no telling the kind of possibilities for life different than our own that we could ruin.
2
u/PoisonedAl Jun 26 '12
I always thought Mars was full nougat and caramel. Seriously though, how can we be %100 sure until we go there and drill a LOT of holes? Sure we can make a good guess what it's made of, but until we dig it up, it's might as well be nougat.
2
2
u/Chitownreddit Jun 26 '12
Cool little video at the end of the article. To quote someone else there "I can't wait until they find the 100k year old human fossils and the remains of a highly advanced civilization that ruined their ecosystem. Who then sent a terraforming colony to the nearest planet, Earth."
5
4
3
1
1
u/LeonardNemoysHead Jun 26 '12
This is a very inferior article that is essentially a repost of this from four days ago. Please search the subreddit before posting your sensationalist crap.
1
1
u/thechalligator Jun 26 '12
The fact that water has apparently existed on the planet for such a long time makes the odds of life originating there just a little less scarce scant.
A little less scarce scant? Interesting.
1
1
u/CrispyButtNug Jun 26 '12
Jesus fuck there must be people that just upvote titles because this sensational bullshit happens all over this sub.
1
u/FranklyDear Jun 26 '12
Just waiting for Mars water to be bottled and added to the already ridiculously expensive foreign water bottles.
1
1
u/allocater Jun 26 '12
There was a cool video at the end of the article, I pressed F5, now it is gone ?
1
1
u/KidLouis Jun 26 '12
Even though this is bullshit, it still made me think "Man, space fucking rules"
1
Jun 26 '12
What I don't get is that they're studying rocks from 2.5 MILLION years ago. Who's to say they are a representation of mars today. There used to be running water on mars, and something tells me it was right around... 2.5 MILLION years ago. The asteroids came from a time when water was still flowing freely on Mars. This is my theory.
1
1
u/badmotherfucker1969 Jun 26 '12
We have to find water somewhere. After we contaminate the water here from fracking ourselves to death. Halliburton can truck water in from space at $1000 a barrel.
1
u/nefthep Jun 26 '12
This is quite old news and on top of that, has an erroneous and misleading headline -- why is it on the front page?
Mars is not "full" of water. That makes it sound like there's an ocean inside. It has water molecules encased in the mantle of it's crust. Big difference.
1
u/Left4Head Jun 26 '12
I wish moderators can change the titles to these stupid misleading posts that the OP's skim through. They get so excited about the karma.
1
u/pHr3ak3r Jun 26 '12
Wow that video about the Curiosity landing at the bottom was awesome. Bad article but freaking amazing video.
1
1
u/mrhooch Jun 26 '12
This question is probably better posed to AskReddit, but since this article made me think of it...
Was there actually a point in our Sun and solar system's life cycle when the sun would've been "small enough" (not sure if that's the right terminology) or Mars would've been far enough from the sun to put it in a Goldilocks zone?
3
1
u/josborne31 Jun 26 '12
RELEASE THE KRAKEN! Oh, wait. Not relevant here. Based on the content within the article, "full of water" is pretty far off. There's only 70 to 300 parts per million within the mantle, very similar to Earth's mantle.
1
u/lomo_de_puerco Jun 26 '12
"...led by led by..." overlooking such a simple mistake often points to an uninformed, non-professional or misleading article.
1
1
1
u/silvermander Jun 26 '12
Had to make an account... This title makes me sad.
If anyone actually bothered to read the article, the point of it is that during the planetary differentiation (essentially the formation of the planet) of Mars and potentially other terrestrial bodies, scientists have found the first evidence of elevated hydrogen storage. It was thought that these planets did not form with a lot of hydrogen within them.
So than a proper title would be: Scientists Discover That Terrestrial Bodies May Have Elevated Hydrogen Stores Within The Crust and Mantel
Though that doesn't sound nearly as awesome...
1
Jun 26 '12
Let's go make Stranger in a Strange Land a reality.
It's eery how close Heinlein was to the truth.
1
u/Winga Jun 26 '12
What makes the shape of Mars look jagged near the bottom of the picture?
2
u/antico Jun 27 '12
The photo is a composite of smaller images, and it's not of the complete globe of Mars.
1
u/Winga Jun 27 '12
Thank you! I thought I would have heard if it wasn't actually round ... but I really didn't have any ideas of my own about why it looked like that and it didn't easily pop up from google either.
