What do you think the mystery solved on Mars is going to turn out to be?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Smacks**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Grey Templar**

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

Wait what? Why is that?

**d-usa**

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).

**Smacks**

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.

**Grey Templar**

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

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.

**Grey Templar**

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?

**Co'tor Shas**

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

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?

**Grey Templar**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

But whats the issue of some Earth bacteria contaminating some dust pile on Mars? Not like they're gonna hurt us. Besides I'm sure it would be an informative thing to watch.

**Smacks**

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

Potentially, yes. Nasa took a number of swabs from curiosity and found a few hundred different bacteria living on it, then they experimented with exposing them to radiation and dry heat and all the conditions you would expect on the journey, and they found that 11 species were able to survive.

How worth worrying about is it? I don't know. I agree the environment is very hostile. On the other hand, those little critters are very tough, and might have actually contaminated the planet already (oops). In any case the USA is a part of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which means they have a responsibility to avoid contaminating the planet in the course of research.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:
But whats the issue of some Earth bacteria contaminating some dust pile on Mars? Not like they're gonna hurt us. Besides I'm sure it would be an informative thing to watch.

Have you ever watched Star Trek? Do you remember the Prime Directive? It's pretty much like that.

**Grey Templar**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
But whats the issue of some Earth bacteria contaminating some dust pile on Mars? Not like they're gonna hurt us. Besides I'm sure it would be an informative thing to watch.
Have you ever watched Star Trek? Do you remember the Prime Directive? It's pretty much that.

One of many stupid things that Star Trek had.

But its not like we're damaging some fragile Ecosystem. And given that I expect us to start colonizing Mars in the next few hundred years I think worrying about the possibility of getting some bacteria there now is a non-issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
In any case the USA is a part of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which means they have a responsibility to avoid contaminating the planet in the course of research.

Another silly treaty that makes no sense.

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
But its not like we're damaging some fragile Ecosystem.

It might be exactly that, we don't know yet, which is why we are taking precautions. It would be a shame if after searching so long for extraterrestrial life, we accidentally killed it

**Grey Templar**

Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
But its not like we're damaging some fragile Ecosystem.
It might be exactly that, we don't yet, which is why we are taking precautions. It would be a shame if after searching so long for extraterrestrial life, if we accidentally killed it

Worrying about something happening to something that probably isn't there, and probably wouldn't happen even if it was, is just a wee bit silly.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:
One of many stupid things that Star Trek had.

Meh.

But its not like we're damaging some fragile Ecosystem.

How do you know? An ecosystem can become fragile when something that doesn't belong there is introduced. If there is life there and if we introduce contaminates, it is easily possible to bring the entire ecosystem crashing down. Given the fact that the discovery of alien life would be the most important scientific discovery in the history of mankind, it's probably best that we play it safe.

And given that I expect us to start colonizing Mars in the next few hundred years I think worrying about the possibility of getting some bacteria there now is a non-issue.

And within the next few hundred years, we should know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not life currently exists on Mars.

Another silly treaty that makes no sense.

Not quite. It's a perfect example of a treaty done right.

The bottom line is that we can't just walk over and look to see what's in the water. We also can't send Curiosity over to check it out because it's 50 km away from where the rover is currently working. The maximum distance Curiosity can drive in a day is 150 m, and that's if the ground is flat and there are no obstacles in the way. At that rate, it would take over a year to get there and Curiosity's planners would rather it conduct the science it was sent to Mars to do.

**Ouze**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Have you ever watched Star Trek? Do you remember the Prime Directive? It's pretty much like that.

TFW you discover life on Mars, and then it turns out to be a bunch of Terran water bears that hitchhiked on a rover's wheel well.

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
Worrying about something happening to something that probably isn't there, and probably wouldn't happen even if it was, is just a wee bit silly.

Well we don't know the probability of it being there. That's kind of what we are there to find out. Our sample size so far of planets containing life is 1. Which is not really enough to make predictions.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Grey Templar wrote:
Worrying about something happening to something that probably isn't there, and probably wouldn't happen even if it was, is just a wee bit silly.

It may be silly, but that's how you science.

**Grey Templar**

If they were so concerned about contamination, why aren't they doing full decontamination of anything that goes there? Not just stuff thats specifically trying to find life?

**Ouze**

Grey Templar wrote:
If they were so concerned about contamination, why aren't they doing full decontamination of anything that goes there? Not just stuff thats specifically trying to find life?

