If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Curiosity has found proof that there was once abundant, fast-moving water on Mars that could have supported life   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 221
    More: Cool, Mars Science Laboratory, NASA, Mars landing, imaging science, Planetary Science, John Grotzinger, streambeds, pebbles  
•       •       •

14254 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-28 02:09:07 PM
What NASA needs is a spelunking robot.
Sure, no life on the surface. But, how far down does one have to be to be protected by radiation? Imagine a whole network of caverns, underground lakes, etc. about 10 meters below the surface that could be teeming with life.
 
2012-09-28 02:17:45 PM
www.hostingbytes.us
 
2012-09-28 07:03:35 PM

mudpants: well no at some tempitures every thing is fluid, like water


I don't think that bread ever becomes a liquid, though it will vaporize eventually. Can you tell me how you got it to do that?
 
2012-09-28 08:30:06 PM

rwfan: All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.


Dehydrating Venus

Venus has much higher gravity, so it can hold onto an atmosphere better than Mars could. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, all of which are fairly heavy gases. We figure that after the greenhouse went critical the oceans boiled away, then solar UV cooked it into oxygen and hydrogen, which subsequently got blown off the planet by solar wind impact. It's still going on--we've detected the tag-end of the process.

Mars still has plenty of water--just not liquid, at least not at the surface, There are pictures of what looks like groundwater seeps in some photos, but yeah, it doesn't last long.
 
2012-09-28 08:31:53 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-09-28 09:44:24 PM

jso2897: justtray: doglover: Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.

You are a moron. Not much more to say. I bolded the especially stupid parts. Welcome to the ignore list.

Welcome to my "asshole" list.


Watching two kinds of Space Nutters yell at each other? Wow, where's the Haloperidol popcorn?
 
2012-09-28 10:17:41 PM
The NASA scientists claiming this 30 years ago were run out of the program.
 
2012-09-28 11:58:30 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Newest photo from Curiosity...
 
2012-09-29 12:49:58 AM

doglover:

Actually it's more like Mars never really had one worth mentioning. Nor does it have much gravity. So the atmosphere escapes, temperature drops and thus liquids can't survive on the surface any more.


Would the presence of a large moon help with the magnetic field issue?

Or put another way: Has Mars solidified?
 
2012-09-29 01:37:43 AM

Mister Peejay: doglover:

Actually it's more like Mars never really had one worth mentioning. Nor does it have much gravity. So the atmosphere escapes, temperature drops and thus liquids can't survive on the surface any more.

Would the presence of a large moon help with the magnetic field issue?

Or put another way: Has Mars solidified?


There isn't much of a magnetic field left and no volcanic activity, so most likely it has.

The moon is the most worrisome thing when considering what it takes for a world to harbor advanced life.
Because it suggests that not only do you need the right star, the right planet, the right mix of atmosphere and the right core, but you also need a giant mixing ball in orbit at just the right distance to keep the magnetic field going.

That's one reason why finding life on mars would be a big deal in my view.
Because it suggests you could at least spawn something without a moon.

/Twice in one solar system would drastically increase the chance that its happened around nearby stars.
 
2012-09-29 02:12:08 AM
Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.
 
2012-09-29 02:26:12 AM

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.


Something something two unnecessary wars.
 
2012-09-29 02:30:17 AM

ReverendJasen: Why is that bad? I don't think any scientist assumes that this not possible.


Heh.. scientists aren't the ones who need a wake-up call on this topic.
 
2012-09-29 02:55:07 AM

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: rwfan: All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.

Dehydrating Venus

Venus has much higher gravity, so it can hold onto an atmosphere better than Mars could. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, all of which are fairly heavy gases. We figure that after the greenhouse went critical the oceans boiled away, then solar UV cooked it into oxygen and hydrogen, which subsequently got blown off the planet by solar wind impact. It's still going on--we've detected the tag-end of the process.

