It's certainly being hyped. Not sure wha the mystery will turn out to be, but, it's always good finding out something new:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/26/us/mars-discovery-nasa-irpt/index.html

Something to do with water.

Prepare for a massive disappointment.

Probably water, or microscopic life.


Or they found Matt Damon.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Prepare for a massive disappointment.

That depends. If you're expecting NASA to confirm that Martians exist or something fantastical like that, then you'll be disappointed.

In reality, all signs point to the announcement of liquid water flowing on the surface of Mars. If you're an astronomy and planetary science nerd (like me), that's a huge deal. There is only one other place in the Solar System (and known universe) where liquid water flows on the surface (spoiler alert: Earth).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Something to do with water.

That's my guess, also.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Or they found Matt Damon.

Then they're a little premature of the October 2 release date!

As with most "major martian discovery!" stories it will probably only be something that makes geologists excited, but I hold a small amount of excitement every time in the vain hope it's something actually interesting.

Water on Mars? I wouldn't drink it.

 Alex C wrote:
As with most "major martian discovery!" stories it will probably only be something that makes geologists excited, but I hold a small amount of excitement every time in the vain hope it's something actually interesting.

Agreed

Yeah, my guess is also liquid water.

It's going to either be liquid water or biofilm. Making it the first time someone is legitimately excited to find biofilm.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
It's going to either be liquid water or biofilm. Making it the first time someone is legitimately excited to find biofilm.

Actually, wouldn't biofilm be exciting because it's the first known extraterrestrial life?

Relapse wrote:

Actually, wouldn't biofilm be exciting because it's the first known extraterrestrial life?

Yes.

Yup I'm hoping it's something actually cool........ but the last few times NASA had said "EXCITING NEWS!!!!!" It hasn't been

Its totally going to be a Soviet base on Mars.

*Crosses fingers for Prothean Ruins*

A giant set of boobs left by the rover tracks to compliment the penis they drew.

Jimmy Hoffa.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its totally going to be a Soviet base on Mars.

If there is any kind of secret base on Mars it can only be Nazis. Complete with zombie Hitler and a legion of strangely nubile Teutonic cyborgs.

There is no way that this announcement will be 'life on mars' simply because there is no way that could be kept quiet.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its totally going to be a Soviet base on Mars.

If there is any kind of secret base on Mars it can only be Nazis. Complete with zombie Hitler and a legion of strangely nubile Teutonic cyborgs.

There is no way that this announcement will be 'life on mars' simply because there is no way that could be kept quiet.

Don't be silly.
Everyone knows Nazis are on the Moon. Why would they be on the red planet?

Iron Skies III- Red Sky at Morning.

I agree with all other posters- it'll be water or biological residue, and vastly underwhelming.

A Snickers bar.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Why would they be on the red planet?

Conquering the Martians, why else?

If it was really exciting - they wouldn't have waited..................

Prothean ruins. I vote Prothean ruins.

I'm suspecting more evidence towards the idea of liquid water having once been there. Or that Mars could have supported life X billion years ago because we found this.

The conspiracy stuff I've seen is more exciting though lol.

Aliens. It is always aliens. Maybe it is lizardmen, but not as likely.

Maybe they discovered the Traveler?

 Ahtman wrote:


Maybe they discovered the Traveler?

I'll get my gjallarhorn...

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm suspecting more evidence towards the idea of liquid water having once been there. Or that Mars could have supported life X billion years ago because we found this.

The conspiracy stuff I've seen is more exciting though lol.

I wonder if it's more along the line of having found evidence of a still substantial amount of water.

 Alex C wrote:
As with most "major martian discovery!" stories it will probably only be something that makes geologists excited, but I hold a small amount of excitement every time in the vain hope it's something actually interesting.

Yeah, science is dull. No doubt you'd prefer reading about Kim Kardashian's latest bowel movement.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, my guess is also liquid water.

I doubt it. Its probably yet another discovery of a compound which means there might have been water there at one time.

Failing Jimmy Hoffa, gonna go with J'hon J'onezz. Or however you spell Martian Manhunter's real name.

Relapse wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm suspecting more evidence towards the idea of liquid water having once been there. Or that Mars could have supported life X billion years ago because we found this.

The conspiracy stuff I've seen is more exciting though lol.

I wonder if it's more along the line of having found evidence of a still substantial amount of water.

