The Biggest ‘Non-Discovery’ on Mars in History
Water on the Red Planet? Big deal. Tell us something we don't already know.
Just how big was this week’s “discovery” of water on Mars?
Not as big as one might think from all of the hype about it, at least in terms of discovering water. We’ve known for many years as a result of numerous Mars orbiters and landers, going all the way back to Viking, that there was water on Mars. For instance, it was measured as vapor in the atmosphere back in the seventies by the Viking orbiters. While the ground can occasionally get as warm as room temperature, the Martian atmosphere is frigid, never getting above zero on either the Fahrenheit or Celsius scale.
But even at that temperature, because the atmosphere is so thin and low pressure, liquid water can’t form — it would quickly boil away, even in the chill — so it has always been assumed that it exists only as vapor in the air, or ice. In fact, at the low pressure of Mars, all ice, including water ice, is “dry” ice (as carbon dioxide ice is here on earth), in that it goes directly from solid to gaseous form without becoming liquid first, a process called sublimation.
The Martian rovers gathered a lot of evidence that Mars was once a very wet place. But the question still remained: how much water was left?
The data continued to accumulate. It was a quite certain, three years ago, that the European Mars Express had taken a picture of a large patch of water ice in a crater:
This white patch is present all year round, as the temperature and pressure conditions do not favor the sublimation of water ice.
It cannot be frozen carbon dioxide since carbon dioxide ice had already disappeared from the north polar cap at the time the image was taken (late summer in the Martian northern hemisphere).
Not convinced? Remote observation from orbit not sufficiently definitive? Well just a little over a month ago, the Phoenix lander itself “found proof” of the presence of ice just below the surface.
There’s been little doubt in anyone’s mind for quite some time that there is water ice on Mars. The only issue was how much was there, and whether or not it was easily accessible.
So what was the big deal with this week’s story? It was a first, just not the first “confirmation” of water. It was the first time that a probe (in the words of one of the principal investigators) had “touched it and tasted it.” At least, as much as an inorganic device can “taste” anything at the current state of technology. For decades, we’ve been sending electromechanical emissaries out to our sister worlds in the solar system, extending our eyes and ears, and in some cases, hands, but this is the first time we’ve sent a tongue.
Now that they’ve confirmed the expected presence of water, long believed to be an essential ingredient for life, the search for life itself within that water will begin. They won’t expect to find things swimming around in it (though if they did that would be the biggest find in the history of space science to date). And as I’ve noted previously, prospective Martians currently living on earth should hope that they don’t, lest the planet be quarantined from humans to prevent contamination.
What the researchers will be looking for are chemical precursors to life, such as amino acids that form proteins. If they find them, it won’t prove that there is now, or ever was life on Mars, but it would increase the probability of it in many minds.
But assuming that they don’t discover little Martians, the most significant thing about this mission, to my mind, is what it tells us about the abundance of ice on the Red Planet. Either the lander was extremely lucky, and hit the lottery, or almost anywhere that it sat down, at least on that plain, would have been on top of ice. If you drop a rock from orbit and it lands in the water, Occam’s Razor would say that it’s much more likely that you landed in a lake or sea, than that you landed in a puddle in the middle of a desert.
So now we know that there’s not just ice on Mars, but a lot of it, close to or (as in the case of the glacier in the crater) on top of the planet’s surface. That means that, assuming the absence of native Martians, Mars has become a much more attractive location for the establishment of earthly life. That knowledge will help in the refinement of plans for settling the planet in a self sufficient way, whenever those who wish to do so can somehow raise the money to get there.
Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
37 Comments
1. cedarford:NASA has foolishly pushed the “water=possibility of life” narrative for years now.
So all the Rover stories were filled with “follow the water” discoveries. Same with the Phoenix Lander, though the first few days produced photos showing the darn thing landed on a slab of white ice that retro rockets blew a few inches of dirt off of.
The real issue is not the “question of water” - 1st seen on Martian polar icecaps 450 years ago through telescopes. As a basis of saying Mars once was liveable, or “sustain life”, if man ever colonized the place.
It is “the question of nitrogen”.
Of nitrogen ever existing in sufficient quantity in ancient Martian eras to form the nitrogen-based amino acid precursors of life.
And for the future, nitrogen existing in sufficient extractable quantity to allow sustained human presence without having to bring tons and tons of nitrogen from Earth. (Nitrogen is a miniscule amount -3%- of a miniscule atmosphere thousands of times less abundant than Earth’s at sea level.
Rovers have found no sign of nitrogen in rock and soil samples. Nor have satellite assays.