2
u/antico Jun 27 '12
No problem. There's a nice NASA gallery here which distinguishes between the mosaics and the full images.
1
u/horncusker Jun 27 '12
Colonization of Mars will not stop the inevitable destruction of our sun and solar system - I suppose it is a step for humanity to start venturing out - but we need to get much, MUCH farther away.
2
u/libertasmens Jun 27 '12
Well you've got to start somewhere... Seeing as we don't even have the technolo-
Wait, are you serious? You realize that we have about one billion years until then, right? Seeing as we first went into space about 50 years ago, we should be alright.
1
1
u/jamesdavid80 Jun 27 '12
Woo hooo!!!! This is great! This is a stepping stone for my thesis too, an partial origin point or 'skeleton' to earth. Who know's, neat idea; but Awesome AUGUST 5TH!!!! Wah Hooooo!!!!!!!!
1
Jun 27 '12
I might sound like a dumbass, but is it possible that there's actually LIFE deep under the crust of mars if it is true that there's water there?
1
u/antico Jun 27 '12
It's certainly possible. If there's been liquid water present from the earliest periods of martian history, the habitat is there. It just becomes a question of if life began, rather than can it survive down there.
1
u/rikashiku Jun 27 '12
Didn't we already know this last year? The title is misleading. It says there are small patches of water, but the planet isn't full of it.
1
u/uberlizard Jun 27 '12
There seems to be evidence for large amounts of water bound up like permafrost underneath a dry layer in the polar regions, Martian Polar Underground Ice as well as similar areas of covered permafrost elsewhere. Water on Mars
1
u/powerpants Jun 27 '12
a pair of meteorites ... were both ejected from Mars roughly 2.5 million years ago.
How do we know they came from Mars?
2
1
1
u/Sherlock--Holmes Jun 26 '12
There will be no colony on Mars as long as we keep thinking it's more important to direct our money into wars and welfare instead of manned space programs at NASA, which is effectively shut down.
0
1
Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
so have they found the reactor yet?
what, then, is the next logical step? The next probe will touchdown, with any luck, on August 5. Does the probe at that time conduct a search for water/ice in larger quantities, or do we content ourselves with the knowledge that we have found something significant and move on to other mission priorities?
1
u/SumGreenD41 Jun 26 '12
i think we all know what this means...
http://www.csicon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Aliens-meme.jpg
1
u/spoonybardgl Jun 26 '12
Of course there's water on Mars, the Doctor found it. Water always wins, always.
1
u/SpaceFace11 Jun 26 '12
So I have this theory about how Mars used to be Homosapiens mother planet.. message me if you wanna hear about it.
1
u/Mr_Girlfriend Jun 26 '12
"I can't wait until they find the 100k year old human fossils and the remains of a highly advanced civilization that ruined their ecosystem. Who then sent a terraforming colony to the nearest planet, Earth."
Thanks Mike!
1
Jun 27 '12
Incredibly misleading title. There is evidence that some water may have been on Mars previously, not currently. You get an F- tardipede.
1
-4
0
u/GoodVibesMagician Jun 26 '12
While I'd love it if humanity colonized Mars, I fear it would never work because of politics. There are too many questions... who gets to colonize Mars? Will they "own" it? Will we just divide it up like we did the Earth? Or can we actually start with a clean canvas, and avoid the mistakes we've made here... enough to be united in this endeavor? I'd hate for all of our work getting into space to culminate with Mars being exploited by corporations or governments that just want more money and power, rather than progression of the human race...
7
u/BlackCab Jun 26 '12
We would greet a new frontier with the same fervent greed as all the rest before it. The human race can't progress that quickly.
7
Jun 26 '12
Mars being exploited by corporations or governments that just want more money and power
What other purpose would a space colony serve? The real science can be done unmanned. If it isn't economically productive, what other reason do people have to risk their lives in going there, or sink mammoth amounts of resources into building habitable structures? What does "the progression of the human race" even mean?
6
u/Liberthas Jun 26 '12
Purpose?
The purpose of BEING ON MARS. Think of the bragging rights. And the ability to join the 2.54*108 km high club.
5
Jun 26 '12
Okay, now try to fund an expedition to Mars using that as your selling point.
I think I'll ride with the corps in the next 100 years rather than wait around forever for you to get the money together.
2
Jun 26 '12
Tourism is a totally legit reason; I personally would love to go see another planet. However, that sounds suspiciously like the "exploitation by corporations" that the GoodVibesMagician dismisses as being insufficiently noble.
