Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

Mars has water

Recommended Posts

Mars Water Evidence Excites NASA

 

 

(AP) After decades of scouring images of Mars for signs of water, scientists believe they have found stunning evidence that water may even now be flowing through the Red Planet's frigid surface.

 

The news excited scientists who hunt for extraterrestrial life. If the finding is confirmed, they say, all the ingredients favorable for life on Mars would be in place: liquid water and a stable heat source.

 

"This is a squirting gun for water on Mars," said Kenneth Edgett, a scientist at San Diego-based Malin Space Science Systems, which operates a camera on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor.

 

It was the Surveyor that prompted the announcement Wednesday by taking photographs of Mars before it lost contact with Earth last month. The latest findings will appear in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

 

The images do not actually show flowing water. Rather, they show changes in craters that provide the strongest evidence yet that water coursed through them as recently as several years ago, and is perhaps doing so even now.

 

In all of its Mars exploration missions, NASA has pursued a "follow the water" strategy to determine if the planet once contained life or could support it now.

 

Scientists believe ancient Mars was awash with pools of water. And at present-day Mars' north pole, researchers have spotted evidence of water ice. But they have yet to actually see water in liquid form.

 

"This underscores the importance of searching for life on Mars, either present or past," said Bruce Jakosky, an astrobiologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, who had no role in the study. "It's one more reason to think that life could be there."

 

Some researchers were skeptical that liquid water was responsible for the surface feature changes seen by the spacecraft. They said other materials such as sand or dust can flow like a liquid and produce similar results.

 

"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.

 

The Global Surveyor previously spotted tens of thousands of gullies that scientists believed were geologically young and carved by fast-moving water coursing down cliffs and steep crater walls. Scientists decided to retake photos of thousands of gullies in a search for evidence of recent water activity.

 

Two craters in the southern hemisphere that were originally photographed in 1999 and 2001 were examined again in 2004 and 2005, and the images yielded changes consistent with water flowing down the crater walls, according to the study.

 

Scientists said five to 10 pools of water rushed down the craters in each case. In both craters, scientists found bright, light-colored deposits several hundred yards long in gullies that weren't present in the original photos. They concluded that the deposits _ possibly mud, salt or frost _ were left there when water recently cascaded through.

 

Edgett said a combination of factors, including the shape and color of the deposits, led the team to believe it was recent water action and not dust that slipped down the slope. He said dust would leave dark deposits.

 

Water cannot remain a liquid on Mars for long because of subzero surface temperatures and low atmospheric pressure that would turn water into ice or gas. But scientists theorize that liquid water is being shot up to the surface from an underground source, like geysers.

 

Mars formed more than 4.5 billion years ago and scientists generally believe it went through an early wet and warm era that ended after 1.5 billion to 2.5 billion years, leaving the planet extremely dry and cold.

 

"We're now realizing Mars is more active than we previously thought and that the mid-latitude section seems to be where all the action is," said Arizona State University scientist Phil Christensen, who was not part of the current research.

 

___

 

On the Net:

 

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov

 

Malin Space Science Systems: http://www.msss.com

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/07/ap/national/mainD8LS25800.shtml

 

2nitlx0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty cool. Odd to think that there was once maybe somebody there.

 

yep, water is one of the essentials to life, so naturally, we should assume that there is/was life on mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if there's water, does it need chemical reaction in order to produce living organisms there on mars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw this recently, but it evidence of water on mars had been found a couple decades ago. why are they acting like this is news. this is just a new satellite snapshot.

 

but i don't think we should say "mars has water" or conclude that it has/had life. it probably did have water flowing at one time but there's a lot less evidence of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i saw this recently, but it evidence of water on mars had been found a couple decades ago. why are they acting like this is news. this is just a new satellite snapshot.

 

but i don't think we should say "mars has water" or conclude that it has/had life. it probably did have water flowing at one time but there's a lot less evidence of life.

 

well, theo, here's the important thing. that gully that you see fiills up with water periodically.

so, there is moving water on mars. that is the big deal. scientists have known there is frozen water on the polar caps of mars for some time.

 

and yes, we should assume there is/was life on mars. i say this with some confidence, there is indeed life on mars. most likely amino based microscopic shit, but it is life. who knows, there could be other creatures in underground water caves. we won't know for a little while. they'll need new equipment there to check since the rovers are unprepared for such a discovery.

 

neat stuff, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even if there's water, does it need chemical reaction in order to produce living organisms there on mars?

 

yep. the miller-urey experiment provided strong evidence supporting this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep. the miller-urey experiment provided strong evidence supporting this

 

 

 

 

There have been a number of objections to the implications derived from these experiments. Scientists believe that Earth's original atmosphere might contain less of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of Miller-Urey experiment:

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly NH3 and CH4. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. The reasons for this are (a) volcanic gas has more CO2, CO and N2 than CH4 and NH3 and (b) UV radiation destroys NH3 and CH4 so that these molecules would have been short-lived. UV light photolyses H2O to H· and ·OH radicals. These then attack methane, giving eventually CO2 and releasing H2 which would be lost into space. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The H atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[1] More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen---implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[2] One of the authors, Prof. Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth, (Washington University, September 2005) complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment.[3]

Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment implied. These factors suggest that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted (although the time scale would be 100 million years instead of a week). Similar experiments, both with different sources of energy and with different mixtures of gases, have resulted in amino and hydroxy acids being produced; it is likely that at least some organic compounds would have been generated on the early Earth.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Opponents of Miller-Urey hypothesis seized upon recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out) (Rosing & Frei 2004). These opponents argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller-Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a value about 200 Ma earlier than current values[4]), a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller-Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of a strongly oxygen containing atmosphere occurring any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".