Because it's expensive to do so, and it grows in large leaps with each level, so they do the appropriate level of sterilization for the role they are serving. Let me see if I can find an article that explained that.

The shorthand, which you will already be familiar with, is why a doctor stitching up a minor cut on your arm doesn't take biosafety level 4 precautions like he or she would with Ebola - just gloves, probably.

**easysauce**

They were basing the rover design on the presumption that it would find nothing really, and didnt expect things to go as well as they have.

Its a multi million doller project already too and you know there is someone saying "woahh woahh woahh, do we really need to spend another million on a this?"

im just thankful at least we have some robots on another planet

The idea that earth and us are not really that special, and that life can and does occur on innumerable planets of our and other varieties is one that is quite probable but sadly not yet widely accepted or proven..

**reds8n**

Breotan wrote:

Sigh... here we go. The expression is that the MEDIA has a liberal bias, reds8n, not "reality" in a general sense.

swing and a miss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s

6m 42 seconds.

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

No she says no such thing.

They report, word for word what he said.

Pretending that anyone is claiming that otherwise...well....

lying about either doesn't make you the better person.

quite.

**KingCracker**

Paradigm wrote:
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.

As far as land space goes, it might seem like there is none left to you Europeans, but over here in north america we've plenty of it left. Hell Canada is literally half empty and covered in Forest. Now imagine for a second how much empty land that is. It's probably more then the European continent there. So as far as space for people goes were good there.

Now if we're talking about resources both in food and energy then yeah we have to be hitting that breaking point eventually. We can't make plastic and burritos forever with the population growing like it is, we'll need that from somewhere else.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Breotan wrote:
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.

In your eagerness to white knight for Rush Limbaugh, you missed a lot rather stupid stuff that happened to spew from his word-hole.

Here is what he said that you just completely ignored:

There's so much fraud. Snerdly came in today 'what's this NASA news, this NASA news is all exciting.' I said yeah they found flowing water up there. 'No kidding! Wow! Wow!' Snerdly said 'flowing water!?' I said 'why does that excite you? What, are you going there next week? What's the big deal about flowing water on Mars?' 'I don't know man but it's just it's just wow!' I said 'you know what, when they start selling iPhones on Mars, that's when it'll matter to me.' I said 'what do you think they're gonna do with this news?' I said 'look at the temperature data, that has been reported by NASA, has been made up, it's fraudulent for however many years, there isn't any warming, there hasn't been for 18.5 years. And yet, they're lying about it. They're just making up the amount of ice in the North and South Poles, they're making up the temperatures, they're lying and making up false charts and so forth. So what's to stop them from making up something that happened on Mars that will help advance their left-wing agenda on this planet?'

See what he does there? He begins by stating there is rampant fraud in NASA and then (falsely) claiming that NASA just makes a bunch of stuff up. This leads to, "What's to stop them from making this up too?" That's a perfect example of the appeal to common practice fallacy, except in this case the "common practice" is also a lie, as per usual for Rush.

You also conveniently left out another good chunk of idiocy. Here's what you quoted as your "proof" that this article was bull gak:

OK so there's flowing water on Mars. Yip yip yip yahoo. You know me, I'm science 101, big time guy, tech advance it, you know it, I'm all in.

Clearly Rush is an ardent defender of science and reason, right? Oh, but wait... here's the rest of that thought that, for whatever reason, you decided to completely ignore (again):

But, NASA has been corrupted by the current regime. I want to find out what they're going to tell us. OK, flowing water on Mars. If we're even to believe that, what are they going to tell us that means? That's what I'm going to wait for. Because I guarantee, let's just wait and see, this is September 28, let's just wait and see. Don't know how long it's going to take, but this news that there is flowing water on Mars is somehow going to find its way into a technique to advance the leftist agenda. I don't know what it is, I would assume it would be something to do with global warming and you can -- maybe there was once an advanced civilization. If they say they found flowing water, next they're going to find a graveyard.

Again, casting plenty of doubt on whether or not NASA is even telling the truth about Mars. In his (stupid, stupid, stupid) opinion, NASA would (and probably is) lying about flowing liquid water on Mars because that's what they do, as evidenced by all the (not) lying they do about everything else.

**AegisGrimm**

Frazzled wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:
HUGE for future manned missions being sustainable.

Not economically, not at all.

I mean mechanically, not monetarily.