Nasa finds water ice on Mars

[Astroboy]

I'm sure everyone's heard this already but I'll post anyway.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/MN7612368B.DTL

This is only significant because liquid water is a prerequisit for life as far as many scientists believe.

My reaction to this? No shit Sherlock! Let's all pretend to be surprised that there's water there like it's an amazing discovery. We've only been seeing the Martian polar caps for how many decades now? We've photographed it receding and refreezing for decades as well.

If anyone has been paying attention to the attitude of NASA regarding the acknowledge something so silly as exterrestrial water is like pulling teeth. Let's not even go there when it comes to admitting that there may be life outside of Earth. This general attitude sickens me really.

Remember the Martian rocks that supposedly contained fossilized microbes and mineral formations indicative of life? Squashed.

Sorry, but I just have to vent. In all other respects I admire NASA for their work but this just boils my blood. The only water I'd like to see is some waterboarding of some gov officials to have a more open attitude toward the possibility of life outside this little marble. It just doesn't seem like they are trying very hard to find life beyond Earth. We've got a little moon called Europa that seems to be covered by a frozen ocean but we are not to anxious to go land a probe there.

 

[CapnG]

It just doesn't seem like they are trying very hard to find life beyond Earth. We've got a little moon called Europa that seems to be covered by a frozen ocean but we are not to anxious to go land a probe there.

Well water ice isn't all that exciting, really. I mean there's ice on the moon but we don't think much for the prospects of life there.

And Europa's a bit of more complex issue than Mars. Apart from being like tens times as far away from us (and thus ten times the signal delay) there's also the little problem of it going dark for hours and hours as it goes through it's own orbit. We have a clear line of sight to Mars. With Europa that's not always the case.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I lost interest in Mars, years ago when I found out more important things are going on...... Refresh my memory. What were the ice caps made of that we've known about for decades? Seriously, I know longer spend much time with this stuff, and was it something other than water?

 

[fitzbew88]

I'm sure everyone's heard this already but I'll post anyway.
...
This is only significant because liquid water is a prerequisit for life as far as many scientists believe.

My reaction to this? No shit Sherlock! Let's all pretend to be surprised that there's water there like it's an amazing discovery. We've only been seeing the Martian polar caps for how many decades now? We've photographed it receding and refreezing for decades as well.

Yes, it does seem a little anti-climatic, doesn't it?

I guess it's good to be 100% sure instead of just 99% sure.

I believe there were some other possibilities (other than water) to explain the polar caps.

If anyone has been paying attention to the attitude of NASA regarding the acknowledge something so silly as exterrestrial water is like pulling teeth. Let's not even go there when it comes to admitting that there may be life outside of Earth. This general attitude sickens me really.

I don't believe this is a fair statement. Pioneer 10 (launched in 1972) had a plaque containing information about Earth and humanity. It was intended for "anyone" who may find it in the future. Although possibly intended to be symbolic, it certainly acknowledged the possibility of intelligent life.

I've noticed that the NASA scientists running the Phoenix program openly talk about the possiblity of finding life on Mars.

Remember the Martian rocks that supposedly contained fossilized microbes and mineral formations indicative of life? Squashed.

If by "squashed", you mean other scientists pointed out that non-organic processes could produce the same results, then yes.

If we are talking about the same thing (I'm not 100% sure), the excitement was caused by some tunnels and residue that seemed like dead-ringers for the results of biological processes. However, other scientists pointed out that chemical processes could produce similar results.

It wasn't exactly "fossilized microbes". I apologize if we are talking about different things.

It just doesn't seem like they [NASA] are trying very hard to find life beyond Earth. We've got a little moon called Europa that seems to be covered by a frozen ocean but we are not to anxious to go land a probe there.

I think if we gave them the money, they would be willing to try anything.

 

[Kieran]

I'm sure everyone's heard this already but I'll post anyway.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/MN7612368B.DTL

This is only significant because liquid water is a prerequisit for life as far as many scientists believe.