Nor signs of critical heavy ore deposits of elements likely to be required to sustain future life of any sort brought from Earth - uranium for power against the low temps, ability to refine clean water, make O2. Lead for shielding against high radiation. Trace elements needed in life processes, Etc.
*******************
Another “life impediment” is exactly how “salt-poisoned” the soils and waters of ancient Mars were in blocking life forms originating, and how bad they are on present Mars. Even if the nitrogen availability “veto” on life existing is shown false, the lack of heavier elements false, if the whole planet is salty like Dead Sea brine and adjacent soils, it cannot support life.
It has always been fashionable to be optimistic about life elsewhere in the solar system. The prevailing wisdome was once that Venus was a jungle and Mars the obvious home to an ancient civilization.
Now we have NASA hacks and others replacing Venus with “life is quite possible” Europa, comet cores, Jupiter cloud life, even Titan life.
We need to be more skeptical…just to avoid the “life on Mars proven to exist in Martian meteroid!” press conferences done by the likes of Clinton and those NASA and aerospace contractors eager for more funds from an “excited and optimistic public” - or the duped good Dubya declaring that a trillion dollar expedition as prelude to permanent human settlement of Mars, needs only to overcome money as the only obstacle.
Aug 2, 2008 - 8:14 am 2. pappy:these yo-yo’s should start worrying how long life is sustainable here on this rock, not some planet that it takes five years to get to. stop it at the moon and spend the other zillions on improving our lot here. if they insist on creating a colony on mars, please put pelousy and whining little harry on top of the list.
Aug 2, 2008 - 11:06 am 3. Marvin:You said “but this is the first time we’ve sent a tongue.” If you are talking about sensors such as those aboard Phoenix, duh, you are dead wrong.
Do a little more research next time.
Aug 2, 2008 - 11:23 am 4. Alex:Well if stories like these get NASA more funding Im all for it.
Aug 2, 2008 - 12:22 pm 5. Sam:There is more news coming this month. Most likely that the chemistry of the soil is capable of supporting Earth life. Reportedly the White House has already been briefed on the findings and they are doing some more peer reviews before going public.
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid/
Aug 2, 2008 - 2:30 pm 6. anon in tx:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/WH08018.xml&headline=White%20House%20Briefed%20On%20Potential%20For%20Mars%20Life&channel=space
The presence of water vapor in the atmosphere has been known since Lowell and others detected it at the beginning of 20th century.
The presence of ice has been fairly definite since Mariner 9.
The rock dropping analogy is flawed in that Phoenix was targeted for a place thought likely to have ice quite near the surface.
That the Martian soil, or regolith, can support earth life has been known since Viking. That the moon’s can has been known since Apollo.
Otherwise the discovery is PAO hype at the level of the so called Martian nanobacteria.
Aug 2, 2008 - 3:24 pm 7. Waller:This is another example of what I call “atheistic” science. The purpose isn’t so much to prove anything, but to kill God dead. In many minds, finding life on other planets would be the stake through the heart of Christianity.
As Mr. Simburg points out, the presence of water on Mars (or any other planet) means very little in of itself. The SETI types have been preaching the water=life gospel, without contradiction, for so long now that they can overhype this discovery as “practically finding life”. That’s like finding a kernel of wheat and claiming you almost have a loaf of bread.
The people so convinced that life exists elsewhere have literally no science to back them up. It really is a matter of faith. Generally they say it’s inconceivable for all those stars to have no life. That’s an opinion that has no empirical support at all. So far the empirical evidence for extraterrestrial life is exactly zero.
Additionally, I’m really unimpressed when they trot out the Drake equation.
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html
Seven variables; only one of which we have any idea of it’s value. The second we know is not zero, but that’s it. The third through seventh variables we know absolutely nothing. If any of those five is zero, the answer is zero. I’ve seen show after show acting like we’ve practically solved the equation.
You would have thought the SETI type people would have been humbled by the “microbes in the meteorite” fiasco a few years back. The fervor of their convictions and the exaggeration of their evidence clearly shows that these people are in the realm of religion not science.
Aug 2, 2008 - 7:00 pm 8. jvon:Why would life on other planets “kill God dead”?
I’ve been involved in SETI and I’m also quite sure God exists. The Bible is not a science text.
Aug 3, 2008 - 2:14 am 9. MrTender:To: Jvon
“The Bible is not a science text.”
It sure isn’t!. It gave the value of pi to be “3″
3!!!!!!!!!!! That is hilarious.
God must have written that bit at 11.59 on the sitxh day when he was looking forward to his end of day beer.
Aug 3, 2008 - 3:28 am 10. Benson:Curious about the magnetic field of Mars, and the radiation that falls on the surface. Anybody?
