Mars Is Practically Drenched in Water

Fanghawk

New member
Feb 17, 2011
3,861
0
0
Mars Is Practically Drenched in Water

NASA's Curiosity rover has discovered consistent amounts of water in the Martian soil, implying that the red planet isn't so dry after all.

Thanks to its close proximity to Earth, scientists and laymen alike have long wondered why the surface of Mars is so different from our own. So far, our knowledge of the Martian surface suggests the planet once had an abundance of water, but eventually it dried up or remained frozen near the poles. When NASA sent the Curiosity rover to Mars, part of its mission was to find evidence of this water, along with any signs of organic life. Based on Curiosity's findings, we'll have to change "once had an abundance of water" to "still has an abundance". While it's true that Mars has a distinct lack of lakes, around 2% of the soil actually contains good old H20, implying that the planet isn't nearly as dry as one might expect.

Since 2012, the Curiosity rover has been studying the Gale Crater, a landmark located near the Martian equator. One of the rover's programmed tasks is to gather samples of soil from the ground, heat them to 835C using an internal oven, and measure the results. Along with the sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen released from the soil, a surprising 1.5 to 3% of each sample consisted of water. That's about two pints of liquid for each cubic foot of Martian dirt.

"We tend to think of Mars as this dry place - to find water fairly easy to get out of the soil at the surface was exciting to me," said Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's dean of science, Laurie Leshin. "If you took about a cubic foot of the dirt and heated it up, you'd get a couple of pints of water out of that - a couple of water bottles' worth that you would take to the gym." [NOTE: The soil still contains a toxic chemical that impedes thyroid function. Please don't drink Martian water at the gym.]

So how did all this water get here? Scientists suspect that billions of years ago, <a href=http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/28/curiosity-rover-descent-mars-nasa>the entire Gale Crater was flooded with enough fresh water to reach depths of over a kilometer. That's impressive enough, but what's really exciting is how well the soil has retained the water and how easily it can be retrieved. If NASA ever gets around to building that Martian settlement, astronauts should be able to use the soil water as a drinkable resource. After it's taken care of the sulphur dioxide and toxic chemicals, of course.

Source: <a href=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6153/1238937>Science, via <a href=http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/26/nasa-curiosity-rover-mars-soil-water?CMP=twt_gu>The Guardian

Permalink
 

Mr.Mattress

Level 2 Lumberjack
Jul 17, 2009
3,645
0
0
Calling it: Mars's surface is a secret cover for a planet that's innards are actually made of water, where Mermaid like creatures live planning to strike the Earth.

This is pretty neat news, actually.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Wouldn't it be easier to launch a colonization effort from the moon than from Earth?

I don't know about space travel logistics but I guess we really need to work a cost-effective way of getting stuff out of the atmosphere before we can look at any long-term plans for colonizing other planets.

Still, the idea that water is available "reliably" (as in you can essentially extract it from anywhere) on Mars is a great boon for potential colonization efforts.
 

Jackson - Deathclaw

New member
Feb 21, 2009
203
0
0
Also, use the martian soil to produce liquid hydrogen for flights back to Earth (saw a paper on this yesterday actually).

Another option that is being put forward is to release greenhouse gasses into the martian atmosphere, to create global warming on the planet, which would melt the polar ice caps, releasing tons of more carbon into the atmosphere that would heat the planet further, causing the water to evaporate out of the surface forming clouds, heating the planet even further, and then stabilising it with a new, functioning weather system that just needs plantlife to really kick things off. (Another paper, isn't science cool!)
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
To the people asking why not the moon first? Helium-3. Mars has it. The moon not so much. We thought it had it but it turns out to be too sparsely pocketed for a profitable mining operation. If we ever get fusion working, the stuff is gonna be the new oil. Granted all those valuable rocks on moon are worth chasing, but just remember that if we want Helium-3, Mars is the closest place that has it.
 

bfgmetalhead

New member
Aug 4, 2010
526
0
0
erttheking said:
To the people asking why not the moon first? Helium-3. Mars has it. The moon not so much. We thought it had it but it turns out to be too sparsely pocketed for a profitable mining operation. If we ever get fusion working, the stuff is gonna be the new oil. Granted all those valuable rocks on moon are worth chasing, but just remember that if we want Helium-3, Mars is the closest place that has it.
I thought Fusion power worked on the basis of using Deuterium as the catalyst?

