Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars - Slashdot

Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
432480
story
FireFury03
writes
"The European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft has spotted an icy feature which appears to be a
young active glacier
. Dr Gerhard Neukum, chief scientist on the spacecraft's High Resolution Stereo Camera said 'We have not yet been able to see the spectral signature of water. But we will fly over it in the coming months and take measurements. On the glacial ridges we can see white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice'. Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 — 100,000 years old."
You may like to read:
Creative Commons Launches CC+ License
CDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
US Formally Withdraws From WHO
Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes Than Food, Study Says
CDC Data Confirms US is 2 Months Away From Losing Measles Elimination Status
Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent
Submission: Active glacier found on Mars
IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars
More
Possible Active Glacier Found On Mars
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Dr_Banzai
( 111657 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:19PM (
#21757450
Homepage
This might be a good place to land a Mars mission because you could use the ice to create oxygen, water, fuel etc.
Share
Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?
Score:
, Funny)
by
CrackPipePls
( 1205568 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:24PM (
#21757506
and more importantly, to cool beer
:-)
Parent
Share
Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?
Score:
, Informative)
by
dreamchaser
( 49529 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:24PM (
#21760610
Homepage
Journal
No, to MAKE beer, then cool it. Dried malt extract and hops pellets are far more compact than bringing lots of extra beer. Mars homebrew!
Parent
Share
Skiing.
Score:
by
Ihlosi
( 895663 )
writes:
Don't forget skiing. Forget Aspen, Mars is the new place to be.
Re:
Score:
by
GodfatherofSoul
( 174979 )
writes:
I don't know, from the pictures that ice looks really dirty. Who'd want to drink any of that?
Re:Possible landing zone for a Mars Mission?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Greyfox
( 87712 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:36PM (
#21757680
Homepage
Journal
When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
onkelonkel
( 560274 )
writes:
Statistically speaking every glass of water you drink contains water molecules which once passed through the bladder of Attila the Hun. Or something like that.
Re:
Score:
by
TheThiefMaster
( 992038 )
writes:
Yeah, but its not the water molecules that are the problem. It's the other molecules mixed in with the water...
Re:
Score:
, Funny)
by
Urkki
( 668283 )
writes:
When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing.
Yes, because, you know, repeated artificial reprosessing of waste will wear out the water molecules. The electrons get all fractured, H-atoms may te twisted to wrong angles, little feces and urine particles may get stuck between the two H-atoms, and so on. Natural prosesses are much better because then the power of the Gaia (in this case the Martian Gaia) will be able to heal the damage in water molecules. And healthy water molecules will have the energy and will to keep themselves clean too, just like
Re:
Score:
by
mcrbids
( 148650 )
writes:
When it's a choice between that and your own urine, which has been reprocessed through the spaceship urine reprocessing system 700 times, the dirty ice will start to look mighty appealing.
The water that pours out of your sink has been urine so many times, it's impossible to count. There's clean water, and there's dirty water. Various processes clean water, (such as evaporation & condensation) and various processes dirty water (such as drinking it) but that's all there is.
I remember reading a thesis whic
Re:
Score:
by
Greyfox
( 87712 )
writes:
It's not so much where it's been as how it's been reprocessed. People don't really pay attention, but water has a distinct flavor and that flavor changes regionally. Distilled water tastes "flat" and "lifeless" to a lot of people and I'm sure that water that's been distilled from urine a few hundred times on a spaceship will not taste very good at all. A fresh source will surely appeal to the astronauts.
In any event, to follow your logic, drinking water from that "dirty" ice on Mars will afford the astron
Re:
Score:
by
jackpot777
( 1159971 )
writes:
...the infamous
nonexistence
of England's King Louis.
There. Fixed it for you.
[wikipedia.org]
Or maybe I should say
voilà... comme neuf pour toi.
[wikipedia.org]
Re:
Score:
by
Mikachu
( 972457 )
writes:
That's a silly thing to say. Ever seen some of the water you drink before it's been processed? That ice looks downright clean to me.