That would be a extremely significant find for sure. I just wonder if it will only be particularly significant or exciting to those in specific science professions.

Smacks wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
As with most "major martian discovery!" stories it will probably only be something that makes geologists excited, but I hold a small amount of excitement every time in the vain hope it's something actually interesting.

Yeah, science is dull. No doubt you'd prefer reading about Kim Kardashian's latest bowel movement.

Is it cold up there on your mountain?

Relapse wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Something to do with water.

That's my guess, also.

I bet it's ice!

Or Gypsum.

Maybe bug poop.

 Smacks wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
As with most "major martian discovery!" stories it will probably only be something that makes geologists excited, but I hold a small amount of excitement every time in the vain hope it's something actually interesting.

Yeah, science is dull. No doubt you'd prefer reading about Kim Kardashian's latest bowel movement.

Not at all, but neither do I find "omg this color of dirt means there might have been some water here in the distant past" as exciting as they make it out to be.

I mean, sure, it's interesting to an extent, but when they schedule a press conference for some shockng, groundbreaking discovery on Mars only to announce that they really haven't found proof of anything, just something that points toward a theory, I can't help but be disappointed and wary of similar "discoveries" in the future.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Smacks wrote:Yeah, science is dull. No doubt you'd prefer reading about Kim Kardashian's latest bowel movement.

Is it cold up there on your mountain?

No. In fact, it's warm and bright, with double glazing, microwaves, computers, and a wealth of other marvellous inventions and materials. All thanks to the people who understood just how interesting science is.

The abject ignorance behind statements like "geology isn't interesting", by people who benefit every day from the hard won discoveries of others, is just shameful. It does not deserve your well intentioned white knighting.

EDIT:

 Alex C wrote:
Not at all, but neither do I find "omg this color of dirt means there might have been some water here in the distant past" as exciting as they make it out to be.

I mean, sure, it's interesting to an extent, but when they schedule a press conference for some shockng, groundbreaking discovery on Mars only to announce that they really haven't found proof of anything, just something that points toward a theory, I can't help but be disappointed and wary of similar "discoveries" in the future.

In that case, I apologize. There are people who actively sneer and yawn at the accomplishments of maths and science, while spending their days staring at smart phones and listening to digital music etc... Never grasping the connection between small discoveries and the furthered understanding that empowers all of humanity.

What if it is the Omnissiah?

 Smacks wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Smacks wrote:Yeah, science is dull. No doubt you'd prefer reading about Kim Kardashian's latest bowel movement.

Is it cold up there on your mountain?

No. In fact, it's warm and bright, with double glazing, microwaves, computers, and a wealth of other marvellous inventions and materials. All thanks to the people who understood just how interesting science is.

The abject ignorance behind statements like "geology isn't interesting", by people who benefit every day from the hard won discoveries of others, is just shameful. It does not deserve your well intentioned white knighting.

Are you... are you serious? I benefit from the intense logistics that the post offices and various trade companies of the world have set up but if someone started explaining to me about the intricacies of how vital post stickers are and wanted me to find it... exciting (of all things) simply because I benefit from that?

Space is boring. It is. You may like it but space for me is just flat out boring. Do I appreciate some of the things space has helped us with? Of course. Do I find it exciting or something worth looking into? Well no.

The world benefits from so many things it's pretty nutty to think people should find almost everything exciting (you will be hard pressed to find something with no benefits at all).

Are you excited when you see concrete? Are you excited every time you turn the key to your house? Are you excited every time you put on shoes? By your logic you better be or you are nothing more than a Kardashian bum sniffer you filthy pleb.

Get over yourself dude, it's just a red planet. The majority of the world probably doesn't care. If you do that's cool, but you are certainly not so far above those that don't to warrant calling them what amounts to a fool.






Excitement and appreciation are very different. I appreciate my ancestors who ate poisonous food and learned not to eat it, but it's hardly exciting. Hop off that high horse.

Maybe they found my keys, they have to be somewhere.

This thread needs a lot fewer LULZ and 100% less insults.

Not a suggestion, by the way.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Are you excited when you see concrete? Are you excited every time you turn the key to your house? Are you excited every time you put on shoes?

