Question for Tom Kerr about Martian "water ice"
DanKettler
NASA says thay have scanned the surface with a "hydroponic
discombobulator", or something like that, and have found the signature
of hydrogen, mucho hydrogen, lying in the regolith.
>From this they conclude...SHITLOADS of Water Ice! Margarita Time!
But shouldn't they be also reading high levels of oxygen? I mean, h2o,
or ho2, whatever...ain't there spoda be 2 bits of oxygen for every
hydrogen bit?
Or are they just banging the pots and pans and trying to drum up funding
for more missions?
They say that if there's water, great! Astronauts will be able to
survive better...
But don't they kinda need large amounts of breathable air before they
need hydrogen-flavored popsicles?
el...@no.spam
DanKettler <danke...@psicounse1.com> wrote:
>Tom, I'm skeptical.
No, you're just stupid.
DanKettler
Watch those "1's" and "l's", Mr. E11is! ;-)
Tom Kerr
>
>NASA says thay have scanned the surface with a "hydroponic
>discombobulator", or something like that, and have found the signature
>of hydrogen, mucho hydrogen, lying in the regolith.
>
>>From this they conclude...SHITLOADS of Water Ice! Margarita Time!
>
>But shouldn't they be also reading high levels of oxygen? I mean, h2o,
>or ho2, whatever...ain't there spoda be 2 bits of oxygen for every
>hydrogen bit?
I need to read a bit more about the discombobulator. It seems to have
detected a lot of hydrogen, and it's difficult to understand how else the
hydrogen could be hiding just under the surface of Mars if it's not in the
form of water.
I don't know if the gamma ray detector bobulator has detected oxygen, but
I suspect hydrogen is a much better generator of gamma rays than oxygen,
and that's why this is such a big deal - H is more easably detectable,
there's obviously a lot of it around, and it has to be combined with
something else in order to be able to hang around - i.e., water is the
most likely molecule it's found itself in.
>Or are they just banging the pots and pans and trying to drum up funding
>for more missions?
I'd like to read the article that's supposed to be published in Science
first. My guess is that this is a major discovery, probably one of the
biggest we've had for a year or two, and that pots and pans will be banged
anyway - and they should be, at least IMO, unless it's a load of crap.
>They say that if there's water, great! Astronauts will be able to
>survive better...
I think that's a little speculative.
>But don't they kinda need large amounts of breathable air before they
>need hydrogen-flavored popsicles?
If there's an abundance of water under the surface, then you have the
fuels for rockets (hydrogen and oxygen). But you'd need a much better
discombobulator than we have now in order to actually use the resource. I
don't think breathable air is an issue - that'll be brought along with the
astronauts and recycled. Designing something that refuels a rocket on Mars
from its natural resources is something that might be a little tricky.
el...@no.spam
>I need to read a bit more about the discombobulator. It seems
>to have detected a lot of hydrogen, and it's difficult to
>understand how else the hydrogen could be hiding just under the
>surface of Mars if it's not in the form of water.
Martian fuel tanks?
Beep
>In article <3CF306E7...@psicounse1.com>, DanKettler <danke...@psicounse1.com> wrote:
>>Tom, I'm skeptical.
>>
>>NASA says thay have scanned the surface with a "hydroponic
>>discombobulator", or something like that, and have found the signature
>>of hydrogen, mucho hydrogen, lying in the regolith.
>>
>>>From this they conclude...SHITLOADS of Water Ice! Margarita Time!
Fiesta!
>
>>But shouldn't they be also reading high levels of oxygen? I mean, h2o,
>>or ho2, whatever...ain't there spoda be 2 bits of oxygen for every
>>hydrogen bit?
>
>I need to read a bit more about the discombobulator.
I always thought that was a made-up word ;)
> It seems to have
>detected a lot of hydrogen, and it's difficult to understand how else the
>hydrogen could be hiding just under the surface of Mars if it's not in the
>form of water.