Aug 3, 2008 - 4:49 am 11. ZEITGEIST:[...] RAND SIMBERG: Water on Mars? Big deal. Tell us something we don’t already know. [...]
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:35 am 12. Been There Done That:I agree, there has not been any doubt for a century that some water-ice exists on Mars.
In my opinion Phoenix was resurrected for only one reason - to give the PI teams something to show for all the work they had expended in designing and building the earlier Mars probes. It also gave more money to their schools as part of NASA’s “good ol’ boy network” of academics. The earlier Mars lander had been sunk by NASA Administrator Goldin’s disastrous “faster, cheaper, better” philosophy, so Phoenix gave the PIs another chance to build something that this time had been designed & built well enough, with proper quality control, that it actually had an excellent chance of working. Besides, there was a lot of surplus hardware laying around they could use, which had become an embarassment to NASA management.
Now the Phoenix PI team can go down in history as having “discovered water” on Mars, & NASA can give out a blizzard of awards and bonuses - mostly to their own bureaucrats.
Aug 3, 2008 - 8:07 am 13. james wilson:The forces driving this obsession over water are quite human and have nothing to do with the universe, which provides water in abundance.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:25 am 14. Predator:Human thinking suggests anything that is vital to life must therefore be scarce, but the problem with Mars is simply that it can’t hold its water. Quite like the thinking of many people.
That’s right, silly humans, keep spending all your money looking for ice on that Godforsaken rock. Did I tell you hunting season starts next month? Bwa-ha-ha-ha
Aug 3, 2008 - 11:36 am 15. Javelin:Waller:
Aug 3, 2008 - 11:50 am 16. MrTender:“Atheistic science”, crawl back into your cave and polish your phony martyr crown. That is the stupidest comment in months here. All Science is atheistic, you ignorant theocon. They didn’t build science by saying everything they couldn’t understand is God’s work. You are the proverbial native on the beach who found the pocket watch the sea captain dropped and assumed the sea deity created it.
Ahhh…. well said
“You are the proverbial native on the beach who found the pocket watch the sea captain dropped and assumed the sea deity created it”
It was made by the blind watchmaker. The one they call evolution!
Aug 3, 2008 - 3:03 pm 17. bubba:“Marvin:
You said “but this is the first time we’ve sent a tongue.” If you are talking about sensors such as those aboard Phoenix, duh, you are dead wrong.
Do a little more research next time.”
Well, I’m smarter that you!
Aug 3, 2008 - 4:41 pm 18. mark:I wonder if Obama was also briefed, because on Saturday he did a major flip and said he no longer favors slashing NASA’s budget.
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:29 pm 19. cedarford:Benson:
Curious about the magnetic field of Mars, and the radiation that falls on the surface. Anybody?
It may have had a weak one in ancient times, but not now. Thus, no radiation protection against charged particles - making for more cosmic ray dose and a massive solar ejection event’s particles reaching Mars lethal to any life at or close to the surface.
Doses of space radiation in the 5-30 REM level. About 60 times higher than on Earth, and direct dose of 200-3,000 REM if hit by a coronal mass ejection’s particles. (compared to near-zero rads on Earth from solar storm radiation).
In addition, Mars has no ozone or substantial atmospheric shielding - adding to cosmic ray dose. Worse, UV-A and UV-B radiation. Which have biologists saying the low temps there would lead to living organisms lacking the energy and speed needed to repair UV damage to cells.
Aug 3, 2008 - 6:50 pm 20. Benson:Thanks, cedarford. Mars colony? For robots only, otherwise impractical. We can learn more by sending probes, which will become more sophisticated over time.
Aug 3, 2008 - 8:21 pm 21. Benson:Forgot to add: no magnetic field = no prospect of terraforming. Any atmosphere we might create will be blasted away into space.
Aug 3, 2008 - 8:23 pm 22. Waller:As I suspected the “atheistic science” comment rankled some people. I use this term for science that seems to be promoted and defended for no other reason than to make sure God doesn’t poke his nose into it.
Javelin, my old friend, not all science is atheistic. Non-speculative science neither confirms or denies the existance of God. The theory of gravity exists with or without God’s intervention.
My experience is that you are more interested in theory which excludes a higher power, than you are in doing good science. I merely point out the empirical weaknesses in a theory. It’s always you guys who go on a God hunt. That’s why I call it atheistic. You don’t see physicists are chemists going on an theistic rant everytime someone questions their suppositions.
Oh, BTW, it actually is the nature of Judeo-Christian philosophy which gave rise to modern science. Inherent was the belief that God was rational, and therefore his universe was rational. If the universe is rational, then we can study it and make observations and predictions. It’s no coincidence that modern science evolved in Western Civilization.
