NASA to Announce Mars Mystery Solved on sept 28th

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You get the spectral signature for the streaks, notice high concentrations of NaCl. I would then say to myself, "I wonder how a bunch of salt is leaking out of the ground seasonally?.."

From what I understood of the paper, they didn't found the spectral signature for NaCl, they searched specifically for signs of hydrated salts, it's not something they just found.

originally posted by: Miccey
Once Mars had an abundance of species, in time the planet
grew inhospitable. During that time, some species evolved
to be able to cope with the changing environment.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, and I've been looking pretty diligently. There are some interesting shapes, but I have yet to find anything resembling an ecosystem, which would naturally arise in a place where there were multiple species. When it comes to life, nature doesn't really deal much with one-offs.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ArMaP

You get the spectral signature for the streaks, notice high concentrations of NaCl. I would then say to myself, "I wonder how a bunch of salt is leaking out of the ground seasonally?.."

To me it seems like a no-brainer....

So it was a graduate student? That make a whole bunch more sense now actually.

I can't believe how angry you are that water was just confirmed on Mars. Why are you so upset with this and why on Earth would you have had them rush to a conclusion just because it is, in your opinion, obvious? Science. It's a method.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ArMaP

You get the spectral signature for the streaks, notice high concentrations of NaCl. I would then say to myself, "I wonder how a bunch of salt is leaking out of the ground seasonally?.."

To me it seems like a no-brainer....

So it was a graduate student? That make a whole bunch more sense now actually.

I can't believe how angry you are that water was just confirmed on Mars. Why are you so upset with this and why on Earth would you have had them rush to a conclusion just because it is, in your opinion, obvious? Science. It's a method.

This puzzles me, too, especially considering that there was a competing non-water explanation of these dark flows that had been hypothesized as well.

That other hypothesis was that these dark streaks were caused by mini-avalanches that would expose previously subsurface soils -- soils which could be slightly darker in color due to not being exposed to the sun and weather. Eventually, that other hypothesis was shown to be wrong, and water was the only way to explain all of the data and all of the observations. However, it was a reasonable hypothesis and should not have just been completely ignored without some investigation, just because "the streaks look wet".

Personally, I'm glad science doesn't jump to the water conclusions without first testing it and other ruling out competing possible explanations.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ArMaP

You get the spectral signature for the streaks, notice high concentrations of NaCl. I would then say to myself, "I wonder how a bunch of salt is leaking out of the ground seasonally?.."

To me it seems like a no-brainer....

So it was a graduate student? That make a whole bunch more sense now actually.

I can't believe how angry you are that water was just confirmed on Mars. Why are you so upset with this and why on Earth would you have had them rush to a conclusion just because it is, in your opinion, obvious? Science. It's a method.

This puzzles me, too, especially considering that there was a competing non-water explanation of these dark flows that had been hypothesized as well.

That other hypothesis was that these dark streaks were caused by mini-avalanches that would expose previously subsurface soils -- soils which could be slightly darker in color due to not being exposed to the sun and weather. Eventually, that other hypothesis was shown to be wrong, and water was the only way to explain all of the data and all of the observations. However, it was a reasonable hypothesis and should not have just been completely ignored without some investigation, just because "the streaks look wet".

Personally, I'm glad science doesn't jump to the water conclusions without first testing it and other ruling out competing possible explanations.

Exactly. "Deny Ignorance." When did that start to mean "The answer I personally *want* to be right clearly *has to be the answer* around here? Geez, it's like no matter what comes from NASA somebody just has to bash them around here. Heaven forbid they, oh I don't know, use the scientific method instead of just jumping to conclusions and announcing things before they actually know what they are talking about just because someone else who, you know, does not actually have access to all of the data thinks they have the answer.

Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society posted a very informative blog article on these new findings: www.planetary.org...

She also presents a more sober look at the findings and what they mean:

Personally, I don't think extant life on Mars is any more likely because of today's announcement than it was before. An incredibly salty, corrosive, transient water environment is not a very good place to look for life. I think a much more habitable environment is available in the thin films of water that Phoenix observed in the soil at its near-polar landing site. A less-accessible, but also less-radiation-fried and more-continuously-habitable place would be deep underground, where Mars' internal heat could keep groundwater liquid for very long periods of time.

So this research doesn't have a whole lot to tell us about life on Mars, I don't think. What this research is telling us is that we are beginning to understand Mars, and that's no small thing. What we have here is a solid incremental result. Scientists made an observation: huh, there are fresh-looking dark streaks on Martian slopes. They followed up that observation by looking for more of them in similar environments, and found them. They followed up those observations by looking again at the same spots, and found that some of them faded over time, and there were new ones. What do you know, active geology on Mars! They kept looking at the same spots over and over, and found a pattern: they grew during the warm months, and faded during cold months. That suggested a hypothesis: maybe you need warmth because you are melting a volatile component, specifically water. That suggested a test: look for chemical evidence of water. The present work is the result of that test, and the result was consistent with the hypothesis.

~~~

Also, "deliquescence" is my new favourite word.