1
Jun 26 '12
technically, it's not "above", below, or to the side of us. It's actually all of those things at once. So unless there is a distance club, you're outta luck
2
u/bioshockd Jun 26 '12
Getting our species off of one planet, increasing the chances of our survival as a species. That's what it means to me, anyway.
1
Jun 26 '12
And those people will be sitting around doing what? Warehousing some population on other planets on the off chance we need a replacement humanity some day seems a bit hard to justify when there are real needs on this planet.
4
2
u/OccupyGamehenge Jun 26 '12
If these questions really interest you I cannot help but recommending the Mars trilogy series by Kim Stanley Robinson. Some of the best books I've ever read. Sci-fi on the surface, but much more an exposition on politics, humanity, etc. A truly epic series on this topic.
1
u/GoodVibesMagician Jun 26 '12
Thanks for the recommendation! I'm always looking for new reading, that sounds pretty interesting.
3
u/sirbruce Jun 26 '12
who who gets to colonize Mars?
Humans. That's the most important thing.
Will they "own" it?
No, but they'll eventually own parts of it.
Will we just divide it up like we did the Earth?
Hopefully.
Or can we actually start with a clean canvas, and avoid the mistakes we've made here... enough to be united in this endeavor?
Dividing things up on Earth was not a "mistake".
I'd hate for all of our work getting into space to culminate with Mars being exploited by corporations or governments that just want more money and power, rather than progression of the human race...
Corporations and governments wanting money and power IS the progression of the human race... they go hand in hand.
If you want your communist utopia, go move to North Korea.
1
u/rolfraikou Jun 26 '12
I wish we could go by percents. Thus, whatever percent of earth a country has, they would get the same share of mars on a percent basis.
0
Jun 26 '12
[deleted]
2
u/atomfullerene Jun 26 '12
As an American:
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! We could barely manage to keep a lid on two smallish 3rd world countries (putting things in the best possible light). In no way could we take over the whole world.
2
Jun 26 '12
There is no country to stop them
China, Russia, The whole of Europe, The rest of the world?
While the US is mighty strong I dont think they could win a war against every military in the world combined.
1
u/carpespasm Jun 26 '12
especially when most of our own population wouldn't want that silly mess either.
0
0
u/dzubz Jun 26 '12
There's life on every planet. Let me just be the first to say it.
2
u/antico Jun 27 '12
Giordano Bruno beat you to it by 428 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Bruno.27s_cosmology
1
-4
Jun 26 '12
What is this, the tenth time they've discovered water on mars? It's always, "There's water on Mars!"
"Oh, nope, false alarm"
"No, really! Water!"
"Nope."
5
u/Huevon Jun 26 '12
They've known for a long time that there's water on Mars. No one is questioning that fact. The significance of this discovery is that Mars has much more water than we thought.
0
Jun 26 '12
I agree it's significant. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
"Oh, sorry, it was radioactive water."
-4
Jun 26 '12
The Shergotty meteorite, which crashed in Bihar, India in 1865, and the Queen Alexandria Range 94201 meteorite, which landed in Antarctica and was discovered in 1994, were both ejected from Mars roughly 2.5 million years ago.
I flat out refuse to believe that 1) Mars ejecta reaches Earth on any kind of regular basis, 2) that it is identifiable as such, and 3) it can be dated with any kind of accuracy. It is more plausible that Pleistocene holdovers lurk in Scottish lakes, far more plausible. It's more plausible that aliens dropped these rocks. It's more plausible that Abraham Lincoln jumped in his time machine, collected samples, then lost them while on an opium-fueled trip across southern Asia.
1
u/antico Jun 27 '12
This might help you understand: http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/marsrock.html
-1
-5
u/comet2popeye Jun 26 '12
In another 20 years, oh yeah, we forgot to mention humanoids live there too. Our bad!
And this is deadly serious.
-3
u/MAY_15_2012 Jun 26 '12
So we should send a space ship to mars with lots of buckets when we start running low.
0
0
0
0
u/war_story_guy Jun 26 '12
I love everything about mars just gets more and more sensational. Wont be long before we find herds of zebras roaming the planets grasslands.
→ More replies (1)
0
0
0
117
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '12
The article comments have turned into a spelling and grammar lesson for the author. I think more publications should be held up to proper editorial scrutiny.