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:43 pm 23. Rand Simberg:We can learn more by sending probes, which will become more sophisticated over time.
What makes you think that the purpose is “learning”?
Aug 3, 2008 - 11:15 pm 24. locomotivebreath1901:I find Waller’s analysis of the philosophy of the modern scientific community to be most accurate.
In most every corner of every modern scientific discipline is vehement denunciation (bordering on ridicule) of anyone who even tentatively lays a theistic interpretation at the ‘pure’ alter of science.
Vehement denunciation similar to the the rankled taunts hurled at Waller when he dared to suggest that very thing….
As for mr./ms. Been There Done That: Bingo!
Aug 4, 2008 - 4:44 am 25. Benson:I suppose the history of science “makes” me think that we look through telescopes and build cyclotrons in order to learn. But your question puzzles me: is there one and only one purpose behind the exploration of the solar system? Are you trying to say that the latest Mars mission is pure greed, job protection, political empire-building and makework chicanery? I wonder what technological or scientific undertaking has not been tainted by less than noble motives. Consider Edison, for openers. Even people trying to cope with epidemic diseases get smeared as filthy capitalists. I’ve heard all the lectures by the enemies of “big pharma,” so I guess I’m immune to your bitterness. The latest Mars mission was interesting, even if a modern WPA for an elite group of insiders. I would probably agree with you that there are better projects to undertake, different ways to do the research, and so on. Most government projects could stand at least some reform, I suppose. But the blanket implication that learning had nothing to do with this mission…unh, disgruntled taxpayer that I am, I won’t sign off on that.
Aug 4, 2008 - 6:08 am 26. Bugs:Sounds like people having “purity issues” again. I thought liberals were the main sufferers, but maybe conservatives have their own strain to deal with. A pharmaceutical company makes a profit by selling drugs that cure diseases - how inhumane! Someone should figure out a way to develop and distribute new drugs for free. Space exploration requires a huge supporting bureaucracy - oh, no! If we were truly scientific, we wouldn’t let mere bureaucrats suck their livings from the great quest for knowledge. We would figure out a way to explore space with, like, a hundred guys max - and all of them scientists. I wonder how we’ll all feel when the government takes over health care and big business takes over space exploration.
Aug 4, 2008 - 7:49 am 27. Waller:Speaking of watches…
One doesn’t need to be a watchmaker to know when one is poorly made. Nor does one need to be a watchmaker to tell the time. The theory of evolution is a broken watch. I don’t need a God for me to rip it apart, it falls apart under the weight of its own inadaquacies.
Again you bring out one of the one-dimensional smears that evolutionists are so famous for. If I don’t buy your baloney lock, stock, and barrel, then I must be some religious nutcase. No modern person would make such a supposition about a watch or otherwise.
Maybe you should use a better allegory, like a “miracle”. But since scientists can’t analyze “miracles” (because by definition they defy the laws of science), then it would be speculation. The fact that you would resort to speculation defeats your argument.
This is the same problem we have with evolution, it’s completely speculative. Despite what you “science minded” people say, there are a ton of critical flaws in evo theory. But unlike most science where a refutation would be analyzed and weaken the theory, evolutionists ignore the criticisms, and go on ad hominem attacks.
Hint: Take the watch metaphor out of your attack bag. It’s stupid and insulting. It shows that you don’t really want to debate the strengths and weaknesses of your theory. You just want to give me a label, so that you can marginalize me.
Thank you confirming what I already knew about the evolution debate.
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:10 am 28. Augustus:By finding water in Mars will prove a living civilization once existed. It is want they want all to believe - an illusional existence. If water is evidence of life on a planet in outerspace hemisphere, then why not fire on a planet? Here’s a scenario to consider: Back then, who knows, possibly trillion’s of years ago (it could be made-up with some creative theosophy scheming), the first civilization (during process of evolution growth) in the SUN planet suddenly invent fire. Little did these creatures know the planet they occupied swarmed with gases. BANG! The first match had been lit.
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:14 am 29. Carney:My point is the phenomenon of outerspace terrestrial existence visiting earth in UFO’s, is an advanced human technology kept secret for a future sinister higher purpose.
The universe is a 3 dimensional phase. Earth, Space & Heaven. The only living within it are in spirit form such as the super natural GOD-his Angels, Lucifer-his fallen angels, the once living people who moved on in spirit to a dimension beyond ours & the rest of us still living here on earth.