Re:
Score:
by
GodfatherofSoul
( 174979 )
writes:
That was a joke.
Re:
Score:
by
iknownuttin
( 1099999 )
writes:
This might be a good place to land a Mars mission because you could use the ice to create oxygen, water, fuel etc....
and keep the beer cold.
Sweet!
Score:
, Funny)
by
scubamage
( 727538 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:21PM (
#21757472
The doctor in the article is named Dr. Neukem. If his first name is Duke, I would not want to be the one to contest his theory.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Velcroman98
( 542642 )
writes:
Sorry, his full name is;

Dr Gerhard Neukum
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
UncleTogie
( 1004853 )
writes:
Sorry, his full name is; Dr Gerhard Neukum
Actually, his
name
is Gerhard Neukum. His
title
is Dr...
I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips
... can
only
be freshly exposed ice"... There could be a number of other explanations, and I'd hope the team would consider those as well.
Re:
Score:
, Funny)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips
... can only be freshly exposed ice"...
Agreed 100%. Perhaps
now
my "Mars is made of meringue" hypothesis will finally be taken seriously!
Re:
Score:
by
rucs_hack
( 784150 )
writes:
I'm a little mistrustful of someone who INSISTS that "white tips
... can only be freshly exposed ice"... There could be a number of other explanations, and I'd hope the team would consider those as well.
Given the amount of dut that moves around in the martian atmosphere, it seems reasonable to assume that white tips means new.
However, after flying over America for the first time a couple of years ago (only my second time in an airplane in forty years), I was amazed at how the ground looked either red or bro
Re:
Score:
by
funaho
( 42567 )
writes:
True it could just be that that spot on Mars is where the aliens keep all their cocaine.
:)
Comment removed
Score:
, Funny)
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:25PM (
#21757516
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Parent
Share
Re:Sweet!
Score:
, Funny)
by
AJWM
( 19027 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:45PM (
#21758582
Homepage
You misunderstand (or somebody did).
It's not
Duke
Neukem, it's
Doc
Neukem.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Scooter
( 8281 )
writes:
"This is unique, and there are probably more," said Dr Neukum.
If this was a line in a movie, no audience would ever buy it unless it was untitled "Ride My Red Rocket" and starred Mike Meyers as the mission leader, and the evil Dr Neukum.
Re:
Score:
by
master_p
( 608214 )
writes:
Hey, the first thing that came to mind when reading this article is exactly what you side. Isn't life funny?
Here comes the Martian penguin movie...
Score:
, Interesting)
by
gumbo
( 88087 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:25PM (
#21757520
Homepage
If you thought Hollywood was out of penguin movie fuel (after March, Happy Feet, and the other animated one that I can't remember the name of), this is just the thing they've been waiting for. Cute green Martian penguins dancing around on an iceberg. Fun for everybody!
Share
Not a surprise.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
AJWM
( 19027 )
writes:
We've known there was ice on Mars for a century or more. It is visible from Earth through any reasonably good telescope. You know, those white things at the poles?
Sure, in winter they get bigger from frozen out CO2, but there's a year-round permanent cap of water ice. Glaciers, permafrost, pingoes and other signs of ice should not be a surprise. Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young
Re:Not a surprise.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
MightyMartian
( 840721 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:29PM (
#21757570
Journal
I think the pleasure out of this finding is yet more evidence that Mars is an *active* planet. We've known for over a century about Martian seasons, for quite some time about the vast dust storms, and recently there have been some tanatalizing hints of ongoing vulcanism, and now an active glacier. For a glacier to be active, it means there has to be some sort of hydrological cycle to replenish the ice.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Funny)
by
bondjamesbond
( 99019 )
writes:
Vulcanism?? As in... Spock?
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
wizardforce
( 1005805 )
writes:
Okay, a glacier on the Martian equator might be a surprise, except perhaps on one of the Tharsis Bulge volcanoes or Nix Olympica (er, Olympus Mons to you young whippersnappers; now get off my lawn).
its location is at 47.5N, 28.4E so yes, very odd indeed.
Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.
yeah, a large percentage of the solar system's material consists of frozen water, no surprise by that account that water exists on Mars,
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
AJWM
( 19027 )
writes:
Well, 47.5 N is hardly equatorial, but it is further south (by about 8 degrees) than the typical maximum winter extent of the north polar cap, so I'll grant you "odd" but perhaps not "very odd". (We have equatorial glaciers here on Earth at sufficient altitude, although they're disappearing rapidly.)
I wouldn't be surprised if significant traces of water (ice) are found all over Vastitas Borealis; if it was once a sea bottom (and it bears characteristics of such) there could be a lot left just under the sur
Re:
Score:
, Flamebait)
by
zappepcs
( 820751 )
writes:
I'll probably get modded as troll for this, but there is a great desire on much of this planet to ignore anything that is not written down in one of the 'good books'. Unfortunately, Mars was left out of that garden of eden scene... probably still somewhere on the cutting room floor of the FSM's dark room.
Needless to say, in North America, it is always surprising to find something that is not explained explicitly in one of the good books, even though god supposedly made everything. The possibility that there
Re:Not a surprise.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
idontgno
( 624372 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:47PM (
#21757794
Journal
Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars.
Leaving aside the (in my opinion) intellectual dishonesty of ID, a cool (and admittedly fictional) creationist take on the idea of life on Mars:
Out of the Silent Planet
[slashdot.org] by C. S. Lewis.
Nothing I'm aware of in creationist canon explicitly excludes the idea of life elsewhere in this universe. It's just not mentioned. Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Shadowplay00
( 1042912 )
writes:
Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".
Unfortunately that describes far too many these days. Even if you were to argue that's a small proportion of active Christians in the US, it's enough to affect attempts to teach science. Look at all the controversies over teaching ID in public schools: do you really think these schoolboard members are terribly open-minded?
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Unfortunately that describes far too many these days.
Again, please provide even a single instance of anyone who claims that, for example, penguins don't exist because they aren't (TTBOMK) mentioned in the Bible.
Honestly, don't you at some level see anything inappropriate in abusing people for offenses you simply made up?
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Your completely off the mark here. The problem isn't people thinking that "if it isn't in the good book it doesn't exist". It isn't even close to that.
The problem with teaching science isn't anything to do with the bible. It is with how the science is being taught. It is being done in a way that excludes anything else. It is in effect calling religions wrong and to some extent, it (the people teaching it) specifically mentioned it being wrong. While that may be a true statement in your take on things, there
Re:
Score:
by
Lord Ender
( 156273 )
writes:
So if my religion declares that the atomic makeup of water is H4O, and in science class they teach that it is H2O, then they are violating the constitution?
Bullshit. And the basics of chemistry are no less questionable than the basics of biology.
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Aren't you paying attention? It would be against the constitution if the instruction for science in schools said that H2O was the only composition and all other renditions outside of science was incorrect. If they said that H2O was the way science used it and when you stated "well my religion says water is H4O", the answer was when science used the H2O version because it fits with their science where you religion used H4O because it works with it, then thing would be alright.
It isn't a matter of who is righ
Hypotheses, facts, and theories
Score:
by
jbengt
( 874751 )
writes:
"I understand that people think it is absurd to downplay something like evolution . . . because they incorrectly think it is a fact that has been proven."
In the context of science
A hypothesis is a proposed fact that is, hopefully, to be proven or disproven.
A theory is an overall view and understanding of the subject that informs the facts and hypothesis.
Disproving a fact predicted by a theory (e.g. a hypothesis) will cause the theory to be changed or abandoned.
Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that t
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
So is evolution, the common ancestral parts, a fact? Have we seen empirical evidence supporting this Fact. Is there still room for something to change in the theory behind the FACT?