Actually I sort of am, this week I've bought 4 different locks and read a number of articles on different kinds of loch mechanism. Mostly regarding anti-keybumping technology. I've also watched a number of unboxing videos of new smart locks, it's a fascinating subject. I'm also familiar with lots of different knots and ways of lacing my shoes, there is cross lacing, bar lacing, my personal favourite is European bar lacing which combines what I think are the best features of both systems (though it's much harder to get the laces the same length which is the major downside). And I can tell you the difference between good and bad square knots. In fact, if more people took an interest in knots and shoelaces, then their shoelaces wouldn't come undone so often.

As for concrete, what's not to get excited about?

They found the Noctis Labyrinth. Don't open it!

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Are you excited when you see concrete? Are you excited every time you turn the key to your house? Are you excited every time you put on shoes?

Actually I sort of am, this week I've bought 4 different locks and read a number of articles on different kinds of loch mechanism. Mostly regarding anti-keybumping technology. I've also watched a number of unboxing videos of new smart locks, it's a fascinating subject. I'm also familiar with lots of different knots and ways of lacing my shoes, there is cross lacing, bar lacing, my personal favourite is European bar lacing which combines what I think are the best features of both systems (though it's much harder to get the laces the same length which is the major downside). And I can tell you the difference between good and bad square knots. In fact, if more people took an interest in knots and shoelaces, then their shoelaces wouldn't come undone so often.

As for concrete, what's not to get excited about?

Those are just a few examples of the millions (random number) things that happen to you every day. The point I am making is that you do not get excited about every little thing in your life related to Science.

Please don't try play it off like you do, because not only would you need a lot of time on your hands you would also need a great memory in order to recount everything in your day to day life to be excited about it.

Are you excited right now? You are typing, and looking at a screen, and in a house, and have windows, and have a chair, carpet, tiles, colored goods, electricity etc.

Are you like always excited or something?

very enthusiastic and eager.

When you hear a gunshot happen at night are you excited?

Your argument is just incredibly silly.

Surely you understand, as some kind of science extraordinaire well above the those who are not fascinated by mars, can understand why someone might not be excited or even interested in something while also not being a potato yes?

I, for one, wish more people got excited about lots of random stuff. It makes the world much more interesting to listen to people who are fascinated; it sort of makes them fascinating to a certain extent. It's certainly more interesting listening to them talk than to people who seem constantly jaded and bored with life and the many wonderous things that make it up. That said, I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone who didn't find my particular interests interesting, as long as they found something of interest in their own lives. I guess since we are on a forum dedicated to tabletop games, that would probably apply to most of us.

I had a student a few years ago who seemed to get excited about everything in class. Like genuinely excited. It got to the point where other students started rolling their eyes when he opened his mouth. The eye rollers were the ones who ticked me off. I guarantee the excited one will do something important one day.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Those are just a few examples of the millions (random number) things that happen to you every day. The point I am making is that you do not get excited about every little thing in your life related to Science.

You're right, mostly just new discoveries. But everything else is still interesting, so your point is kind of irrelevant.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I, for one, wish more people got excited about lots of random stuff. It makes the world much more interesting to listen to people who are fascinated; it sort of makes them fascinating to a certain extent. It's certainly more interesting listening to them talk than to people who seem constantly jaded and bored with life and the many wonderous things that make it up. That said, I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone who didn't find my particular interests interesting, as long as they found something of interest in their own lives. I guess since we are on a forum dedicated to tabletop games, that would probably apply to most of us.

I had a student a few years ago who seemed to get excited about everything in class. Like genuinely excited. It got to the point where other students started rolling their eyes when he opened his mouth. The eye rollers were the ones who ticked me off. I guarantee the excited one will do something important one day.

Yes but did that kid call them Kardashian butt watchers for not sharing that enthusiasm? The problem is when people act superior for finding something fascinating or exciting that other people do not share.

I love history and wargaming (and many other things) but I don't get upset when people don't share that enthusiasm for those things. If I did what smacks just did last night when we had to choose a movie (the house owner had some great historical movies, but we where outnumbered and Shrek was watched over Zulu or Tora! Tora!) then everyone in that room would have thought a lot less of me and for a good reason. That was the point I was trying to make, along with the sillyness of having to find something exciting or you do not appreciate it...

But yea I agree




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Those are just a few examples of the millions (random number) things that happen to you every day. The point I am making is that you do not get excited about every little thing in your life related to Science.

You're right, mostly just new discoveries. But everything else is still interesting, so your point is kind of irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant.