Stop funding NASA & others alike because they are searching for something that will not be revealed to them. Aliens with their UFO’s is just a frigment of our imagination-an illusion to deceive the general population. If they exist, we would most definitely been invaded, or possibly, destroyed. The funds should be used here on earth to help the many desperate people in need of survival. That is where our energies should be spent, rather in some fantasy existence on some other planets. Leave that to hollywood.
Benson said: “Mars colony? For robots only, otherwise impractical. We can learn more by sending probes, which will become more sophisticated over time.”
Quite wrong. Read “The Case for Mars” by Robert Zubrin, who goes into this in detail. His Mars Direct plan, endorsed by Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, and Buzz Aldrin, is so compelling that NASA eventually adopted its essentials. The current NASA administrator is a former board member of Zubrin’s Mars Society.
Uniquely in the solar system, you can grow crops on Mars in cheap inflatable greenhouses. With a 24 hour day/night cycle (no need for expensive artificial light), a carbon dioxide atmosphere (slightly concentrated and pressurized if necessary), and all the elements necessary for agriculture in abundance, Mars can support a permanent human population.
Aug 4, 2008 - 1:27 pm 30. Benson:Oh, good grief. Another government boondoggle, doomed from the start, pushed by obsessed hobbyists who can’t see the obvious truth. It’s SETI all over again, only with an infinitely higher cost and no benefits.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:15 am 31. The Daily Links - August 4th « The Four Part Land:[...] Pajamas Media » The Biggest ‘Non-Discovery’ on Mars in History [...]
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:12 am 32. MrTender:To: Waller
Read “The Blind Watchmaker” - Richard Dawkins…
In fact read his book “The God Delusion” too.
I have read both of these, as well as I have read the bible. I think that to fully understand the question, and come to your own individual answer you need to read all three of those books, not just one or two of them.
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:48 pm 33. cedarford:Carney - Uniquely in the solar system, you can grow crops on Mars in cheap inflatable greenhouses. With a 24 hour day/night cycle (no need for expensive artificial light), a carbon dioxide atmosphere (slightly concentrated and pressurized if necessary), and all the elements necessary for agriculture in abundance, Mars can support a permanent human population.
In your dreams.
All the elements necessary for agriculture are not in abundance. Most importantly, there is no nitrogen.
The dead zones on Earths highest mountains are like tropical rain forests compared to Mars.
The soils also appear to contain toxic super oxidizers. Nor will “inflatable greenhouses” achieve the partial pressures of CO2 needed to make plant photosythesis work, nor nitrogen for protein production even if you import your N2 from Earth at 100,000 dollars a pound. And, with 120 DEG below zero nights since the Martian ATM is too thin to retain substantial day-cycle solar heat, the cost of heating your greenhouses is prohibitive even without factoring in the damage regular radiation, intense UV radiation, and damage from irregular solar flares will inflict on plant life.
Aug 6, 2008 - 10:17 am 34. John:Someone above says the Bible says that pi equals 3. I would like to point out that the measurements for the circumference and diameter of that particular alluded-to circle is given in the very inexact and call-it, hope-for-the-best unit called the “cubit”, which was measured by using the arm.
It’s like when someone asks me “what time is it” and I say “1 o’clock” though it’s really 12:50 or 5 after…nobody thinks I’m lying, deceiving them, or being unscientific: I’m just not being anally precise: the same goes for that stupd, over-trumped, pathetic example that people who have absolutely no cultural awareness of the text they’re reading bring-up all the time. Argghh!!
Aug 6, 2008 - 4:18 pm 35. Waller:With evolution it’s always about attacking religion. I’ve only been able to have a couple of evo debates where my opponent actually focused on the merits of evo theory, instead of a broadside against theology.
Here’s an example. Punctuated Evolution. A deus ex machina created by evolutionists to explain how so much mutation can occur [in the actually short] period of 4 billion years. And also to explain the sudden burst of diverse lifeforms in a theory whose bedrock is gradual change due to environmental factors.
Yes, it IS a scientific cheat to put in a stipulation that only occurs when convenient, doesn’t follow the tenet of the original theory, and only basis is that’s how we keep the theory intact.
Aug 6, 2008 - 5:10 pm 36. edh:So why is Science “atheistic” hmmm?
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:02 pm 37. trya b:The scientist gazing through the microscope or the telescope making quantifiable measurements is
perfoming “science”. When he says that something is
“valuable” “good” or even
“progressive” he is infusing human values and expectations..at that point he is no longer scientist. He is making social, philosophical or even artistic judgements. In fact science cant give satisfaction to 99.9% of what humans are looking for.
So much for the wannabee Dr.Spock poseurs.
dis sucks dis didnt give me any info i needed for extra credit u sickos
Nov 6, 2008 - 1:12 pm