Conditions similar to those of the Miller-Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the driving force for chemical reactions. On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, in some cases so much so that the surfaces of these bodies are turned dark red or as black as asphalt. The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. (This could also imply an origin of life outside of Earth, which then migrated here. See: Panspermia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, theo, here's the important thing. that gully that you see fiills up with water periodically.

so, there is moving water on mars. that is the big deal. scientists have known there is frozen water on the polar caps of mars for some time.

 

and yes, we should assume there is/was life on mars. i say this with some confidence, there is indeed life on mars. most likely amino based microscopic shit, but it is life. who knows, there could be other creatures in underground water caves. we won't know for a little while. they'll need new equipment there to check since the rovers are unprepared for such a discovery.

 

neat stuff, huh?

 

why should we assume there's life on mars? not one person at nasa will tell you there's proof of life on mars. you have a past history of assuming/declaring things and being wrong, or at least without any actual proof, just theory and hypotheses. you said 90% of americans think jfk's killing was an inside job, which wasn't true. you said we "indeed" are living in a holographic reality, when in fact the very scientists and/or philosophers that write about such things only claim it as being theory, not as 100% indisputable proof. and of course the planted explosives in the wtc which you were "indeed" sure of.

 

i hope there is life. it would be one of the greatest discoveries in modern history. but so far nasa has sent two land-rovers since the mid 90's when that "meteorite" supposedly from mars was found -- yet they've found nothing yet. no proof of life and until then we cannot say for sure that there is/was life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There have been a number of objections to the implications derived from these experiments. Scientists believe that Earth's original atmosphere might contain less of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of Miller-Urey experiment:

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly NH3 and CH4. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. The reasons for this are (a) volcanic gas has more CO2, CO and N2 than CH4 and NH3 and (b) UV radiation destroys NH3 and CH4 so that these molecules would have been short-lived. UV light photolyses H2O to H· and ·OH radicals. These then attack methane, giving eventually CO2 and releasing H2 which would be lost into space. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The H atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[1] More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen---implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[2] One of the authors, Prof. Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth, (Washington University, September 2005) complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment.[3]

Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment implied. These factors suggest that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted (although the time scale would be 100 million years instead of a week). Similar experiments, both with different sources of energy and with different mixtures of gases, have resulted in amino and hydroxy acids being produced; it is likely that at least some organic compounds would have been generated on the early Earth.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed. Opponents of Miller-Urey hypothesis seized upon recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out) (Rosing & Frei 2004). These opponents argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller-Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a value about 200 Ma earlier than current values[4]), a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller-Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of a strongly oxygen containing atmosphere occurring any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".

Conditions similar to those of the Miller-Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the driving force for chemical reactions. On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, in some cases so much so that the surfaces of these bodies are turned dark red or as black as asphalt. The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. (This could also imply an origin of life outside of Earth, which then migrated here. See: Panspermia)

 

instead of reading the entirety of the text from that user-contributed website that anyone can add and subtract to, i will say this: pretty much every experiment and theory in science history has had objections and counter-theories. what else is new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the rovers could at least get sediments from the area. they are capable of that.

they should also focus on why there is water recently. there could be changes in the atmosphere and the planet itself that we need to be concerned of...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the rovers could at least get sediments from the area. they are capable of that.

they should also focus on why there is water recently. there could be changes in the atmosphere and the planet itself that we need to be concerned of...

 

yeah that's interesting... i'm curious as to where all the water went. did it go underground? there are polar ice-caps on mars but they're composed primarily of co2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the ice caps are composed primarily of co2, then its not considered as water? water is H2O.

or since mars is hot, then it could have evaporated. if water flows periodically, where is the source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah that's interesting... i'm curious as to where all the water went. did it go underground? there are polar ice-caps on mars but they're composed primarily of co2.

 

they are pretty sure that the water that's filling up that gully is coming from underground.

as for the rovers, i'm not exactly sure how far away they are from said water. and, as i said, the rovers aren't exactly prepared for such a discovery.

 

one other note, i've been reading and hearing alot about nasa changing the filters for the cams to be red (like we always see). the skies are said to be blue, like our own. that would be according to the little color coding on the film. i'm not sure of this, since i am no expert on this subject.

 

some reading.

 

 

http://mars-news.de/color/blue.html

2d1mwzk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw something on TV about how the water that was on Mars slowly dissapated into to space, due to the planet's low gravity.

 

 

i don't believe that for one minute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's hard to believe because co2 and the other gasses in mars' atmosphere has a lower density than water vapor. mars may have a lower gravity field than the earth but not low enough where it can't even hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×