| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| two reelers |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 02:44:49
from the nasa - homepage - quite nice to read.
*********
Recent Water Gushes and Craters on Mars
12.06.06
+ Play Now
NARRATOR: Evidence of Mars gushers and craters sometime in the past five years. I'm Jane Platt with a podcast from JPL - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Our guest today is Dr. Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego. He's the principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor, and he's lead author of a most intriguing report in this week's journal science. Welcome, Mike.
MIKE MALIN: Thank you.
NARRATOR: First of all, in 25 words or less, what is the news about water?
MALIN: The news about water is that we have found two gullies out of the 10,000 that we have observed that have fresh deposits that we believe were formed by water flowing out recently.
NARRATOR: How recently?
MALIN: Within the last five years.
NARRATOR: Within the last five years, so that's very recent?
MALIN: Very recent, what we have are before and after pictures of these two gullies that show a fresh, light deposit on the floor of the gully and out on the base of the gully.
NARRATOR: How do you know what you're seeing is evidence of water and not something else?
MALIN: There are basically several lines of evidence. The first is the.morphology of the features that we see suggests that they were emplaced by a afluidized material, as opposed to a liquid material, something that was dirt mixed in with something that gave it mobility. The attributes that we see, it moved very slowly on a steep slope, which means that it was changing its properties as it was moving downslope. But it's easily diverted around very, very subtle topography and it has very long, finger-like terminations at the ends of these flows. Those are all attributes of something that has liquid water in it.
NARRATOR: So you could tell by the shape and by the way it traveled?
MALIN: Yes by the way it traveled and the shape is what we see today, which gives us hints to how it traveled. The other thing is that the features we see are bright, they're not like white, but they're much brighter than the surrounding surfaces. Everything else that we've seen on Mars that is fresh or that has formed recently is dark. The reason it's normally dark is Mars is actually fairly bright, it's covered with light dust, and whenever you disturb that light dust, the surface gets darker, not lighter. So to see something that has moved across the surface of mars but is actually much lighter than the dust-covered surface, that's very, very unusual.
NARRATOR: How is it flowing, a constant stream, gushing?
MALIN: We think that the water is coming from deep in the ground. It's warmed as it gets closer to the center of Mars. The outer parts of Mars are really, really quite cold, but the inner part is probably still warm, just as the Earth's interior is warm. As the water came up, it reached the surface and initially froze at the surface. But as more and more water came up, it would build pressure behind the frozen water in front of it and eventually it would break out of behind that barrier and flow down the surface. So we think there's an ice dam that is holding back water for some period of time, and then that dam breaks, and water comes out, and as it comes out, and as the dam breaks, it consists of rock debris from the rock around that water, it includes ice fragments from the dam and it includes liquid water. And it flows down these very steep slopes, 20, 30 degree slopes and picks up rock debris and spreads out and forms the deposit that we see. So what we think is that there's a trickle of water initially just sort of building up pressure behind the ice dam, and then eventually there's a rapid release of many thousands of cubic meters of water that comes out, like swimming pools amounts of waters come rushing out of the ground in a very short, brief event and then the surface refreezes, and then more water builds up time and pressure and then eventually breaks again.
NARRATOR: If somebody were standing in those gullies on Mars and were standing there for a long time because you said these gushes of water are periodic, could you describe what they would see when these gushes happen?
MALIN: Sure, but the first thing I'd say is don't stand in the gully, because it would be like being out in the desert during a flash flood.
NARRATOR: What does this mean in terms of the potential for life?
MALIN: I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Certainly I could tell you the general impression is that water is necessary in its liquid form for there to be life, certainly life as we know it. And if there is liquid water on Mars then theoretically it improves the possibility, the chances that there might be life on Mars. My personal view is I'm very skeptical that there's life on Mars because the environment is so extreme, and on the Earth in most extreme environments the normal forms of life on Earth that we find in extreme environments sort of evolved into those locations from a much broader population. It'd be very, very difficult to do on Mars.
NARRATOR: I'm sure you've had some lively discussions with your colleagues.
MALIN: You betcha. (chuckles)
NARRATOR: Part two of your discoveries that are appearing in this week's journal Science and that is also from Mars Global Surveyor and from your camera, the Mars Orbiter Camera, pertaining to craters on Mars. Tell me briefly about that.