Evolution is a fact, as much as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact. Study of the fossil records, of the ecology, of living species, of artificial evolution caused by farming and husbandry over the last few thousand years, and of direct observations of fast breeding creatures like fruit flies and disease-pr
Re:
Score:
by
jbengt
( 874751 )
writes:
"So is evolution, the common ancestral parts, a fact? . . . "
Yes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that there are common ancestors among different species. If, however, you mean to say that all life comes from a single common ancestor, then, no, there is not enough evidence to prove that. But it's not necessary to believe in that in order to believe in evolution.
" . . . we don't have any showing the big bang as fact. "
I agree, the big bang is not a fact, which is why I left that out of my origina
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Yes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that there are common ancestors among different species. If, however, you mean to say that all life comes from a single common ancestor, then, no, there is not enough evidence to prove that. But it's not necessary to believe in that in order to believe in evolution.
Well, Having "evidence" and having empirical evidence are two different things and my point stands, it isn't fact. As for A single ancestor, wel yea you have to believe that because that is what is b
Re:
Score:
by
arkhan_jg
( 618674 )
writes:
You don't think teaching in science classes that 'God/an intelligent being did it' is a violation of the separation of church and state?
God/intelligent design have no place in a science class, in any fashion. Science is by definition the study of the natural. Religion is by definition the worship of the supernatural. ID/creationism have none of the hallmarks of scientific study. They make no predictions, and cannot be disproven which is a requirement of science.
The theory of evolution is as true as the theo
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
You don't think teaching in science classes that 'God/an intelligent being did it' is a violation of the separation of church and state?
Sure it is, But I'm not suggesting you do it. Why do you ask? I'm not advocating intelligent design or anything. Not refuting something doesn't mean advocating. The trick is simple to say nothing about it. And if you have to, limit it to the context at had, IE science, when in science class, Theology when in social studies and so on.
God/intelligent design have no place
Re:
Score:
by
ScrewMaster
( 602015 )
writes:
On the other hand, blurring the distinction between science and religion is one of the basic tools of the anti-science crowd. Of course, that only works on minds that are
already
blurry. People that have a handle on what science
is
tend to automatically reject such attempts on grounds of utter ridiculousness. What's interesting about that is there's no great intelligence required: the fundamental principles of science and scientific method are open and easily understandable by anyone. Yet many people can't
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
You don't have to blur the distinction. Just don't attempt to disprove the religion. You see, saying something like Evolution is the theory that science used to X Y and Z is not the same as saying Science says your bible is wrong, this happened, end of story.
There are ways to get the same amount of information out without missing anything and without being condescending or rude. You can even do it without telling little sally that her bible is wrong when she asks "but the bible says X". All you have to do i
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
What's wrong about telling Little Susy that in my best knowledge, the bible is an amusing compilation of age-old hallucination? She's completely free to make up her own mind, but not letting her know what I think, what the teacher thinks or what the scientific community thinks would be a clear violation of free speech. Freedom of religion does not, cannot and should not mean freedom to close your eyes from reality!
There is nothing wrong with telling her that as long as you don't do it in a place run by th
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
I hit reply instead of preview. here is one other part.
What do you mean "no guaranteed freedom of religion"? A whole lot of other countries have that, mind you. Here, though, it seems that religious people have learned to restrict their religious claims to things that are not ridiculous from the science perspective.
I mean exactly that. Other countries have it ingrained in law. It can be changed simple by law. In the US, the government is expressly forbidden to make laws establishing or prohibiting the fr
Re:
Score:
, Flamebait)
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
The Constitutions says that Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion. Science is not a religion. The founders knew that. Religious people know that. Everyone but who isn't either a) dishonest or b) a moron knows that.
Actually, it says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Do you see the part that says
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
? Of course every moron knows that, right? You also have the sep
Re:
Score:
by
Enigma2175
( 179646 )
writes:
it is because of a change in how science is being taught and the instructors or the science books are specifically telling students that religion is not true
Citation please?
Re:
Score:
by
FireFury03
( 653718 )
writes:
These religious freeks tend to claim Evolution as the mechanism for life as we know it and a common ancestor is a proven fact. They seem to think that we have empirical evidence showing life mutating from start to finish.
