NASA proves water did exists in Mars

Newly revealed readings from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter indicate that a lot more Martian rocks were altered by water than scientists originally thought.

Full Story

reply to post by Solo954


Yeah, lakes of water they said on TV Pretty cool stuff.

For someone who has been following their weekly releases this comes as no surprise, there are so many indications of it that it does not surprise anyone who has seen some of the 6166 images available.

Also, for some years now, the "follow the water" idea has been behind some of NASA's actions, just do a search for that expression and you will see.

Everyone and their grandmother knows what NASA has been trying to prove. However it is nice to at least know that NASA finally CONFIRMS there was once water on Mars.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Solo954]

reply to post by Solo954

Well, yeah -- that's what's called the scientific process.

NASA (and other planetary scientists) developed a theory through circumstantial evidence that water once flowed on Mars. So (as ArMap indicated) they created this "follow the water" idea to help prove their theory. They sent the right equipment to Mars, did some experiments, and successfully proved that Mars was once wet.

It would be irresponsible for NASA scientists (or any scientist) to difinitively state that Mars was once wet until they had experimental evidence to back up that statement.

Until they had proof, it was just a theory.


[edit on 7/19/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Water on Mars--not a surprise to me.

All this speculation and theories finally come true. Nice to see!


And just look at some of the Mars features, looks like water erosion to me (and wind too).

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Well, yeah -- that's what's called the scientific process.

The scientific 'process' should also lead to knowledge being disseminated when it becomes obvious and should not be suppressed by the majority for the sake of protecting preconceived notions and interests.

NASA (and other planetary scientists) developed a theory through circumstantial evidence that water once flowed on Mars.

The evidence have not been circumstantial since the first photo's came in that showed icebergs drifting/standing in water. Since that happened there should not have been much discussion ( or more rovers to 'test' for water features/ geological traces) but yet it continued unabated continuing that large wastage of public resources that is NASA.

So (as ArMap indicated) they created this "follow the water" idea to help prove their theory.

They created the follow the water notion to lull uninformed people into further apathy when they very well knew that there was in fact standing bodies of water on Mars TODAY.

They sent the right equipment to Mars, did some experiments, and successfully proved that Mars was once wet.

They did that back in 1976 when they found life only to deny it for political and other reasons.

I t would be irresponsible for NASA scientists (or any scientist) to difinitively state that Mars was once wet until they had experimental evidence to back up that statement.

It is far more irresponsible to waste money ( that could feed Americans to say nothing of Africans) than it is to make occasional blunders with science data. Since the errors they have made so far have consistently been in the interest of denying that Mars is anything like Earth it's clear what the goal was.

Until they had proof, it was just a theory.

But they had more proof than anyone could need and just stuck to their stupid 'follow the water' nonsense. Would it take one of the landers falling into a Martian dam/ocean before you can accept the data that has proved the geological traces and action of water for so much of Martian history?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The scientific 'process' should also lead to knowledge being disseminated when it becomes obvious and should not be suppressed by the majority for the sake of protecting preconceived notions and interests.

Uhhh, it wasn't "suppressed" - everyone with basic knowledge of Mars suspected that there was water ice at the pole and evidence of water in Mars' past. I don't know whose "preconceived notions" you think they were protecting, but it's quite funny since just about every astronomer's preconceived notion involved water at some point in Mars' past and more water at the pole.

The evidence have not been circumstantial since the first photo's came in that showed icebergs drifting/standing in water.

Ah, the money quote. There have never been photos showing "icebergs drifting in water" on mars.

reply to post by ngchunter

I never heard of water ice on Mars from NASA before Phoenix. Except as a possibility, in the past. On the surface it was always CO2 ice (or carbonic snow) at the poles and the many moving dark stains were supposed to be dark sand.

[edit on 2008-7-25 by nablator]

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I never heard of water ice on Mars from NASA before Phoenix. Except as a possibility, in the past. On the surface it was always CO2 ice (or carbonic snow) at the poles and the many moving dark stains were supposed to be dark sand.

[edit on 2008-7-25 by nablator]

Many astronomers, including my own university professors 8 years ago, assumed that there was probably some of amount of water mixed in with the CO2 ice at the pole. It's been well known for many years that water vapor is present in scant amounts at Mars, therefore it makes perfect sense that the CO2 ice contains some amount of frozen water as well. Even ground telescopes have been able to detect this:
www.lpl.arizona.edu...

THERE IS WATER ON MARS?? i mean WAS, there WAS water on mars;
No big surprise i wish they just hurry up an tell us that they found microscopic life already.



[edit on 25-7-2008 by miguelbmx]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Uhhh, it wasn't "suppressed" - everyone with basic knowledge of Mars suspected that there was water ice at the pole and evidence of water in Mars' past.

This is not true and it is not how Mars has been presented to the general public for most of the last forty years. I am confident that we can both find some sources to back our point of view but i am more interested in the perceptions that were created and how they could have arisen if NASA had been clear on their findings. More importantly VERY few suggested standing water on Mars as is fast being proved today.

I don't know whose "preconceived notions" you think they were protecting, but it's quite funny since just about every astronomer's preconceived notion involved water at some point in Mars' past and more water at the pole.

Which make it double strange that this is not the view held by the public which are supposed to become informed trough NASA. Would you mind explaining why the journals contain plenty of information about the history of water/oceans on Mars and why that never reached the public?

Ah, the money quote. There have never been photos showing "icebergs drifting in water" on mars.

Sure there are!

I could have sworn i had more ( i posted them around here somewhere not a few weeks ago) but here are the one's i could find on my pc today...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

And if you have any doubts about why you can just trust your eyes this time round....