You are acting superior for something you do not even do yourself. By admitting you do not find everything science related exciting you have now shown yourself to be hypercritical.

At least say:

"Yes, I understand people like different things now and that excitement/interest and appreciation are different. I am not better than someone else because I happen to like this and they don't find it interesting."

You know there's some high quality trolling going on when Kim K's ass gets brought up repeatedly in a thread about Mars

I'm with Swastakowey. Astronomy is one of my favorite subjects but I wouldn't think lesser of someone if they found the discovery of water on Mars to be boring. If I had to guess what they found it's probably some Iron Oxide that definitely maybe proves that there might have been liquid water on Mars. Perhaps.

 Swastakowey wrote:
No it is not irrelevant.

You are acting superior for something you do not even do yourself. By admitting you do not find everything science related exciting you have now shown yourself to be hypercritical.

At least say:

"Yes, I understand people like different things now and that excitement/interest and appreciation are different. I am not better than someone else because I happen to like this and they don't find it interesting."

You are equivocating "exciting" with "interesting" because you are bad at arguing. No one mentioned "exciting" except you, which is why your point is moot and irrelevant.

As for being superior. Alex C elaborated on what he meant and I already apologized to him before you ever posted. However, I am not going concede that the rate at which people do not take an interest in things that are important is anything but shameful. There is nothing appealing about ignorance, or the people who cling to it. Expecting people (people who vote for example) to take an interest in things like government, isn't intellectual snootiness or superiority. It's really just the bare minimum of expectation. People should take an interest in things, beyond trashy gossip.

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
No it is not irrelevant.

You are acting superior for something you do not even do yourself. By admitting you do not find everything science related exciting you have now shown yourself to be hypercritical.

At least say:

"Yes, I understand people like different things now and that excitement/interest and appreciation are different. I am not better than someone else because I happen to like this and they don't find it interesting."

You are equivocating "exciting" with "interesting" because you are bad are arguing. No one mentioned "exciting" except you, which is why your point is moot and irrelevant.

As for being superior. Alex C elaborated on what he meant and I already apologized to him before you ever posted. However, I am not going concede that the rate at which people do not take an interest in things that are important is anything but shameful. There is nothing appealing about ignorance, or the people who cling to it. Expecting people (people who vote for example) to take an interest in things like government, isn't intellectual snootiness or superiority. It's really just the bare minimum of expectation. Take an interest in things.

Yea I read exciting from another comment... which is my bad.

The thing is, the guy said (basically) "Surprise space discovery is likely to be boring" to which you replied "Yeah, science is dull. No doubt you'd prefer reading about Kim Kardashian's latest bowel movement."

That is "intellectual snootiness or superiority".

People should take an interest in things, beyond trashy gossip.

Well I find it hard to believe that the person you said that too finds nothing interesting but trashy gossip. Because not finding mars discovery nobody knows about yet exciting means they drool over trashy gossip.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well I find it hard to believe that the person you said that too finds nothing interesting but trashy gossip. Because not finding mars discovery nobody knows about yet exciting means they drool over trashy gossip.

I find it hard to believe that about him too, which is why I apologised to him. In fact I never meant to seriously accuse him of that, I was just being ironic because he said it wasn't interesting (which I don't think he meant, it was just the word he used). It is true that more people do actually care about what Kim Kardashian is doing than about scientific discovery (which often goes over people's heads). That's kind of sad really, and I don't mind saying it.

Anyway, about Mars...

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well I find it hard to believe that the person you said that too finds nothing interesting but trashy gossip. Because not finding mars discovery nobody knows about yet exciting means they drool over trashy gossip.

I find it hard to believe that about him too, which is why I apologised to him. In fact I never meant to seriously accuse him of that, I was just being ironic because he said it wasn't interesting (which I don't think he mean't, it was just the word he used). It is true that more people do actually care about what Kim Kardashian is doing than about scientific discovery (which often goes over people's heads). That's kind of sad really, and I don't mind saying it.

Anyway, about Mars...

Fair enough I guess.

Although I disagree that everybody should care about scientific discovery. There is more to making this world run than just science and taking an interest in some of the many things (which may not be science, although science can be related) does not mean their interests no longer matter etc.

Anyway, continue Mars talk.

Werent they releasing this information last night? Did I miss it or an I early to the show?