Whilst we don't have the whole start-to-finish set of evidence, we do have quite a lot of data points. I'm not going to claim that long-term evolution has been proved, but I would say that there is a _lot_ of evidence pointing to the theory being, for the most part, correct.
We have, howeve
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Whilst we don't have the whole start-to-finish set of evidence, we do have quite a lot of data points. I'm not going to claim that long-term evolution has been proved, but I would say that there is a _lot_ of evidence pointing to the theory being, for the most part, correct.
I would agree that is an accurate assessment of the situation. You will however, find people or groups of people that will say it is fact and that it has been proven and demonstrated to be true.
We have, however, proved short-term evo
Re:
Score:
by
FireFury03
( 653718 )
writes:
Death as it is is only one of the factors driving evolution, choice of partners is another.
Absolutely - death is by no means the only factor in driving evolution, but it is an important one in preventing the propagation of serious diseases to the following generations.
As a relatively trivial example, my eyesight is terrible - it was terrible by the time I reached my teens (and I assume this is genetic since most of the rest of my family also have pretty bad eyesight). Back when we were hunter/gatherers I w
Re:
Score:
by
FireFury03
( 653718 )
writes:
Now, this certainly depends on the definition of serious.. And the world you're living in. Poor eyesight is not serious.
But that's kind of my point - it isn't serious, but it does require medical resources. So if we allow diseases to remain within the gene pool, the amount of medical resources we will need will continue to increase.
How terrible is your eyesight, and how exactly?
-5.50 diopters in each eye, with an astigmatism of 0.75 in one and 1.25 in the other. In the grand scheme of things, there are pl
Re:
Score:
by
Eternauta3k
( 680157 )
writes:
They seem to think evolution in this manor stopped because this is the most perfect time for life
Evolution hasn't stopped. Maybe in humans it has stopped in the sense that we won't be seeing dramatic changes, like people with fewer toes outnumbering normal people. Nevertheless, some genetic conditions (the very bad ones, like the ones that affect the respiratory chain or other vital stuff) might become scarcer due to natural selection.
They seem to strongly deny other possible theories for the diversity of l
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Evolution hasn't stopped. Maybe in humans it has stopped in the sense that we won't be seeing dramatic changes, like people with fewer toes outnumbering normal people. Nevertheless, some genetic conditions (the very bad ones, like the ones that affect the respiratory chain or other vital stuff) might become scarcer due to natural selection.
Evolution tends to be an envelope term that encompasses evolutionary theories. The common ancestor part is connected but separate from the the strong survive and traits
Re:
Score:
by
Eternauta3k
( 680157 )
writes:
To sum up, good teachers are essential. In my school (catholic) we were taught evolution without any weird modifications or god-bashing.
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Yes, that would sum it up very nicely. But in the absence of that, you see the religious attempting to insert their stuff and stop mediocre or poor teacher from teaching. Whether it is right or wrong, it all boils down to your brilliant summery. When that is present, you don't see the other stuff and the problem disappears on the large part. At least it disappears on the level that we have seen in Georgia, Kansas, and Pennsylvanian.
Re:
Score:
by
Limburgher
( 523006 )
writes:
It doesn't matter that it is true.
Um,
WHAT?
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Lol.. Your not going to tell me that your this super smart science guy who cannot even get the context of what I said are you? Why am I even entertaining you when you don't even understand something as simple as separating concepts.
All you have to do is go back and read what was posted, it is all there and simple enough that even a doltz can understand.
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Aren't you paying attention? I'm not sure If I can spell it out any clearer. Of course that is probably why the problem exists in the first place, people like you.
Uhmmmm, how exactly is teaching evolution in school preventing you from believing whatever you want to believe? It doesn't. It lays out scientific facts. It doesn't dictate what your religion has to be.
Teaching evolution isn't the problem is evolution was the only thing being taught. Can you understand anything outside your personal experience?
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Ah.. man. Have you even listened to the arguments at all? I know you have been ignoring what I said and picking and choosing what you want. Do you see ID or warning sticker being a nation wide problem? Do you see it happening state wide?