My reaction to this? No shit Sherlock! Let's all pretend to be surprised that there's water there like it's an amazing discovery. We've only been seeing the Martian polar caps for how many decades now? We've photographed it receding and refreezing for decades as well.

If anyone has been paying attention to the attitude of NASA regarding the acknowledge something so silly as exterrestrial water is like pulling teeth. Let's not even go there when it comes to admitting that there may be life outside of Earth. This general attitude sickens me really.

Remember the Martian rocks that supposedly contained fossilized microbes and mineral formations indicative of life? Squashed.

Sorry, but I just have to vent. In all other respects I admire NASA for their work but this just boils my blood. The only water I'd like to see is some waterboarding of some gov officials to have a more open attitude toward the possibility of life outside this little marble. It just doesn't seem like they are trying very hard to find life beyond Earth. We've got a little moon called Europa that seems to be covered by a frozen ocean but we are not to anxious to go land a probe there.

NASA is going to find alot of things in its exploration of our solar system but what do they really know,What are the things that they dont say to the media or the public that is the question.Is Nasa today only considered about the coffers in its bank account and the status quo of it's organisation:exclamation:

 

[Astroboy]

I don't believe this is a fair statement. Pioneer 10 (launched in 1972) had a plaque containing information about Earth and humanity. It was intended for "anyone" who may find it in the future. Although possibly intended to be symbolic, it certainly acknowledged the possibility of intelligent life.

I've noticed that the NASA scientists running the Phoenix program openly talk about the possiblity of finding life on Mars.

This hardly constitutes an active approach to me, which brings me to my main criticism of NASA. Let's not get into the whole conspiracy thing for a moment.

The real truth is that since we landed on the Moon NASA has lacked vision and has wasted a lot of money on projects nobody except a few scientists really care about. Did we build a space station so billionaires can take joy rides? Did we need to send probes to Mars to other locations other than those that may contain water and therefore life first?

There are may projects that NASA spends money on such as the study of comets and asteroids that the general public just yawns at. It's no wonder their funding always seems to get cut. Other than Hubble and hopefully its successor most of NASAs projects seem to be a big waste of tax money.

 

[fitzbew88]

This hardly constitutes an active approach to me, which brings me to my main criticism of NASA.

I wasn't trying to characterize it as an "active approach" to finding life, but as an example of how NASA implicitly acknowledges the possiblity of life beyond Earth.

The real truth is that since we landed on the Moon NASA has lacked vision and has wasted a lot of money on projects nobody except a few scientists really care about.

For some reason, here on the Paracast forums, the assertion comes up frequently that NASA lacks vision. In my own opinion, this is not true.

According to this web page (a press release from Speedera Networks), NASA's web site received over 17 BILLION hits in 2004. I think it's fair to say that interest in NASA's projects extends beyond a "few scientists".

Did we build a space station so billionaires can take joy rides?

No, we built a space station so that we could gain experience keeping humans in space for long periods, performing construction activities, testing technology, and performing other research that will ultimately help us perform long-duration manned space exploration.

The Russian space program "sold" a few space station visits, but at that point they needed cash.

Did we need to send probes to Mars to other locations other than those that may contain water and therefore life first?

I think we are starting with Mars because it is closest and "friendliest". And I think, yes, we needed to do this. I'm sure that our eventual missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn will use methods and technology that was field-tested on Mars.

There are may projects that NASA spends money on such as the study of comets and asteroids that the general public just yawns at. It's no wonder their funding always seems to get cut. Other than Hubble and hopefully its successor most of NASAs projects seem to be a big waste of tax money.

Returning to the Moon and laying the groundwork for a manned mission to Mars seems pretty exciting to me. A waste of money? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Astroboy]

Damn it, fitzbew88. You make sense. I hate you!

 

[CapnG]

Missed this:

Refresh my memory. What were the ice caps made of that we've known about for decades?

They were theorized to be carbon dioxide for a long time by those who discounted the possibility of life on Mars, so it was always kind of an either/or prospect. Seems like now it is in fact water. Still not really a revelation in a grand sense.