MALIN: We serendipitously happened to observe a dark spot, very small, about a kilometer across in a wide-angle picture. Wide-angle pictures have a resolution at best about 230 240 meters per picture element. So this was a round spot that was only four or five pixels across. And one of my colleagues here, Ken Edgett, said, “Ya' know, that spot wasn't there before.” And he went and he proved to me that his knowledge was encyclopedic of Mars, and that in fact, the dark spot that we found hadn't been in earlier pictures. And we speculated what it could be. We thought it might be a windblown area or the shadow of Phobos. We excluded those and took a high-resolution image of it and found that it was a fresh crater, a crater that had formed between the time of those two pictures. And then we re-photographed about a little over 20 million square kilometers of Mars, which is about 30 percent of the planet, in the dustiest areas, and found 20 more craters that had formed in basically the last five or six years.
NARRATOR: What does it mean?
MALIN: First it allows us to determine how old surface features on Mars are. Craters accumulate with time, the more craters on a surface, the older that surface is. And we have basically up till now been using the models that I talked about to estimate how old various things are. Now we know from validating the models that those ages are in fact correct, and we can use those to decipher more of the geologic history of Mars.
NARRATOR: Well thank you so much for joining us to share your discoveries.
MALIN: You're welcome.
NARRATOR: We've been talking with Dr. Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems. More info on Mars Global Surveryor, which JPL manages for NASA, is at www.nasa.gov/mars or http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs . Thanks for listening to this podcast from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| awestruck |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 16:19:06
I don't know... I guess I just wonder if out there somewhere in the universe that stretches toward infinity if there could be something out there that is beyond our conceivable imaginations? Something unlike what we have here on earth or anywhere around us. I know that science has made great strides toward our understandings of how our world and our universe works, but I also think that there could be things out there that we are not supposed to understand. I mean scientists have been sure about things before and then they were proved wrong by advances in technology. I can't really think of anything recent though... the only thing that come to mind is when people used to think the world was flat... I am going to research a little bit this and see what I find.
Favorite Quote: awestruck is a she, she's a she. -trobrianders |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 12:43:51
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
water isn't an element but as far as elements go, they are arranged on the periodic tableby their atomic number (number of protons) . we have discovered elements starting from 1 proton all the way to 118 i think. so yes, there could be several more with atomic mass greater than 118 and they're still finding more. but don't you think it'd be odd that, if there were THOUSANDS more, that we happened to discover the lightest 118? plus, it's only the lighter ones that are common and naturally occurring.
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline
How do we know we have discovered the lightest?
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
erm...
hydrogen is the lightest element. it has 1 proton and 1 electron.
what is there below having 1 proton and 1 electron without simply being "a proton" or "an electron" (and so on)?
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline |
| awestruck |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 10:56:57
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
water isn't an element but as far as elements go, they are arranged on the periodic tableby their atomic number (number of protons) . we have discovered elements starting from 1 proton all the way to 118 i think. so yes, there could be several more with atomic mass greater than 118 and they're still finding more. but don't you think it'd be odd that, if there were THOUSANDS more, that we happened to discover the lightest 118? plus, it's only the lighter ones that are common and naturally occurring.
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline
How do we know we have discovered the lightest?
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
Thank you! That about sums up what I have been trying to say. (But not very well evidently)
Favorite Quote: awestruck is a she, she's a she. -trobrianders |
| tisasawath |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 06:52:44
what would we call one? Hydrogen Lite? Diet Hydrogen?
-----
AAAAWWWWWRRRIIGGHHTTTTT !! ! |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 05:52:20
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
water isn't an element but as far as elements go, they are arranged on the periodic tableby their atomic number (number of protons) . we have discovered elements starting from 1 proton all the way to 118 i think. so yes, there could be several more with atomic mass greater than 118 and they're still finding more. but don't you think it'd be odd that, if there were THOUSANDS more, that we happened to discover the lightest 118? plus, it's only the lighter ones that are common and naturally occurring.
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline
How do we know we have discovered the lightest?
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| tisasawath |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 02:53:34
according to the big kaboom theory the generation of the heaviest of elements like iron was only made possible in the extreme conditions inside the cores of the most massive stars in the early universe and the stuff out there is made mostly of the lighter elements. but, similar to what you're saying, the spooky part is that "stuff" only makes 4% of the universe according to theory, the rest is supposed to be dark energy and dark matter (undetected yet). so George Lucas was onto something there
-----
AAAAWWWWWRRRIIGGHHTTTTT !! ! |
| awestruck |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 17:01:51
Told you I wasn't big on that stuff. element was a broad term. I guess I was just trying to get across that we are such a small part of the universe that it just makes sense that there would be things out there that are unlike anything we have ever found. As for atomic numbers, I will take your word for it.