>
>I don't know if the gamma ray detector bobulator has detected oxygen, but
>I suspect hydrogen is a much better generator of gamma rays than oxygen,
>and that's why this is such a big deal - H is more easably detectable,
>there's obviously a lot of it around, and it has to be combined with
>something else in order to be able to hang around - i.e., water is the
>most likely molecule it's found itself in.
>
>>Or are they just banging the pots and pans and trying to drum up funding
>>for more missions?
>
>I'd like to read the article that's supposed to be published in Science
>first. My guess is that this is a major discovery, probably one of the
>biggest we've had for a year or two, and that pots and pans will be banged
>anyway - and they should be, at least IMO, unless it's a load of crap.
The media has been hyping things so much that it's hard for someone
like me to know what to get excited about and what not to...if this is
"for real", it's totally cool!
Does water mean there could be some life or recent life (bacteria or
whatever) on Mars?
>
>>They say that if there's water, great! Astronauts will be able to
>>survive better...
>
>I think that's a little speculative.
>
>>But don't they kinda need large amounts of breathable air before they
>>need hydrogen-flavored popsicles?
>
>If there's an abundance of water under the surface, then you have the
>fuels for rockets (hydrogen and oxygen). But you'd need a much better
>discombobulator than we have now in order to actually use the resource. I
>don't think breathable air is an issue - that'll be brought along with the
>astronauts and recycled. Designing something that refuels a rocket on Mars
>from its natural resources is something that might be a little tricky.
--
email address: beep at west dot net
Rheumatic Disease info: http://www.silcom.com/~sblc
Яллю
Tom Kerr
>On Fri, 31 May 2002 10:12:20 GMT, t...@lava.net (Tom Kerr) wrote:
<snip>
>>I'd like to read the article that's supposed to be published in Science
>>first. My guess is that this is a major discovery, probably one of the
>>biggest we've had for a year or two, and that pots and pans will be banged
>>anyway - and they should be, at least IMO, unless it's a load of crap.
>
>The media has been hyping things so much that it's hard for someone
>like me to know what to get excited about and what not to...if this is
>"for real", it's totally cool!
>
>Does water mean there could be some life or recent life (bacteria or
>whatever) on Mars?
It means that one of the things that we believe is absolutely vital for
life might be in abundance on Mars. Whether there's life on that planet or
not is another question, which probably won't be answered for a few years
yet.
If the observations turn out to be true and there is lot of water just
under the surface of Mars, it also answers another question. Many
geographic features on Mars suggest that there was running water on the
planet in "recent" times. The question is "where did the water go?", since
water isn't seen on the planet's surface.
That the water might be in a form of "permafrost" just under the planet's
surface is a huge discovery (if it's true), and will hopefully help us
understand the history of Mars, and perhaps tell us a little more about
the possibility of life forming around other stars.
Tom Kerr
>On Fri, 31 May 2002 10:12:20 GMT, in alt.astrology, t...@lava.net (Tom
>Kerr) wrote:
<snip>
>>I need to read a bit more about the discombobulator. It seems to have
>>detected a lot of hydrogen, and it's difficult to understand how else the
>>hydrogen could be hiding just under the surface of Mars if it's not in the
>>form of water.
>
>There seems to some requirement for twice the Hydrogen as Oxygen to
>make water. (is that really fair?)
Not sure what you mean. Have you got a reference for this? Water can form
in one or two different ways, but if this is something specific to water
on Mars, I'd like to see it.
>>I don't know if the gamma ray detector bobulator has detected oxygen, but
>>I suspect hydrogen is a much better generator of gamma rays than oxygen,
>>and that's why this is such a big deal - H is more easably detectable,
>>there's obviously a lot of it around, and it has to be combined with
>>something else in order to be able to hang around - i.e., water is the
>>most likely molecule it's found itself in.
>
>I hope this doesn't turn out to be like the water on the moon.. (:
I think this is very different. Water on the Moon that happens to have
somehow survived in the odd crevice or craters' shadows doesn't tell us an
awful lot, apart from it's likely comets hit the Moon in the past. Huge
amounts of water found on Mars is a much more significant discovery, if it
turns out to be true of course.