The book doesn't say it, the instruction, you know, the thing the teachers do are saying it. That is why I have said that there is nothing wrong with evolution in and of itself, you have to keep the "instruction" away from god. How fucking dense are you? I mad this clear in
Re:
Score:
by
sumdumass
( 711423 )
writes:
Lol.. I never made that point. That isn't my point at all. I'm saying that the reason it is even being brought up is because some schools have went the way of saying God is bad and the bible is wrong. If they weren't doing that, ID wouldn't be an issue.
See, your missing the point by only paying attention to the shit you want to. I'm talking about the root of the problem, not the ID portion of it. ID shouldn't be taught in schools. That is nowhere near anything I am saying. It doesn't belong there. Neither d
Re:
Score:
by
biraneto
( 886262 )
writes:
Actually the universe according to ID is men centered. Men was created as the image of God. They may even find some excuses for some small simple life forms, but they wouldn't be able to explain why there is more advanced life forms in the universe than us. Good for then we still won't be effectively leaving this galaxy for the next centuries.
:)
Re:
Score:
by
tompaulco
( 629533 )
writes:
I would think the ID explanation of life on Mars would most likely be the same as most scientists: "There isn't any."
Even if there was, nothing in the Bible says there is no life anywhere else. Jesus once said something to the affect of "I have other sheep which are not of this fold." As Jesus was a carpenter, I think we are not meant to take that literally. Most would say that refers to the Gentiles. But who knows for sure?
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Chris Burke
( 6130 )
writes:
Yet people seem to be surprised every time there's the merest hint, or act like it's of some cosmic significance. Sheesh.
Well maybe this is just me, but I tend to be surprised or excited whenever the actual scientists involved are surprised or excited. Seems like they are the ones who would be best equipped to know what the significance is.
I'm pretty sure they are already aware of the Martian ice caps, so maybe there's something more significant to this then? Naw, you're right, it's better to use hindsigh
Re:
Score:
by
AJWM
( 19027 )
writes:
Scientists act surprised and excited at almost
any
discovery, partly because it either supports or disagrees with current theory, which in a relatively new field like planetology is interesting either way. But - and forgive me for being cynical - they also do it to encourage those who fund them to keep on funding them. If they'd said "ho hum, we expected that", how do you think the purse-string holders would react the next time the scientists went asking for money?
Yeah, it's an interesting find in the way
Re:
Score:
by
Chris Burke
( 6130 )
writes:
Be cynical all you want. I doubt you know enough about planetary climatology to have said whether or not
young, active
glaciers were probable based solely on the existence of
ancient, permanent
ice caps. But now that it has been discovered, it's easy for the cynical to say "Oh of course you would expect to find that, we already knew there was ice, duh". When there's simply more to the issue than that.
Nobody said that this should shake the very foundations of planetology, or anything even close to that.
Re:
Score:
by
AJWM
( 19027 )
writes:
The "young" is yet to be demonstrated. (For that matter, so is whether or not this is really ice, but that seems a reasonable bet.) As for "active" -- if it's a glacier, it flows under the force of gravity, and either advances or (depending on temperature) the leading edge retreats; of
course
it's active.
TFA makes a big deal out of the exposed white areas, claiming that ice sublimates quickly on Mars. Well, some places it does, some places it doesn't. If it's exposed on the ridge peaks, that could be b
Re:
Score:
by
Chris Burke
( 6130 )
writes:
The "young" is yet to be demonstrated. (For that matter, so is whether or not this is really ice, but that seems a reasonable bet.) As for "active" -- if it's a glacier, it flows under the force of gravity, and either advances or (depending on temperature) the leading edge retreats; of course it's active.
Yes, as the article noted the results are not certain, so good call there. A retreating glacier is not an active glacier, and an ancient glacier can only stay active if it has its ice renewed as fast or fa
I sense a connection here...
Score:
by
Odin The Ravager
( 980765 )
writes:
Dr Gerhard Neukum
Duke Nukem
Really, ask yourself, what are the chances?