Mars still has plenty of water--just not liquid, at least not at the surface, There are pictures of what looks like groundwater seeps in some photos, but yeah, it doesn't last long.


I am not sure why you are repeating my points but since you did, I'll repeat them as well
A) Mars has not lost it's water.
B) Venus has no magnetic field yet still has a very robust atmosphere.
C) All the fark scientists who posted that Mars lost most of its atmosphere (or it's water) simply because it did not have a magnetic field are full of it (caveat: 0 magnetic field/solar wind may have played a part - I believe it's an open debate)

However you did add some irrelevant facts about Venus' atmosphere, good for you!
 
2012-09-29 02:55:26 AM

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.


I have no tangible use for little Honduran kids, either. At least Mars is interesting.
 
2012-09-29 03:35:56 AM

rwfan: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: rwfan: All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.

Dehydrating Venus

Venus has much higher gravity, so it can hold onto an atmosphere better than Mars could. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, all of which are fairly heavy gases. We figure that after the greenhouse went critical the oceans boiled away, then solar UV cooked it into oxygen and hydrogen, which subsequently got blown off the planet by solar wind impact. It's still going on--we've detected the tag-end of the process.

Mars still has plenty of water--just not liquid, at least not at the surface, There are pictures of what looks like groundwater seeps in some photos, but yeah, it doesn't last long.

I am not sure why you are repeating my points but since you did, I'll repeat them as well
A) Mars has not lost it's water.
B) Venus has no magnetic field yet still has a very robust atmosphere.
C) All the fark scientists who posted that Mars lost most of its atmosphere (or it's water) simply because it did not have a magnetic field are full of it (caveat: 0 magnetic field/solar wind may have played a part - I believe it's an open debate)

However you did add some irrelevant facts about Venus' atmosphere, good for you!


I explained to you how Venus and Mars are different from one another and why one still has a dense atmosphere even though it lacks a magnetic field and the other doesn't. That's not irrelevant.
 
2012-09-29 04:20:11 AM

Smirky the Wonder Chimp:
I explained to you how Venus and Mars are different from one another and why one still has a dense atmosphere even though it lacks a magnetic field and the other doesn't. That's not irrelevant.


Well thanks for providing me with well known facts that are easily found via google. However I still say that many were irrelevant to my point that Mars did not lose its atmosphere simply because it has no magnetic field. And the rest were restating my points. Btw, you did not really explain "why one still has a dense atmosphere even though it lacks a magnetic field and the other doesn't" For example, you explained how Venus lost its water. And yet Mars still has plenty of water even though it's far less massive (less gravity in your terms). Why would Mars still have plenty of water but not carbon dioxide and other gasses heavier than water? There is a lot going on that makes the two different and IMO you've barely scratched the surface in explaining the differences.
 
2012-09-29 09:17:35 AM

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.


no no no you're missing the point, at least we now have more evidence that there is no god, so this is totally worth the effort

besides if you guys can justify pissing away billions on a neverending war in the middle east, we should at least get to pull some pork into the "FOR SCIENCE!!!" funds

i mean fair is fair

thank FSM for politics
 
2012-09-29 11:37:50 AM

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.


You presume that little kids are suffering only because there is no money to help them.
If the problem was so simple, fixing the world would be easy.

/I recall a little shindig in Somalia where people tried to help... then things got out of hand.
/Thank science for creating this land of plenty we live in, and thank politics for the unnecessary pain and strife.
 
2012-09-29 08:09:59 PM

Coelacanth: Wouldn't it be something if Curiosity found a child's shovel & pail buried in the sand on the banks of that dried stream?


Ah the poet.

A nice respite from some of the science arguments here...
 
2012-09-30 10:56:59 AM
For those interested in methane on Mars, Here is a talk by Dr. Kevin Zahnle explaining why we should be skeptical about those methane measurements. Even if skepticism about those measurement may be the last thing some want to hear about, it does include a nice explanation of how the measurement were made.
 
Displayed 21 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report