Favorite Quote: awestruck is a she, she's a she. -trobrianders |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 16:27:32
water isn't an element but as far as elements go, they are arranged on the periodic tableby their atomic number (number of protons) . we have discovered elements starting from 1 proton all the way to 118 i think. so yes, there could be several more with atomic mass greater than 118 and they're still finding more. but don't you think it'd be odd that, if there were THOUSANDS more, that we happened to discover the lightest 118? plus, it's only the lighter ones that are common and naturally occurring.
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline |
| awestruck |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 15:59:41
Predators aside... check this out
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html
And does anyone think it is kind of silly looking for aliens that live off of Oxygen and water? I don't pretend to know much about space, but isn't it kind of narrow minded to believe every element found on earth are the only elements out there? What's that table called? Periodic Table? Could be more stuff out there.
Favorite Quote: awestruck is a she, she's a she. -trobrianders |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/17/2006 : 05:36:39
quote:
Originally posted by KimStanleyRobinson
anyways, do you guys go through the whole bit where when you see a new bit of news about possibility of ET life, you start as a little kid all wide eyed, then as you read, you become an adult with skpeticism and finally find yourself thinking "eh...its all just a bunch of rocks..." and then just before you move on to another news article (or whatever else) the little kid pipes up one more time and says "sure would be neat though, wouldn't it? wow!"
You pretty much nailed it there Kim.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Carl |
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 11:39:07
Those Martians must be darn thirsty!
 |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 10:49:51
there was a moon that made the news recently too, wasn't there? one that 'they' had determined that the geysers of were not water but ice crystals...
anyways, do you guys go through the whole bit where when you see a new bit of news about possibility of ET life, you start as a little kid all wide eyed, then as you read, you become an adult with skpeticism and finally find yourself thinking "eh...its all just a bunch of rocks..." and then just before you move on to another news article (or whatever else) the little kid pipes up one more time and says "sure would be neat though, wouldn't it? wow!"
or something.
dono where the real KSR is Llama, but i say on with the terraforming!
lets drill big holes in it!
and yes, space elevator.
nanotubes were in the news this morn.
someone set a date of being ready to start building sometime in the 2030's?
|
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 08:35:25
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
You guys are all so silly. First off, stars don't wobble...they twinkle. Second, everyone knows there are NO Predators on Mars...what would they drink to live? CO2? Yeah, right. And C, we can't go look for other planets anyway because we don't have a spaceship that can go Warp 12. We only have small shuttles, and those would take like 200 years just to get to our closest neighboring galaxy. If it doesn't explode on lift-off, that is. All that would get there would be skeletons! Or burned skeletons (if it exploded first)! Those aliens over there would think we are just silly!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dalton. He's got a degree in philosophy.
-bRIAN
That was my point, they will never find any life on Mars capable of having a scrap.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
Oh. My bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dalton. He's got a degree in philosophy.
-bRIAN |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 05:21:05
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
You guys are all so silly. First off, stars don't wobble...they twinkle. Second, everyone knows there are NO Predators on Mars...what would they drink to live? CO2? Yeah, right. And C, we can't go look for other planets anyway because we don't have a spaceship that can go Warp 12. We only have small shuttles, and those would take like 200 years just to get to our closest neighboring galaxy. If it doesn't explode on lift-off, that is. All that would get there would be skeletons! Or burned skeletons (if it exploded first)! Those aliens over there would think we are just silly!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dalton. He's got a degree in philosophy.
-bRIAN
That was my point, they will never find any life on Mars capable of having a scrap.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Carl |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 11:46:46
Ah, they're always finding water on Mars, there must buckets of the stuff up there! :)
|
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 06:55:57
quote:
Originally posted by Scarla O
Transmarine my old pal, I'm afraid the stars do wobble - the gravitation pull of a planet on a star causes a minor (but recordable) deviation in the star's motion.
(Smacks forehead) REALLY?!?!?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dalton. He's got a degree in philosophy.
-bRIAN |
| Scarla O |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 01:38:20
Transmarine my old pal, I'm afraid the stars do wobble - the gravitation pull of a planet on a star causes a minor (but recordable) deviation in the star's motion. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 15:06:12
Hawking says we need to move to new planet
I like this one well enough though.