Re:
Score:
by
geekoid
( 135745 )
writes:
The same odds the a man actually named "McCool" would die in a spaceship accident.
If I tried to use that name in a game, I would have been laughed at.
So, the European Space Agency is dreaming...
Score:
, Offtopic)
by
niceone
( 992278 )
writes:
... of a white Christmas?
Glacier
Score:
by
Velcroman98
( 542642 )
writes:
With Mar's distance from the Sun I wonder if any of it it dry ice, or any other elements that would normally be a gas on Earth.
If it melts will it be blamed on Bush?
Re:
Score:
by
rrohbeck
( 944847 )
writes:
>With Mar's distance
This is taking the apostrophe-s-itis a little too far.
Why hot ga's and melt's too?
Missing
Score:
, Funny)
by
Etrias
( 1121031 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:35PM (
#21757666
Oh good! Glaciers on Mars. Nice for them to turn up because we're starting to miss a few down here.
Share
A place to find life
Score:
by
readin
( 838620 )
writes:
This is cool. If any Martians ever stuck their tongue on it they should still be there!
Re:
Score:
by
Elusive_Cure
( 645428 )
writes:
This is cool. If any Martians ever stuck their tongue on it they should still be there!
By definition a glacier is cool...
Re:
Score:
by
snickkers
( 1023847 )
writes:
This is cool.
I get it.
Mars Ice "Premium" Bottled Water?
Score:
, Funny)
by
Zymergy
( 803632 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:07PM (
#21758022
Executive: "How can we get ahold of some of that Mars glacial ice? We could make a killing selling it to the bottled water crowd!"
R&D: "We could make it a dilute 'blend' with filtered municipal tap water and disclose (in small print) that it is 'filtered for your purity'."
Marketing: "The bottle cost should be just under $0.05 each (with printing) and we could put on its side in BOLD TYPE: 'Contains REAL Mars Water' and actual unit cost could be $1000 each. Then we could spread a rumor that it has aphrodisiac properties, it worked for the rhinoceros horn market!"...
NASA Administration Plebe to NASA Director: "Sir, I think I have found a new way to raise REAL corporate money for our manned Mars missions..."
Share
Re:
Score:
by
quantaman
( 517394 )
writes:
Executive: "How can we get ahold of some of that Mars glacial ice? We could make a killing selling it to the bottled water crowd!"
R&D: "We could make it a dilute 'blend' with filtered municipal tap water and disclose (in small print) that it is 'filtered for your purity'."
In small print?! You clearly know nothing of consumers, it's not "filtered" or "diluted", it's homoeopathy!!
Re:
Score:
by
TubeSteak
( 669689 )
writes:
Three words:
Dehydrated Martian Ice
Tagline:
Just add water, then freeze
Get it while it's cold!
Score:
by
overshoot
( 39700 )
writes:
After all, no telling what global warming will do to this thing.
we must go to mars
Score:
, Troll)
by
circletimessquare
( 444983 )
writes:
so we can melt it
i am not happy with just denuding mt kilimanjaro of glaciers and melting greenland
we must do better than this
global warming? this is the mark of an inferior life form
solar system warming or darest i dream galactic warming, that should be the goal of mankind!
Re:we must go to mars
Score:
, Interesting)
by
rucs_hack
( 784150 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:30PM (
#21758360
Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.
Without it we'd have to wait tens of thousands of years, or more, while specially engineered plant life (very basic plant life) and such worked its slow magic on the atmosphere. With a bit of global warming technology (TM) we can shorten the time considerably. If oceans were brought back the process would be much faster.
The question is how can it be acheived in a way that can be managed, so it doesn't spin out of control. Personally, since I won't be alive in either case, a thing I have in common with everyone reading this, I'd go for the slower option, or even go for the option of spending a few hundred years seeing if there were any remnant native organisms that could be helped back into activity and do the job for us.