 KingCracker wrote:
Werent they releasing this information last night? Did I miss it or an I early to the show?

11:30am EST I believe.

It will either be liquid water or microbic life. Either/or, its a big discovery.

chaos0xomega wrote:
It will either be liquid water or microbic life. Either/or, its a big discovery.

Just heard liquid water on CBS. Not sure if that's confirmed or speculation, with the news programs being what they are...

Yup, its liquid water, was hoping for microbial life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-mars-water-announcement-agency-announces-that-it-has-found-proof-of-flowing-water-on-mars-a6670446.html

....so?

Baffled at what's so shockingly amazing about it. Nothing's even proven yet, it's just more (strong) evidence. For possible alien live on a...what level?

Yawn.

 Sigvatr wrote:
....so?

Baffled at what's so shockingly amazing about it. Nothing's even proven yet, it's just more (strong) evidence. For possible alien live on a...what level?

Yawn.

It's not evidence of life. It's evidence (and pretty incontrovertible evidence at that) that flowing water regularly occurs on Mars. It's a sign that Mars MIGHT currently have life on it, but it's more exciting for future colonization.

Well....they maybe found there


or confirmed it was shadow really but was wrong

Maybe they will dig a Shadow Ship out

So is this water any use to us if we go there - can we extract it - I assume so?

High Salt is usually bad for life (as we know it Jim) IIRC? - not much lives it he Dead Sea?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, my guess is also liquid water.

I doubt it. Its probably yet another discovery of a compound which means there might have been water there at one time.

Turned out to be flowing liquid water.

 Mr Morden wrote:
So is this water any use to us if we go there - can we extract it - I assume so?

Yes, it has lots of uses for possible terraforming or colonizing, and it also opens the possibility of current or previous life on the planet, as well.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yup, its liquid water, was hoping for microbial life.

Maybe we'll still get that. I am holding out hope.

I agree. So now what. More guessing and theorizing. Let me know when they find life. Now that would be interesting.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe they will dig a Shadow Ship out

So is this water any use to us if we go there - can we extract it - I assume so?

High Salt is usually bad for life (as we know it Jim) IIRC? - not much lives it he Dead Sea?

The dead sea has microbrial life such as bacteria and fungi living in it. Other high salinity areas have similar. Its not an automatic disqualifier of life, just generally 'complex' life.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, my guess is also liquid water.

I doubt it. Its probably yet another discovery of a compound which means there might have been water there at one time.

Turned out to be flowing liquid water.

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit. They actually found something substantial.

Well looks like it's time to raise the bionics budget!

Hey hey! Running water is pretty big! Thanks for not letting me down NASA!!

Still a million to one chance of life...




In all seriousness, though, this is mega!

Well maybe this will lead to more probes to check out some of the larger moons by Saturn and Jupiter

I seen a documentary about martians once and they attacked earth we just need loud music right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdC45S79uQ

HUGE for future manned missions being sustainable.

I wonder how long it'll be until we get Martian bottled water.

All of it is insignificant to the discovery of a bioluminescent sea turtle.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150928-sea-turtles-hawksbill-glowing-biofluorescence-coral-reef-ocean-animals-science150928-sea-turtles-hawksbill-glowing-biofluorescence-coral-reef-ocean-animals-science/

Life on Earth came from the ocean, so I'm excited about both life on Mars, and the potential to colonize it more easily.


I'll still settle for Elvis, Tu-Pac, and Michael Jackson though.

Rush Limbaugh pans evidence of water on Mars as part of 'leftist agenda'

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rush-limbaugh-mars-leftist-plot-214179

Limbaugh said that although he wasn’t entirely sure what the agenda was,

Brilliant.


.. what was that expression about reality having a liberal bias ..?

Wait, what?

I mean, what?

Ok, whatever, ignoring Limbaugh because flowing liquid water on Mars is heck of amazing.

If they were ever to find just microbial life on another planet or moon, it would make my life.

 toasteroven wrote:
If they were ever to find just microbial life on another planet or moon, it would make my life.

Speaking of the leftist agenda, if they did find extraterrestrial life it would be a massive blow to the religious right and creationism. Might as well pack up their gak and go home. Of course, they won't. No doubt we'd get a load of new "interpretations" of Genesis so that includes aliens.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
All of it is insignificant to the discovery of a bioluminescent sea turtle.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150928-sea-turtles-hawksbill-glowing-biofluorescence-coral-reef-ocean-animals-science150928-sea-turtles-hawksbill-glowing-biofluorescence-coral-reef-ocean-animals-science/

Funny, I just read that before heading over here.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
HUGE for future manned missions being sustainable.