Hellas Impact Basin

The depth of the crater (6 to 7 km[1] (3.7 to 4.3 miles) below the topographic datum, or "sea level" of Mars) explains the atmospheric pressure at the bottom: 1155 Pa[1] (11.55 mbar) (.34375 InHG). This is 89% higher than the pressure at the topographical datum (610 Pa, or 6.1 mbar or .18 InHG). The pressure is high enough that water is speculated to be present in its liquid phase at temperatures slightly above 0 ?C (32 F).

en.wikipedia.org...

WASHINGTON -- Researchers using NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft announced Thursday that they found puzzling signs of water seeping into what appear to be young, freshly-cut gullies and gaps in the Martian surface.
The startling discovery of recently-formed, weeping layers of rock and sediment has planetary experts scratching their heads.

The wet spots show up in more than 120 locations on Mars and in the coldest places on the planet, said Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego, California, which built the spacecraft's camera.

And that presents a "perplexing problem," he said, because logic says that Mars sub-zero temperatures and thin atmosphere should have kept those wet spots from ever forming.

The wet spots, which turn up in 200 to 250 different images from the Global Surveyor spacecraft, "could be a few million years old but we cannot rule out that some of them are so recent as to have formed yesterday," Malin said.

www.space.com...

Newly released images from Mars Global Surveyor contain telltale deposits left behind by liquid water flowing on the surface within the few years that the spacecraft surveyed Mars. Scientists had previously announced the discovery of features that must have been carved by water within the last several million years, but this is the first evidence that water has flowed on Mars' surface while humans have been studying it. "Ten years ago, Mars scientists were talking about water billions of years ago. Five years ago, [Mike Malin and Ken Edgett] were talking about water millions of years ago. I think now we can honestly talk about liquid water on the surface of Mars today. And that revolution in our thinking truly has changed how we view Mars and how we should think about exploring Mars," said scientist Phil Christensen at a press conference held today at NASA Headquarters

The MOC images clearly demonstrate that these features formed in the last few years, while Mars Global Surveyor has been in orbit at Mars. But how do they demonstrate that liquid water was involved? Edgett stated three lines of evidence: their geological context, their morphology, and their brightness with respect to their surroundings. "The context is, these are in gullies. People have been talking for six and a half years about what could form gullies and what could flow through gullies, and, by and large, the consensus is liquid water. It could be acidic water, it could be briny water, it could be water carrying sediment, it could be slushy, but water is involved." This is in contrast to the consensus opinion for the formation mechanism of another currently forming feature on Mars, the so-called slope streaks. Slope streaks are interpreted to be scars left on slopes by an essentially dry process of dust avalanching. "These things are very far away from regions where dry dust avalanches occur -- they occur in a region where those things are not found," Edgett said.

www.planetary.org...

On Mars the globally-averaged surface pressure of the planet's atmosphere is only slightly less than 6.1 millibars.

"That's the average," says Haberle, "so some places will have pressures that are higher than 6.1 millibars and others will be lower. If we look at sites on Mars where the pressure is a bit higher, that's where water can theoretically exist as a liquid."

science.msfc.nasa.gov...

I will try to find the rest of the 'iceberg' pictures but i have a good few others that indicates that they are not only seeing hundred of 'wet spots' but have obviously taken pictures of some as well!

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

This is not true and it is not how Mars has been presented to the general public for most of the last forty years. I am confident that we can both find some sources to back our point of view

You just invalidated your own argument right there. If I can find sources that say mars may have water ice at the pole before now, then that conclusively shows that people who knew what they were talking about suspected it was there all along. You may think you're being clever by admitting my sources exist, but you're just undermining your own point. Here's a source stating that it's been suspected since the 70s that the northern pole of mars has water ice:
www.space.com...

but i am more interested in the perceptions that were created and how they could have arisen if NASA had been clear on their findings. More importantly VERY few suggested standing water on Mars as is fast being proved today.

There is no standing water on mars today, but it's long been suspected as a possibility for mars' past. End of story.

Which make it double strange that this is not the view held by the public which are supposed to become informed trough NASA. Would you mind explaining why the journals contain plenty of information about the history of water/oceans on Mars and why that never reached the public?

LMFAO! You admit it's been in journals but deny the public had access to it. Oh the contradictions! Here's a nasa link from 7 years ago openly postulating the possibility: science.nasa.gov...

Sure there are!

I could have sworn i had more ( i posted them around here somewhere not a few weeks ago) but here are the one's i could find on my pc today...

And if you have any doubts about why you can just trust your eyes this time round....

Oh good grief, those are not "ice bergs drifting in water" - that's the freaking polar cap! As I suspected, you deliberately misintrepeted the images to see what you wanted to see. I've seen the polar caps with my own eyes through large telescopes and I can promise you they are not "floating."

Hellas Impact Basin

Just so you know, this article isn't loading. Not sure if someone else vandalized it, but it's not working at the moment. All the articles I can find on Hellas indicate the likely presence of permafrost with frozen water embedded in the soil, but there is no evidence of standing water in Hellas. Satellite imagery reveals the same. There is evidence of occasional outgushings of what may be salty bits of water from under the surface at other locations, but it evaporates immediately. Once again, no evidence of standing water, let alone "ice bergs drifting in water."

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by StellarX
I could have sworn i had more ( i posted them around here somewhere not a few weeks ago) but here are the one's i could find on my pc today...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

www.msss.com...

You did, in this post.

But I don't think they are icebergs floating on water or any other liquid.