Idiot. |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 13:51:02
Moonbase scheduled by the USA for 2020 I believe. This all reminds me of the Kim Stanley Robinson (where is he?) books.
I remember having that kind of argument in school.....would we ever explore other planets and stuff. Me, firmly in the 'Yes' camp because, like you CoF, I believe we can and that we have the drive and ingenuity to succeed. The 'No' camp would say 'it would cost too much' and 'governments would never work together'. Both valid points, and our stupidity is there for all to see re climate, but I think we can and will do it.
We do need a Space Elevator though.
Scratching the surface without a purpose won't accomplish anything new
Upload your Frank photos here - fb.net gallery
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 13:49:30
Mine is "Fuel Hollywood"
 "Now you're officially my woman. Kudos. I can't say I don't envy you." |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 13:45:59
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
So let's get ourselves established on Mars now. Heck, even a colony or something on the moon would be awesome and a big step forward, though not requiring the transport innovations, it would certainly teach us something about habitation offworld.
"Now you're officially my woman. Kudos. I can't say I don't envy you."
I think there might be Predators on the moon, though. Definately there are none on Mars, but I think there are a few on the moon. BE CAREFUL! is my motto.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dalton. He's got a degree in philosophy.
-bRIAN |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 13:26:08
Not that you are being serious, but even so... the explanation that we shouldn't try to develop tech, etc to reach distant planets because they'd take so long to get to would be akin to not settling the 'new world' in the 1500s because it was a long journey. Well, not quite. It didn't take multiple lifetimes, but I believe that if we really push, we can accomplish feats such as this.
There are sure to be advances as a result of exploring and developing non-earth bases (even a Mars base as a start would be a massive step forward and would spur innovation to develop faster engines, better ships, etc). Can we go to Alpha Centauri today? No. But if we start developing at the edge of our current technological abilities, you can bet your life that humans will find ways to fill the technology gap to make trips easier and faster.
But then, I do believe in science, human ingenuity, and our ability to overcome obstacles. Will we travel to destinations outside our solar system in my lifetime? No. Probably not even in this millenium, or maybe just barely. But could we set up a base on Mars in my lifetime. Definitely. And that would pave the way for R&D dollars to research better methods of transport, perhaps hibernation, shielding, terraforming, tonnes of areas that are already worthy of research, were there more current applications (particularly ones with commercial viability) worth the cost.
So let's get ourselves established on Mars now. Heck, even a colony or something on the moon would be awesome and a big step forward, though not requiring the transport innovations, it would certainly teach us something about habitation offworld.
"Now you're officially my woman. Kudos. I can't say I don't envy you." |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 12:58:19
You guys are all so silly. First off, stars don't wobble...they twinkle. Second, everyone knows there are NO Predators on Mars...what would they drink to live? CO2? Yeah, right. And C, we can't go look for other planets anyway because we don't have a spaceship that can go Warp 12. We only have small shuttles, and those would take like 200 years just to get to our closest neighboring galaxy. If it doesn't explode on lift-off, that is. All that would get there would be skeletons! Or burned skeletons (if it exploded first)! Those aliens over there would think we are just silly!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dalton. He's got a degree in philosophy.
-bRIAN |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 10:25:55
VERY good point Denis.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| vilainde |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 07:30:21
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
They need to give up on Mars and go look for planets with note-worthy life, outside of our solar system. I mean, they are hardly gonna discover a Predator on there are they? If we are gonna search for life on other planets, let's at least make it something we can fight.
You don't discover a Predator. The Predator discovers you.
And then it's too late.
Denis
"Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole. Not like you." |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 07:25:29
but they can't really see planets that are that far out. i think we can only detect them from the way some stars wobble (which indicates a gravitational pull). i think.
FAST_MAN RAIDER_MAN - June 19th |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 04:53:06
They need to give up on Mars and go look for planets with note-worthy life, outside of our solar system. I mean, they are hardly gonna discover a Predator on there are they? If we are gonna search for life on other planets, let's at least make it something we can fight.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Llamadance |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 02:52:59
can't see it in that article, but aren't they suggesting the possibility that it could be liquid CO2 instead. You know, because Mars is so cold and water would freeze pretty quickly. Still, the potential for water deep down could suggest microbial life, which is pretty exciting.
Scratching the surface without a purpose won't accomplish anything new
Upload your Frank photos here - fb.net gallery
|
| cassandra is |
Posted - 12/07/2006 : 02:48:29
pas de bras pas de chocolat |
|
|