Not economically, not at all.

 Smacks wrote:

 toasteroven wrote:
If they were ever to find just microbial life on another planet or moon, it would make my life.

Speaking of the leftist agenda, if they did find extraterrestrial life it would be a massive blow to the religious right and creationism. Might as well pack up their gak and go home. Of course, they won't. No doubt we'd get a load of new "interpretations" of Genesis so that includes aliens.

Not really, I think that most religions people accept the fact of extraterrestrial life.

It would be something, to see that water actually flowing. I wonder if the next thing we send there is going to be targeting that area.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
HUGE for future manned missions being sustainable.

Not economically, not at all.

Reminds me of Terry Prachet's musings on opera in "Maskerade".


"Opera is what you spend money on."
"But...what do you get out of it?"
"You get opera. You put money in, you see, and opera comes out."
"There is no profit?"
"Profit....profit? No, I don't believe I have come across the word."

Space exploration kinda follow along those same lines.

 Smacks wrote:

 toasteroven wrote:
If they were ever to find just microbial life on another planet or moon, it would make my life.

Speaking of the leftist agenda, if they did find extraterrestrial life it would be a massive blow to the religious right and creationism. Might as well pack up their gak and go home. Of course, they won't. No doubt we'd get a load of new "interpretations" of Genesis so that includes aliens.

You have an extremely outdated perception of religion.

Most religions (including Christianity) and creationism theory don't discount the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. In fact, most of them (including Christianity) state outright that it exists in some form.

I don't think finding some microbes on Mars would suddenly cause religion to crumble.

I was mainly talking about evolution deniers. If it is shown that simple life has arisen elsewhere in the universe independently then it strengthens the case for life emerging through natural processes.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
HUGE for future manned missions being sustainable.

Not economically, not at all.

I don't think it really means anything for manned missions. It was already well established that there is water ice on Mars if we wanted to utilise it. However, it was thought that water couldn't exist as a liquid on Mars due to the very thin atmosphere. As atmospheric pressure drops, so too does the boiling point, until it drops below the triple point, which means the ice boils straight into vapour at subzero temperatures without transitioning through a liquid state.

I found a phase diagram which shows the whole process:


The average pressure on Mars is usually going to be well below 10 mbar, so there is only a very narrow window where liquid water could exist, and only at very low altitudes, and at relatively warm temperatures (relative to Mars that is). But now it seems that salts in the soil allow liquid to exist as brine at very low temperatures and pressures, which could explain some curious geological features, and I suppose might open up some new possibilities for microbial life.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
HUGE for future manned missions being sustainable.

Not economically, not at all.

Reminds me of Terry Prachet's musings on opera in "Maskerade".


"Opera is what you spend money on."
"But...what do you get out of it?"
"You get opera. You put money in, you see, and opera comes out."
"There is no profit?"
"Profit....profit? No, I don't believe I have come across the word."

Space exploration kinda follow along those same lines.

That man really did have an answer for everything. I propose a new societal structure be formed on the writings of Pratchett, where everything will make so much more sense...

What price can you put on answering so many fundamental questions about our place in the universe, our past, maybe our future? With the Earth going the way it is, it won't be long before we have an actual need to start looking to manned missions and maybe even settlement on other bodies in space, it's almost certainly better to start getting a foot in the door now.

 reds8n wrote:

Rush Limbaugh pans evidence of water on Mars as part of 'leftist agenda'

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rush-limbaugh-mars-leftist-plot-214179

Limbaugh said that although he wasn’t entirely sure what the agenda was,

Brilliant.

.. what was that expression about reality having a liberal bias ..?

Sigh... here we go. The expression is that the MEDIA has a liberal bias, reds8n, not "reality" in a general sense. We all have our biases, reds8n, but the article you link to is not simply biased, it is bad journalism that contains actual, provable lies which make the article nothing more than journalistic malpractice.

1. Rush Limbaugh never said "Flowing water on Mars? That’s just part of the liberal agenda." which is what Eliza Collins reports in this article . Let me repeat, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Words to that effect never even left the man's lips.

