NASA Discovers Evidence of Fresh Water on Mars

roseofbattle

News Room Contributor
Apr 18, 2011
2,306
0
0
NASA Discovers Evidence of Fresh Water on Mars

Mars once had a lake with water so law in salt content and acidity that it could have been drinkable.

NASA's Curiosity rover has sent photographs of a streambed, leading scientists to conclude there was once a fresh water lake on Mars with water that could have been drinkable. The fact that Mars once had water has been known for some time. Scientists knew the planet used to be warmer and wetter, but also very acidic. The evidence of fresh water could prove the planet was once habitable.

The lake would have been hospitable to organisms called "chemolithoautotrophs," or mineral-eaters. The data provided by the Curiosity rover does not, however, confirm whether these organisms, which exist in caves and deep-sea hydrothermal vents on Earth, actually existed on Mars.

This ancient lake in the Gale Crater, believed to have existed 3.6 billion years ago, was discovered earlier this year, but it was not until recently that the lake was confirmed to have neutral water low in salinity. Previous theories suggested Mars' surface and ground water had the quality of battery acid.

"Previous results from Spirit and Opportunity [rovers] pointed to very acidic water, but what we're seeing in Gale Crater is evidence of fresh water," Jim Bell, an Arizona State University scientist said. "Very neutral. Drinkable."

The Curiosity Rover studied 4 billion-year-old rocks in the Gale Crater. When heated, the rocks produced gases including water, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. Much of Mars still has not been explored. The now cold planet still contains many mysteries. NASA has approved a plan for a new rover in 2020.

Source: Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-curiosity-rover-discovers-evidence-of-fresh-water-mars-lake/2013/12/09/a1658518-60d9-11e3-bf45-61f69f54fc5f_story.html?tid=sm_fb]


Permalink
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,419
0
0
Well, that's it, let's start the colonial expedition to Mars. Remember to pack the terraforming equipment...
 

iniudan

New member
Apr 27, 2011
538
0
0
The Gentleman said:
Well, that's it, let's start the colonial expedition to Mars. Remember to pack the terraforming equipment...
And chainsaw.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
I wonder if, in my lifetime, scientists will be able to deter radiation from Mars, making it to safe to return back to Earth, but also making Mars habitable by life.. Well, I await the day I get a postcard from Olympus Mons. Oh wait, my family hates me.
 

The_Darkness

New member
Nov 8, 2010
546
0
0
roseofbattle said:
Mars once had a lake with water so law in salt content and acidity that it could have been drinkable.
That's low, not law...

But that is fascinating. At some point there were conditions supportive of life on Mars. Now we just need to find out whether there actually was any, and we'll have our first bona-fide evidence of extra-terrestial life.

And that would be amazing.
 

piinyouri

New member
Mar 18, 2012
2,708
0
0
That's amazing.

The more we learn of Mars, it seems more and more like the possibility of it once being not so different from Earth is not as low as we think.

It's like looking into the future. A headstone for a dead planet.

And of course I will be rubbing this in the face of all the people who complained saying this rover mission was a waste of time and money.
 

Eric the Orange

Gone Gonzo
Apr 29, 2008
3,245
0
0
So what would be better to deal with the small atmosphere in a mars science facility? A dome to keep extra air in above ground. Or a underground facility where the air was denser.(FYI the atmosphere gets very thin at about 10ft up.)

I personally think a facility that was largely underground would keep the temperature more steady as the ground would act as a natural insulator.
 

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
Didn't they already find evidence a few years back? I can't remember... hey, the Internet can be my trusty thinker box. Internet ho!

Huh, turns out a few months ago: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/26/nasa-curiosity-rover-mars-soil-water. IN fact, that's more fresh water than this dried up old lake was... is... stuff. The lake bed is a curiosity, as it doesn't actually have the water anymore. The water in the soil is the good news for potential colonists.

Or, we could always go the other route: THE UNIVERSE IS ONLY 4000 YEARS OLD! What's this 3.6 billions years crap? Take your fancy science elsewhere, nerd.

Heh, I'm joking, obviously. Still, I guess we get to learn more about how Mars was exciting at one time but isn't much so anymore.
 

Josh123914

They'll fix it by "Monday"
Nov 17, 2009
2,048
0
0
Huh, So shouldn't we be.... celebrating or something?

I mean this is a huge deal. If Mars harboured liquid water then maybe there's some dead microbes or something in that patch of land?
Also wouldn't it be incredibly tragic if a week from now Curiosity finds freshwater river flowing nearby, and nobody picked up on it because the telescopes never checked that exact spot?
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Josh12345 said:
Also wouldn't it be incredibly tragic if a week from now Curiosity finds freshwater river flowing nearby, and nobody picked up on it because the telescopes never checked that exact spot?
Unless we also have made a grave mistake about the atmosphere that would be impossible. Even if such an atmosphere could sustain lakes carbon dioxide is quite acidic meaning the pH of that water would probably be quite low and thus not be considered fresh water.

What this tells us is that there has likely been some change in the atmosphere that proved itself to be quite devastating. However it might be possible to find signs of life which might give us a a clue to how evolution could go with a different origin. Sadly it's unlikely to find such a thing.
 

Gluzzbung

New member
Nov 28, 2009
266
0
0
I just don't care for NASA. Rage at me all you like, it's a massive waste of money and this should not be news.
 

Daaaah Whoosh

New member
Jun 23, 2010
1,041
0
0
What I take from this is that if the planet right next to ours could have at one time supported life, then it's not that far off to assume that a bunch of other stars have such planets. Even if Mars doesn't have any life, there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and chances just got a whole lot better that we'll find life on one of them.
 

truckspond

New member
Oct 26, 2013
403
0
0
And the cycle continues... Now just to wait for the next announcement that Voyager 1 has left the solar system again...

Captcha: domestic spying

...
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Gluzzbung said:
I just don't care for NASA. Rage at me all you like, it's a massive waste of money and this should not be news.
Rage? No. But you may want to consider the following:

The investment in NASA over the years had a substantial rate of return in economic growth and technological development from the 60s through the 70s. Estimates of current economic gain from the space program range from $8 to $14 for every dollar spent.

You may not have any interest in it, but it doesn't mean it's not useful or profitable, and it doesn't mean other people don't like to hear about it. We are rather happy to hear news like this, and you are free to read it or not.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
I am still not entierly sure why we bother surveying other worlds. Even if we did find any life out there, there is only three outcomes:

Outcome 1:
We kill it or use it in some other horrible way, and that's just assuming these are animals.

Outcome 2:
Assuming we have the restraint to not do that, I am positive we will just leave it alone completely, in some paranoid fear we might alter the progression of an entire world by screwing with it's ecosystem.

Outcome 3:
They are sentient, and we just leave them alone completely. Humans have made it pretty evident we can't handle anything different from us. Hell, we can't even handle slight variations in other humans, and those are just superficial things. The differences in aliens won't be superficial at all... Even if they were friendly we'd likely not even allow them to set foot on earth, always treating them like malicious invaders, or worse, monsters/animals, since the chance of them resembling humans in any way is too small to calculate. It is really sad, but the reality of it all is far more boring and grim then sci-fi makes it out to be.

So as of now, it's a complete waste of time and money, at least until we decide to change.