The formation of features on the surface of the Moon need no explanation
in terms of water, but the ones on Mars do.
DanKettler
Well, some flowing liquid, anyway, right?
Are there other fluids besides water, that hydrogen is a component of?
Something where the other components might 'boil off' or evaporate,
leaving a lot of hydrogen behind?
I can think of solvents like alcohol, acetone, freon, and others that
have a high evaporative quality to them. In great quantities, chemicals
like these could leave behind the same eroding, water-like "footprints",
but upon evaporation, leave behind certain heavier components.
Could this also be possible on Mars? Or is the permafrost-water concept
more plausible?
Tom Kerr
Yes.
>Are there other fluids besides water, that hydrogen is a component of?
Yes, but water is by far and away the best candidate, because it forms
relatively easily and will be far more abundant than other
hydrogen-bearing liquids (e.g., ammonia), mainly because the chemical
routes to its formation are simpler than the formation of more complicated
molecules.
Water is fairly ubiquitous throughout the Galaxy, at least in regions that
that offer enough shielding for water to be detected as ice (star forming
regions for instance), and it's just about always by far and away the most
abundant molecule in these regions, at least in the solid form (i.e.,
ice).
>Something where the other components might 'boil off' or evaporate,
>leaving a lot of hydrogen behind?
The problem with this is that hydrogen is the lightest element. If there
was some sort of boil off leaving hydrogen behind, the hydrogen would
escape Mars' relatively weak gravitational field rather easily. If you
want to take chemical reactions into account caused by some sort of boil
off, then it's still hard to understand how another molecular species
could become so abundant, because you would *still* have a lot of oxygen
around, and therefore a lot of water.
>I can think of solvents like alcohol, acetone, freon, and others that
>have a high evaporative quality to them. In great quantities, chemicals
>like these could leave behind the same eroding, water-like "footprints",
>but upon evaporation, leave behind certain heavier components.
One problem there is "in great quantities". It's hard to imagine rivers of
freon or whatever existing long enough, and in large enough quantities, to
cause the liquid-based erosion you see on Mars. Remember, water is much
easier to form. The other problem with this scenario is the evaporation
you mention. If these more volatile species evaporate after causing the
erosion, then the hydrogen disappears as well. Since the Mars Odyssey
detected a huge abundance of hydrogen, this is difficult to resolve.
>Could this also be possible on Mars?
Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
>Or is the permafrost-water concept more plausible?
Yes. From a paragraph in the Boynton et al report in the May 31 issue of
Science (I'll add my translation in [ ], and 'scuse any typos - I can't
cut and paste this stuff!):
"The identification of large quantities of hydrogen in the near surface is
unambiguous but not the chemical form in which it is present"
[ This is the point you're making I think. Hydrogen is there, but in what
form cannot be determined, at least not yet. ]
"In the upper layer it is likely that the H is present in the form of
physically or chemically bound H2O, and this layer may be
indistuinguishable from the soil at mid latitudes where ice is not
stable. For the lower layer, however, ice may be the be the only
reasonable phase to associate with this much H for several reasons."
[ They're setting the background, but I do find this a little unclear. I
think they mean the water might be in the form of slush at mid latitudes
on Mars, and that's hard to distinguish from slush at higher latitudes.
What they're saying, I think, is that they see hydrogen in the form of
water ice at higher latitudes, where it's colder. But they go on... ]
"First, the large amounts of hydrogen, 35 +/- 15% H2O equivalent, is too
much to be accommodated by alteration of most rock-forming minerals".