Isn't that exceedingly easy to obtain due to it coming from sea water? If that is the case, it will be extremely difficult to justify conflict or monetizing of this resource, due to it being like.....Everywhere.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
bfgmetalhead said:
erttheking said:
To the people asking why not the moon first? Helium-3. Mars has it. The moon not so much. We thought it had it but it turns out to be too sparsely pocketed for a profitable mining operation. If we ever get fusion working, the stuff is gonna be the new oil. Granted all those valuable rocks on moon are worth chasing, but just remember that if we want Helium-3, Mars is the closest place that has it.
I thought Fusion power worked on the basis of using Deuterium as the catalyst?

Isn't that exceedingly easy to obtain due to it coming from sea water? If that is the case, it will be extremely difficult to justify conflict or monetizing of this resource, due to it being like.....Everywhere.
Yeah it's in the water, the problem is that it's not nearly as common as it could be, not to mention filtering out is a pain in the ass.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Wow, that was surprisingly depressing....

I mean it's exciting that water is basically saturating the planet but what depresses me is "why do I have to be alive now?" I would much rather be alive in two or three thousand years, it would be so interesting, being able to go to Mars like we go to the shop.... "honey, I'm going to work" means going to mass effect 3 type Mars. What tech will there be? Will world hunger be solved by replicators?

Does beat growing up two or three thousand years ago though.

Think of all arguments future people will have "should people live off planet?", "who owns Mars (to enforce laws etc?) .... Maybe further into the future will relationships be an issue again? We've got a little passed inter-racial and we are currently getting gay marriage accepted, will inter-species be another polarising issue that will be accepted eventually?
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Did they only survey the soil in the crater? If they did then it doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet has water in the soil, it could just be that that crater in particular was a good place for water to hang around longer than everywhere else. Still, it's a good sign for Buggalo farmers.
 

piinyouri

New member
Mar 18, 2012
2,708
0
0
I gladly rub this bit of news in the face of anyone who bitched and complained and made 'cute' remarks about the US launching this rover in the first place.

"Yay, we launched a space SUV meanwhile there's shit that need's to be done here wah wah"

We learned that Mars's soil is saturated with WATER.
So sit down and shut up. : )

Sorry, I'm just rather passionate about these things.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Eric the Orange said:
Huh, I wonder how that compares to earth. And if it's a lot of water why isn't it pooling anywhere.
Ditto. Though for why it isn't pooling, perhaps because Mars is more absorbent than Earth? Kind of like soft Great Plains dirt vs tough mountain clay.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
piinyouri said:
I gladly rub this bit of news in the face of anyone who bitched and complained and made 'cute' remarks about the US launching this rover in the first place.

"Yay, we launched a space SUV meanwhile there's shit that need's to be done here wah wah"

We learned that Mars's soil is saturated with WATER.
So sit down and shut up. : )

Sorry, I'm just rather passionate about these things.
Not to mention NASA gets a fraction of the funding any of our other oh-so-successful programs get. I would daresay the space program has an exponentially greater return on investment than almost anything, if not everything, else we fund.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Okay, this is interesting. However, shouldn't Earth have a much higher saturation on average? 70% of the planet is water, and life needs it to survive. Not to mention rainfall and other such factors. I would think Earth soil would probably be higher on average.

All the same, hearing that the ball of dust is not as dusty as we think is cool. So, when can I buy my martian condo? Will we be seeing Martian Water for sell in stores? Where are the green ladies? I was promised green ladies! Blue would suffice, in a pinch, I suppose.
 

Gezzer

New member
Jul 7, 2012
52
0
0
LetalisK said:
Eric the Orange said:
Huh, I wonder how that compares to earth. And if it's a lot of water why isn't it pooling anywhere.
Ditto. Though for why it isn't pooling, perhaps because Mars is more absorbent than Earth? Kind of like soft Great Plains dirt vs tough mountain clay.
It could be, but I'd suggest it's more Mar's thin atmosphere and temperature than anything else. Remember that the lower the atmospheric pressure the lower the temperature needed for water to boil. There's another process which I forget the name of that's similar to the effect you see with lakes and fog that could account for the lack of surface water as well. So I'd suggest that any water that could of been surface is most likely all in Mar's atmosphere.

I've always found Mars to be a bit of a puzzle. It one time it had a denser atmosphere, surface water, and everything needed for life to exist. Then it lost it's atmosphere to the solar wind and eventually reached the state it's currently in. I've often used Mars as a example of the rare Earth concept. Mars should of been fine for life, but it lacks a large iron core. Which produces less internal movement so there is very little tectonic forces and more importantly a very small magnetic field to protect from the solar wind.
So how important was the moon's collision with Earth towards making our planet viable for life? Did Earth capture the majority of the moon's iron? Did the collision and iron exchange kick start tectonic forces into play? If we had never had the collision would Earth be the same Earth today, or more Mars like?