2. The statement that Limbaugh doesn’t believe NASA found water on mars in the second paragraph is an outright lie. 100% fabrication by the author. He's not saying there is no water, he's saying the news of water will be grabbed by "the left" and used for a political agenda. Do you see the difference? Apparently Eliza and her editor at the Political don't which means they both fail at reading comprehension or they're deliberately misrepresenting facts here. Either way doesn't speak well of the Political or anyone that uses them as a source. Even later in the article, they write that Limbaugh said, "OK so there's flowing water on Mars. Yip yip yip yahoo. Hey, you know me, I'm science 101, big time guy, tech advance it, you know it, I'm all in." before he start bitching about "the left" and their agenda, which is clearly at odds with what the headline states.

For what it's worth, here is what Limbaugh thinks straight from the horses mouth: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/29/what_i_really_think_about_mars

You don't have to like Limbaugh or what he says, but lying about either doesn't make you the better person.

 Smacks wrote:
I was mainly talking about evolution deniers. If it is shown that simple life has arisen elsewhere in the universe independently then it strengthens the case for life emerging through natural processes.

Initially I was going to say "Well, you should have been more specific!" but then I settled on: Please, just stay on topic here.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2]

Did I mishear about the water being too salty or somehow contaminated for human consumption? If so, that would mean it would need to be processed before it could be used. That in turn means special equipment just for that purpose.

 Breotan wrote:
Did I mishear about the water being too salty or somehow contaminated for human consumption? If so, that would mean it would need to be processed before it could be used. That in turn means special equipment just for that purpose.

Yes, it has been described as "brine", though its actual constitution has not been sampled directly, and probably won't be for some time, since part of the Rover mandate is they are not allowed near water.

I really don't think it's relevant to astronauts. A manned trip to Mars would probably need to spend around 2 years in space just getting there, so they are going to need a pretty good handle on recycling water just for that. And I'm not 100% on this, but I suspect that the best way to gather water on Mars, would be by condensing vapour from the atmosphere, so again liquid water probably won't mean much to them.

 Breotan wrote:
Did I mishear about the water being too salty or somehow contaminated for human consumption? If so, that would mean it would need to be processed before it could be used. That in turn means special equipment just for that purpose.

Getting rid of salt in water is fairly simple and can be done with distillation equipment. The problem will be with all the other stuff that is potentially in the mix though.

 Smacks wrote:
since part of the Rover mandate is they are not allowed near water.

Wait what? Why is that?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
since part of the Rover mandate is they are not allowed near water.

Wait what? Why is that?

I didn't know it wasn't allowed near water, but my guess would be that they simply didn't expect there to be any liquid water so they didn't spend the extra money to make anything waterproof and it can't float (not that I would expect any water to be deep enough).

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
since part of the Rover mandate is they are not allowed near water.

Wait what? Why is that?

It's because of contamination, the viking missions were designed to search for life, so NASA went to great length to make sure they were sterile, which meant more expensive components etc... The Curiosity rover was not designed to search for life, so sterilization was less thorough. There is a concern that if it comes into contact with liquid water, bacteria spores that may have survived on the rover might be activated.

Soooo why would that be a problem? Its doubtful any bacteria brought on the rover would survive very long in the environment. It would be a very very low odds of bringing along something which could survive in this specific environment and it then surviving the radiation bathed journey there from Earth.

You'd be surprised. There are some bacterium that can survive being frozen completely solid, and real extremes of radiation. Deinococcus radiodurans comes to mind, they can survive something like half a million rads.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You'd be surprised. There are some bacterium that can survive being frozen completely solid, and real extremes of radiation. Deinococcus radiodurans comes to mind, they can survive something like half a million rads.

But can they survive all of those things AND thrive in a very low water/salty environment?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You'd be surprised. There are some bacterium that can survive being frozen completely solid, and real extremes of radiation. Deinococcus radiodurans comes to mind, they can survive something like half a million rads.

But can they survive all of those things AND thrive in a very low water/salty environment?

Perhaps. There are probably trillions of undocumented microbes, as a low estimate. We honestly can't know, so it's best to play it safe.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You'd be surprised. There are some bacterium that can survive being frozen completely solid, and real extremes of radiation. Deinococcus radiodurans comes to mind, they can survive something like half a million rads.

But can they survive all of those things AND thrive in a very low water/salty environment?