[News] Flowing water found on Mars?

[Turbinator]

MSL 2.0

 

[tblaxland]

Shouldn't there be more scientific value here? Is MSL going to Gale because of some "sedimentary deposits" or somesuch? To do more geology?

Gale is still part of the "follow the water" strategy.:

“It’s a huge crater sitting in a very low-elevation position on Mars, and we all know that water runs downhill,” Grotzinger said. “In terms of the total vertical profile exposed and the low elevation, Gale offers attractions similar to Mars’ famous Valles Marineris, the largest canyon in the solar system.”

Additionally, selecting Gale for the wide range of sedimentary layers accessible there is not only about satisfying some geology boffin, but are exactly the type of terrain for finding fossils :thumbup:

 

[T.Neo]

Oh yay! Fossils! :dry:

I'm not downplaying the scientific importance of Gale crater. Not at all. But I mean, come on, don't you want to land a science platform at one these fluid runoff sites? Not at all?

It really annoys me, because another mission to get to a site like this could take... half a decade to plan and build and fly, if we're lucky. By then, we'll have planned some other super-huge, super-expensive rover to follow some long-nonexistant water into some low-altitude crater.

NASA should spend some money on a second wave of MER rovers. It's an existing design, and even if it is nowhere near as capable as MSL, its performance- its successes and failings- on the Martian surface, are known. It's a lighter, smaller vehicle, the research work is done, and it doesn't have a nuclear power-source.

It would be cheaper and easier to field onto Mars, and could still offer considerable science. You can carry whatever sensors and experiments on the vehicle that you want- as long as they fit on it.

We all want bigger and better at some point. But sometimes better means smaller or cheaper or lighter, if it can get a job done well.

I hope Curiosity finds some interesting sedimentary deposits at Gale.

 

[kenci]

Great news

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

 

[tblaxland]

We all want bigger and better at some point. But sometimes better means smaller or cheaper or lighter, if it can get a job done well.

:blink: What? Dan Goldin, is that really you posting on Orbiter-Forum? That mantra worked so well, didn't it? :dry:. The realities are that rover missions don't come very often so you need to choose your targets to maximise the science benefit. To me, this means looking for evidence that allows you to make better predictions.

In that context, does it really matter if you find fossilised creatures or living creatures on Mars? So far we have evidence of neither. In my humble estimation (I'm guided by the comments from NASA scientists here), you are more likely to find some sort of evidence for life, past or present, at Gale than you are at Newton. That makes Gale a more viable target for the available mission.

Besides, what are the landing constraints for MSL/Curiosity. Newton is a long way south, possibly outside of the specs for MSL that have been long defined :shrug:

 

[T.Neo]

What? Dan Goldin, is that really you posting on Orbiter-Forum? That mantra worked so well, didn't it? .

:lol:

That mantra often works well in the real world. Just because some of your probes fail and someone forgot to convert imperial to metric, doesn't give an excuse to make the biggest, most expensive projects possible.

Just to compare cost, the cost so far of MSL has been something like $2.3 billion. The cost for the initial MER mission was probably less than a billion (I've read a figure of $820 million, but I'm not sure if this is in 2003/2004 dollars, which would make the cost in modern dollars quite a bit higher). And that is for two vehicles in two different locations on the surface...

A lot of that cost comes from all the R&D work and whatnot, obviously, but it is an example of how "lower cost" doesn't have to mean "build the shoddiest, least capable, worthless spacecraft around".

The realities are that rover missions don't come very often so you need to choose your targets to maximise the science benefit.

And if you had smaller, cheaper missions- and I'm not talking a cardboard box on wheels- just not an expensive Mars-Tank, you could have more missions or more options for science targets.

In my humble estimation (I'm guided by the comments from NASA scientists here), you are more likely to find some sort of evidence for life, past or present, at Gale than you are at Newton. That makes Gale a more viable target for the available mission.

Do we actually care about life on Mars?

Do we?

I care about a lot more things on Mars than some extinct bacterium.

And what are the chances of living organisms at the surface at Gale? Where are the outflows of water at Gale? Are we going to find living organisms in some bone-dry soil just because it's part of a "sedimentary deposit"?

As far as I know, MSL is based more around geology than biology- so analysing potential living organisms is not quite part of the mission. That said, there is still a lot of geology that could be done at such gullies, if they can be physically reached. They could bring all sorts of stuff up from below the surface, for example. They could reveal the nature of that possible aquifer system- an environment that is far more likely to sustain life than the barren topsoil elsewhere.

Besides, what are the landing constraints for MSL/Curiosity. Newton is a long way south, possibly outside of the specs for MSL that have been long defined

Wikipedia states that engineering constraints limit possible landing sites to below 45 degrees latitude and less than one kilometer above the reference datum.

Google Mars gives the latitude of the gullies at Newton at around 41 degrees, with an altitude of between -200 and -700 meters. One of the other final four sites (Mawrth Vallis) is said to have an altitude of more than -2000 meters, so presumably low altitude targets are far less of a problem than high altitude targets (where there wouldn't be enough air to slow down sufficiently).

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: Potential Mars Water 'A Big Deal,' Scientists Say

 

[tblaxland]

Do we actually care about life on Mars?

Do we?

I care about a lot more things on Mars than some extinct bacterium.