[ This is geology, not a subject I'm particularly strong on, but they're
saying it's unlikely the large abundance of hydrogen could be caused by
chemical reactions of minerals in Mars rocks. ]
"Second, the stratification of H into layers with over a factor of ten
difference in the concentration seems hard to sustain unless a volatility
comparable to that of ice is responsible"
[ Without quoting the whole paper, this might not make an awful lot of
sense. But what they are saying is that they see different layers of
hydrogen in the Mars soil, and this is exactly what you would expect to
see if there's water ice in the Martian soil. They're saying that in
theory, water ice will only exist in significant quantities at particular
depths in the soil, and that the distribution of hydrogen they observe in
the soil is exactly what you would predict if there's water in the soil. ]
"Third, the H-rich regions are only found in the colder regions
suggesting a strong volatility dependence similar to that expected
for ice."
[ They're saying that where they see hydrogen is exactly where you would
expect to see water, and where they don't see it is also exactly where you
wouldn't see water. ]
"Many theoretical studies have predicted regions where H2O ice should be
stable on Mars [references provided]. Our map of epithermal neutron flux
[another reference] shows consistency between regions where ice is
expected to be stable at a depth of 80 cm [reference] and regions of low
epithermal flux [reference to a figure in the paper]."
[ They're saying that there observations are exactly what you would
predict from theory if there's water ice on Mars. ]
This is obviously all circumstantial evidence, but it is strong
circumstantial evidence that there's a lot of water ice on Mars. I don't
think we'll know for certain until we actually send something there to
look for the water, but this is still very big news.
Tom Kerr
>On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 09:22:59 GMT, in alt.astrology, t...@lava.net (Tom Kerr)
>wrote:
<snip>
>>Not sure what you mean. Have you got a reference for this? Water can form
>>in one or two different ways, but if this is something specific to water
>>on Mars, I'd like to see it.
>
>I don't think it specific for Water on Mars. :) H0H is just the most common
>form. Wait the "hydrogen could be locked in H2O2.. :) but it wouldn't last
>long under condition in Mars.
Ah, ok. I was wondering if you'd read something specific about how water
ice on Mars might have formed and that I might have missed it in the
literature.
DanKettler
Thanks! You've got a knack for explaining these types of things.
I'm excited by the possibilities. The existence of water and the
"reasonable" climate allows for the possibility of a basic primordial
"soup", and possible biological activity. Let's send a missions with a
return craft and see what comes back! (didja ever see "The Andromeda Strain"?
I guess the next big question would be: If there is indeed ice, and much
of it used to be thawed and flowing water (enough to create those
erosive tracks), why isn't it still flowing? What caused it to turn to
ice? How long ago did it freeze up?
It must have been a very long time ago, as I would suppose that the
daily temperatures on Mars go through a cycle (as do Earth's) and have
been on a rather constant cycle for quite a long time.
My personal theory was that the Martians get invaded by the Pleadians
and the invaders sucked everything dry, headed by their greedy leader,
Arcturian HoovaMoon. You see, "Hoova, Moon Muthma" is exactly how you
would say "Have a margarita?" in a very parched voice ;-)
Tom Kerr
<snip>
>I guess the next big question would be: If there is indeed ice, and much
>of it used to be thawed and flowing water (enough to create those
>erosive tracks), why isn't it still flowing? What caused it to turn to
>ice? How long ago did it freeze up?
No. The next big question is whether England will beat Sweden in the World
Cup. That's much more important. And since the match is going on right
now, you'll have to wait a bit until I respond with a boring boffin-like
reply.
Sorry, but I have priorities.
Tom Kerr
a PSF, depending on how you hang...
In article <3CF9EAE5...@psicounse1.com>, DanKettler
<danke...@psicounse1.com> wrote:
<big snip>
>
>I'm excited by the possibilities. The existence of water and the
>"reasonable" climate allows for the possibility of a basic primordial
>"soup", and possible biological activity. Let's send a missions with a
>return craft and see what comes back! (didja ever see "The Andromeda Strain"?
I think so, but I'm not sure. Was this the film where the good guy ended
up fighting the bad guy in a helicopter over Los Angeles or somewhere like
that? They had a flask of nasty biological stuff that kept rolling around
in the helicopter while they were fighting for control.
It's been a long time since I saw that film (if it's the one I'm thinking
of), but if that's the one, what does if have to do with Mars? All I
remember is the end of the film.