That there are active glaciers is fascinating though. What a shame that almost all of the current environment of mars would need to be destroyed or irreversibly altered in order to host our species. It doesn't bode well for our entry into the interstellar club. How ironic if the destructive aliens we worry about so much in fiction turn out to be us.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
MightyMartian
( 840721 )
writes:
Actually, perverse though it sounds, global warming is exactly what we have to do on Mars if its ever to be habitable without assisted environments (posh way of saying biodome..) in a thousand yars or so. All that subsurface ice needs to be melted to bring the oceans back and build a decent atmosphere, one better at deflecting solar radiation.
It's going to take more than that. Even if you managed, somehow, to get a dense atmosphere on Mars (which is a must if you don't want the water to simply boil on the
I have a plan.
Score:
by
geekoid
( 135745 )
writes:
Create a giant yellow 'umbrella' between the sun and mars.
It would be concave on the mars side and larger then mars. So it would focus more light and heat onto mars. Thus warming it.
It could also deflect much of the suns bombardment of radiation onto the planet.
Re:
Score:
by
ianare
( 1132971 )
writes:
That would be put to better use on
Venus
[wikipedia.org].
More Martian Glacier Info
Score:
, Informative)
by
L3WKW4RM
( 228924 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @07:31PM (
#21758372
Homepage
More info and photos on the
Martian rock-ice glaciers of Deuteronilus Mensae
[asu.edu].
Now that we've got glaciers and
lava tubes
[nasa.gov], I'm packing up my crampons and caving gear for a Martian vacation!
Share
Estimate?
Score:
by
ScrewMaster
( 602015 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @08:08PM (
#21758790
Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 -- 100,000 years old.
They really meant "wild-assed guess", but it sounds more scientific to call it an estimate.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
tompaulco
( 629533 )
writes:
Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 -- 100,000 years old.
What's an order of magnitude among friends?
Don't do the same mistake again
Score:
by
felipekk
( 1007591 )
writes:
I think this is a hint that we should not go there. We already screwed with our glaciers...
Meanwhile, in other news ...
Score:
by
PPH
( 736903 )
writes:
Martian scientists believe that their neighboring planet, known as 'Irth' may have had glaciers and polar ice caps in its recent past. These ara believed to have disappeared during the recent geological era known as SUV.
Re:
Score:
by
ScrewMaster
( 602015 )
writes:
Martian scientists believe that their neighboring planet, known as 'Irth' may have had glaciers and polar ice caps in its recent past. These ara believed to have disappeared during the recent geological era known as SUV.
Some Martian scientists disagree. They believe the proper interpretation of the inhabitants own description of their final days to be the symbols "GW". There are two camps, one of which considers this "GW" to represent the phrase "Global Warming", which would tend to agree with the physic
white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice
Score:
by
tompaulco
( 629533 )
writes:
Or something else.
But they are probably right, it was probably ice from the beverage the giant face dropped when he heard the dismaying news that NASA "proved" he was just a natural rock formation.
Not News.
Score:
, Funny)
by
notnAP
( 846325 )
writes:
on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:50PM (
#21760784
Possible Active Interplanetary Missile Complex Found On Mars
Now that's news.
Share
Nasa already found water on mars
Score:
, Funny)
by
kvap
( 454189 )
writes:
A couple of years ago:
[nasa.gov]
Here is a terrestrial analogue
Score:
by
mbone
( 558574 )
writes:
[wikipedia.org]
The solution to global warming
Score:
by
GWBasic
( 900357 )
writes:
Now we can actually use Futurama's solution to global warming! All we need to do is bring the glacier back here and stick it in the ocean!
Re:
Score:
by
ScrewMaster
( 602015 )
writes:
Well
... they say he's psychic.
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
317
comments
CDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
307
comments
US Formally Withdraws From WHO
299
comments
Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes Than Food, Study Says
297
comments
CDC Data Confirms US is 2 Months Away From Losing Measles Elimination Status
273
comments
Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent
next
IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test
555
comments
previous
Creative Commons Launches CC+ License
67
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine.
-- Robert Heller
Close
Working...