I guess lots of people care about life, and I'm certainly interested. The whole "follow the water" strategy was devised because people wanted to find out if life (past or present) could exist on Mars. They cared enough to make it has been the basis for all the US Mars missions in the last ~15 years.

And what are the chances of living organisms at the surface at Gale? Where are the outflows of water at Gale? Are we going to find living organisms in some bone-dry soil just because it's part of a "sedimentary deposit"?

There are pretty low chances of finding living organisms. But who cares if we find living creatures or dead creatures? Either would be scientifically remarkable.

As far as I know, MSL is based more around geology than biology- so analysing potential living organisms is not quite part of the mission.

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/

Its mission is to determine the planet's "habitability."

Wikipedia states that engineering constraints limit possible landing sites to below 45 degrees latitude and less than one kilometer above the reference datum.

Google Mars gives the latitude of the gullies at Newton at around 41 degrees, with an altitude of between -200 and -700 meters. One of the other final four sites (Mawrth Vallis) is said to have an altitude of more than -2000 meters, so presumably low altitude targets are far less of a problem than high altitude targets (where there wouldn't be enough air to slow down sufficiently).

Thanks.

 

[T.Neo]

I guess lots of people care about life, and I'm certainly interested. The whole "follow the water" strategy was devised because people wanted to find out if life (past or present) could exist on Mars. They cared enough to make it has been the basis for all the US Mars missions in the last ~15 years.

Don't you think that outflow channels at least fit into that philosophy somehow?

If I was in a desert and I wanted to "follow the water", a dry lakebed would be nice... but a underground spring would be even better.

There are pretty low chances of finding living organisms. But who cares if we find living creatures or dead creatures? Either would be scientifically remarkable.

I care.

I'm not saying that it would be more or less remarkable if organisms were alive or dead, but it would determine a lot of things either way.

Its mission is to determine the planet's "habitability."

By looking at some sedimentary deposits? Alternate biochemistries are one thing, but it's pretty irrevocable and inescapable that you require a liquid solvent to have life. The chances of finding a liquid solvent currently existing in a sedimentary deposit is far, far lower than finding a liquid solvent currently existing in an aquifer... made up of... that liquid solvent.

In addition, underground you are shielded from radiation- even if it is not impossible to survive in the surface radiation flux, it sure helps if you're shielded.

And could also have better temperature variations as well.

I'm not saying that life living on the surface is impossible (though it is probably very unlikely), but it's more probable to find life- currently existing life- in a wet environment. And outflow channels grant access to that environment.

Even then, you're not likely to find living organisms in the sediments coughed up by outflow channels... they would quickly be killed, or at least made dormant, by the same conditions that make surface life unlikely.

 

[Wishbone]

SPACE.com - At Mars Crater, NASA Rover Finds Evidence of Ancient Water Hotspot
(http://www.space.com/12812-mars-opportunity-rover-crater-water-hotspot.html)

It's very circumstantial evidence, to be precise. Opportunity has only found higher zinc and bromine concentrations in a small rock, which could be associated with hot springs...

 

[jedidia]

If they are hot springs, they'd possibly be home to life a bit more complex than just bacteria... That would be most exciting.

 

[RisingFury]

manned missioon with men

What? Women can't come along?

 

[T.Neo]

I support an all-female crew complement for a Mars mission.

Nobody wants men on Mars.

:facepalm:

 

[N_Molson]

lol... Speaking of that, we should remember that no woman ever set foot in the Moon. They make good crew members though : smaller, lighter, consume less calories. And with the tools used in space, endurance is more requested than physical strength :lol:

Back to the topic, yes, hotsprings would be very very interesting. Just look at the organisms that can live under our seas without any light and at pressures we can't imagine... With water, carbon, and heat, you have everything required...

 

[Wishbone]

Nobody wants men on Mars

Somehow this reminds me of Ghostrider's sig...

 

[T.Neo]

lol... Speaking of that, we should remember that no woman ever set foot in the Moon. They make good crew members though : smaller, lighter, consume less calories.

I think if your program is worrying about saving those few kilograms and calories, your spacecraft ought to be made out of aluminium foil and be held together with paperclips and chewing gum...

Still, it is important to note that no woman has yet walked on the Moon. I wonder who will get that honor. :hmm:

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: Flowing Water on Mars May Cause Seasonal Streaks: Study:

The tantalizing seasonal flows observed on Mars last year may indeed be caused by liquid water, a new study suggests.

The melting and subsequent evaporation of frozen salty water could cause the intriguing dark streaks, researchers said. These lines, which were spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft, extend down some Martian slopes during warm months and fade when winter comes.

“In one day we could form enough liquid to create these flow features on the surface," lead author Vincent Chevrier, of the University of Arkansas, said in a statement.

{...}

The researchers plugged different forms of salt into their model, attempting to find one that exhibits the desired behavior.

"We had to find a salt-water mixture that would come and go," Chevrier said.

They determined that calcium chloride fits the bill. In their models, the researchers could melt enough calcium chloride brine that it would not all evaporate immediately, leaving some liquid behind to conceivably create the flow features.

The researchers say their model fits the observed phenomenon well. For example, it explains why the streaks — known as Recurring Slope Lineae — occur seasonally on equator-facing slopes, and why imaging spectrometry on Mars hasn't identified water signatures in such places (because the liquid would evaporate quite quickly).

"No other current model really explains all the observations," Chevrier said.

{...}