And as for a primordial soup, I don't think what's been seen on Mars is
the same thing. You need a bit more than water ice to create life.
>I guess the next big question would be: If there is indeed ice, and much
>of it used to be thawed and flowing water (enough to create those
>erosive tracks), why isn't it still flowing? What caused it to turn to
>ice? How long ago did it freeze up?
All good questions which I can't answer right now without doing a little
research. I think the basic idea is that Mars underwent a pretty
significant climate change millions of years ago. The surface of the
planet became inhospitable to liquid water at some point, but there are
enough scars from water erosion to suggest that liquid water was present
on the surface of Mars not that long ago.
It's one of the reasons that this recent discovery is so important,
because it's been hard to understand where all the water went to. There
is also some evidence that water flowed on the surface of Mars recently,
like in the last few thousand years or so, so if that's the case,
understanding where that water might have gone is important.
>It must have been a very long time ago, as I would suppose that the
>daily temperatures on Mars go through a cycle (as do Earth's) and have
>been on a rather constant cycle for quite a long time.
Unfortunately, other things have kept me away from keeping up with the
latest stuff about Mars, but I think some of the recent images of the
panet's surface suggest that there has been recent erosion on Mars and
that the best way to explain this is via meltwater. I'm not sure that all
the features on Mars are consistent with things that happened billions of
years ago - some are more consistent with things happening very recently,
at least in geological terms.
>My personal theory was that the Martians get invaded by the Pleadians
>and the invaders sucked everything dry, headed by their greedy leader,
>Arcturian HoovaMoon. You see, "Hoova, Moon Muthma" is exactly how you
>would say "Have a margarita?" in a very parched voice ;-)
Sounds like "have a beer" as well, which I will do. Cheers!
Jim Phillips
Sadly misguided, I see (any sport that can have a game end in a
scoreless tie doesn't do much for me, but I *am* an American).
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"Whoever declares another heretic is himself a devil. Whoever places a
relic or artifact above justice, kindness, mercy, or truth is himself a
devil and the thing elevated is a work of evil magic." -- Sheri S. Tepper
Jim Phillips
> The game is over now, so I can get back to being a boring skeptic-type, or
> a PSF, depending on how you hang...
>
> In article <3CF9EAE5...@psicounse1.com>, DanKettler
> <danke...@psicounse1.com> wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> >
> >I'm excited by the possibilities. The existence of water and the
> >"reasonable" climate allows for the possibility of a basic primordial
> >"soup", and possible biological activity. Let's send a missions with a
> >return craft and see what comes back! (didja ever see "The Andromeda Strain"?
>
> I think so, but I'm not sure. Was this the film where the good guy ended
> up fighting the bad guy in a helicopter over Los Angeles or somewhere like
> that? They had a flask of nasty biological stuff that kept rolling around
> in the helicopter while they were fighting for control.
>
> It's been a long time since I saw that film (if it's the one I'm thinking
> of), but if that's the one, what does if have to do with Mars? All I
> remember is the end of the film.
It's the only (?) film that tries to deal in a realistic manner with
microbes from space. I believe it was made during the Apollo landings, so
the idea of deadly outer space microbes was in many people's minds.
It didn't do much for me; the microbe conveniently mutates into a
harmless version just in time, then there's a "chilling" image of the
microbe mutating/growing again when no one's looking.
> And as for a primordial soup, I don't think what's been seen on Mars is
> the same thing. You need a bit more than water ice to create life.
I've never read anything about the possibility of Martian ground
water; it would depend on how much geothermal heat is still coming up from
the Martian core, something I've never read about (do you know of any good
models of the geology of Mars?). The fact that bacteria has been found
thousands of feet below the Earth's surface indicates that underground life
could exist on Mars (it's life on the surface that looks unlikely).
> >I guess the next big question would be: If there is indeed ice, and much
> >of it used to be thawed and flowing water (enough to create those
> >erosive tracks), why isn't it still flowing? What caused it to turn to
> >ice? How long ago did it freeze up?
