Water on Mars... BUT NASA can't go near it...

originally posted by: NeoSpace

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: NeoSpace

please tell me these thing with evidence i look forward to it(not sarcastic)

I can't say I was convinced. Also, the uploader and narrator believes in flat earth and that space travel to the moon and beyond is impossible. Which may be true, I personally do not know. I just thought people should know.

Also, those locations where nasa was testing the terrain were in Devon Isle, Canada. Not Greenland.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Sorry...but after so much science...I couldn't resist lightening the mood

LOL!

Very clever. I almost did a spit-take when I saw that.

-dex

From Erik's link:

States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination…

Isn't Mars already "contaminated" by all the space junk raining down on it? Entry into the atmosphere and landing is accomplished in stages, firing retros, little charges to deploy chutes, bits of packing fluff, not to mention the failed missions that either crashed or burned up in the atmosphere. Then the rovers… the exhaust from RTGs is radioactive, borne on the wind?

Good luck, Mars is no longer Pristine, so why are they "staying away" from water?

The "wet stains" seen in pics are volatile gasses in liquid form melted out of the trapped 'Permaforst', running down slopes of crater walls, the residual heat from ancient impactors and or the sun melting exposed frozen gasses.

Sure theres water therein, in minute quantities.

If they analyze the wet streaks they'll find theres not that much water ice in them, and that could reduce their budget so, "off limits" is declared.

(imo)

originally posted by: intrptr
The "wet stains" seen in pics are volatile gasses in liquid form melted out of the trapped 'Permaforst', running down slopes of crater walls, the residual heat from ancient impactors and or the sun melting exposed frozen gasses.

What they are saying now is that the wet streaks are salinated liquid water, and the saline content is what is helping to keep it from boiling away so quickly in the low atmospheric pressures of Mars.

As to the source of the water, some of the hypotheses NASA and other researchers are working on now is that it possibly could be fed from an aquifer system.

They talked about this during their presentation. This guy explained that they sterilize their spacecraft/probes/rovers as best they humanly can, but it still isn't enough. Because of extremophiles. Every piece of equipment we have sent to Mars contains Earthly bacteria. I can see why they are fearful of contaminating the water on Mars with that. It's a delicate situation.

They also said it's extremely difficult to look for life on Mars, like in the salty water, because there is a big chance the only thing they will find is bacteria from Earth, not from Mars, because of contamination.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Gemwolf

So WHEN the USA breaks this treaty, and they will of course...manned missions cannot take place if the pristine waters of Mars cannot be touched by anything from earth, including the astronauts going to Mars in the future, what is the penalty to the USA?

Absolutely nothing i suspect..and if there is a penalty, who will enforce it? Nobody.

Can't have manned missions without access to the water there.

That's why the people that go are never coming back.

So the rover is on mars but it cant go near it because it will get infected? How does that affect us?

Is the rover coming back?

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Develop force fields for containing contaminants to the planet and a ship containing a fusion powered drill to drill straight down and coating the tunnel with anti-bacterial surfaces and build the initial colony underground?

Optimistic about the future on this though even though "they" probably know most everything there is to know about the place.

If there are aquifers of water under Martian soil, then it certainly would be the mainstream enabler for life as we know it.
The landers infected Mars the moment they touched down, in some way. I can see them rationalizing as to just being careful not to introduce foreign matter to a mainstream mechanism that could rapidly distribute it.

The same analogy as people having a disease, but spread out in non-populated areas, are not the same threat as if they were all together in a metropolitan environment.

Ironic that the most robust organisms are the ones that are introduced.

Lots of "contamination" on the Moon, considering men pooped there.

I think the contamination problem for NASA is it might lead to a false positive result, or even some weird runaway bio event.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What they are saying now is that the wet streaks are salinated liquid water

Not exactly. They are not saying the streaks are wet. They are saying the streaks are composed of perchlorates, hydrated minerals.

Because the chemicals dehydrate and dehydrate seasonally (as well as their shape) it is strong evidence that slightly subsurface flowing water is responsible for them but, as yet, nothing wet has been observed on Mars.

a reply to: Phage

composed of perchlorates

Toxic Mars: Astronauts Must Deal with Perchlorate on the Red Planet

www.space.com...

Interesting ,an ELABORATE prime directive...derived from all those movies.

originally posted by: intrptr
the exhaust from RTGs is radioactive

There is an exhaust from RTGs?

Could you please link to any documentation or articles that mention it?

I'm not very confident they've prevented contamination. Then again, impacts with Earth/Mars have happened for eons and potential exchanges of microorganisms I think is a possibility.

Look here:
phys.org - Life from Mars could have 'polluted' Earth: Krauss...

Specifically this:

"The big surprise (in finding life) would be if it weren't our cousins. Because what we've learned is that material goes back and forth between the planets all the time. We have discovered Martian meteorites in Antarctica, for example, and it goes the other way around, and microbes certainly (can) survive the the eight-month voyage in a rock."

So Mars has been contaminating us for billions? of years, plausibly. And Mars might have been the first to do it, igniting life on Earth:
phys.org - We may all be Martians: New research supports theory that life started on Mars...

"The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock," says Professor Benner. "It's lucky that we ended up here nevertheless, as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining life. If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there might not have been a story to tell."

And somethihng interesting for any doubters:
news.bbc.co.uk - Ancient microbes 'revived' in lab...

The team suggests that because DNA in the old ice samples had degraded so much in response to exposure to cosmic radiation, life on Earth is unlikely to have hitched a ride on a comet or on debris from outside the Solar System - as some scientists have suggested.

"Given the extremely high cosmic radiation flux in space, our results suggest it is highly unlikely that life on Earth could have been seeded by genetic material external to this Solar System," they wrote in their scientific paper.

They did not say life could not come from Mars. They said it probably would not come from outside our solar system. However, it's expected prebiotics can travel on comets and be delivered on interstellar scales.

I think another thing tied to this thread is:
www.space.com - Planetary Protection Study Group Mulls Life On Venus...

Interesting times for sure. Future people will wonder how we could be so callous and inconsiderate to life elsewhere. They will self-righteously tell each other we were ruthlessly spreading our seed. Speciesism? I guess it's far harder to believe we were just dumb and some of this comes down to nature. Why do we always have to think of in moral terms?

NASA is no different from any politician. You can't believe half of what they say, and all of what they do. It's all thinly veiled braggadocio and mockery to the sullied masses. Just review and compare every other silver tongued sleuth and soubrette in government. All cut from the same cloth.

The truth about Mars, is more far fetched than fiction.

originally posted by: trifecta
The truth about Mars, is more far fetched than fiction.

Such as?

Plus, on what raw data and raw information are you basing that claim?