>
> All good questions which I can't answer right now without doing a little
> research. I think the basic idea is that Mars underwent a pretty
> significant climate change millions of years ago. The surface of the
> planet became inhospitable to liquid water at some point, but there are
> enough scars from water erosion to suggest that liquid water was present
> on the surface of Mars not that long ago.
>
> It's one of the reasons that this recent discovery is so important,
> because it's been hard to understand where all the water went to.
I've read of predictions for a kind of Martian permafrost for quite
a few years; it's not that the idea is new, it's that there's finally
evidence for it.
There
> is also some evidence that water flowed on the surface of Mars recently,
> like in the last few thousand years or so, so if that's the case,
> understanding where that water might have gone is important.
Much of that particular kind of water flow can be explained by
subterranean water escaping (at least, that's the explanation that I've
seen). Water slowly percolates through the soil, then reaches the surface
and erupts outwards. All of it will evaporate, but there's enough to make
erosion features (it flows downhill even as it boils off--must be quite a
sight!). A dam of ice forms at the escape point, stopping more water from
escaping. The pressure of water flowing underground then increases, until
it's enough to overcome the ice dam and have another eruption. There's an
alternate explanation, using gaseous carbon dioxide instead of liquid water;
I don't have a good feel for the physics involved, but subterranean water
makes more sense to me than subterranean CO2.
This doesn't explain the large-scale (and considerably older)
features; lots of fast-flowing liquid water seems the best explanation.
There's even some evidence for an ocean once existing on Mars (billions of
years ago). While I think it would be neat if there was an ocean, I need
more evidence to be convinced (there's my skepticism creeping in! ;).
As for what changed on Mars, it's probably atmospheric (speculation
to follow, pieced together from things I've read over the years). There was
some major vulcanism in the distant past--it could be that these volcanoes
belched out enough volatiles to temporarily increase the atmospheric
pressure. If there was plenty of carbon dioxide, there'd be a greenhouse
effect that would raise the planet's temperature. The combination of higher
atmospheric pressure and temperature could have made liquid water at the
surface possible. There's no way at this time to tell how long this period
lasted.
snip
DanKettler
Well, for us humans, it's a titillating thing. If they do find bacteria
there it's a short imaginative leap to think there could have been
larger, sentient creatures.
Then of course, there's the whole underground subway system...
Tom Kerr
>On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Tom Kerr wrote:
<snip>
>> No. The next big question is whether England will beat Sweden in the World
>> Cup. That's much more important. And since the match is going on right
>> now, you'll have to wait a bit until I respond with a boring boffin-like
>> reply.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have priorities.
>
> Sadly misguided, I see (any sport that can have a game end in a
>scoreless tie doesn't do much for me, but I *am* an American).
Yeah, you're right. England happened to also be playing a cricket match at
the same time, and following that was a *much* higher priority ;)
No scoreless ties there!
Tom Kerr
>On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Tom Kerr wrote:
<snip>
>> I think so, but I'm not sure. Was this the film where the good guy ended
>> up fighting the bad guy in a helicopter over Los Angeles or somewhere like
>> that? They had a flask of nasty biological stuff that kept rolling around
>> in the helicopter while they were fighting for control.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I saw that film (if it's the one I'm thinking
>> of), but if that's the one, what does if have to do with Mars? All I
>> remember is the end of the film.
>
> It's the only (?) film that tries to deal in a realistic manner with
>microbes from space. I believe it was made during the Apollo landings, so
>the idea of deadly outer space microbes was in many people's minds.
> It didn't do much for me; the microbe conveniently mutates into a
>harmless version just in time, then there's a "chilling" image of the
>microbe mutating/growing again when no one's looking.
Still not sure if this is the film I'm thinking of - it must be a dozen or
so years since I saw it, and still don't think I ever saw the beginning of
it. Was there a fight in a helicopter towards the end?
>> And as for a primordial soup, I don't think what's been seen on Mars is
>> the same thing. You need a bit more than water ice to create life.
>
> I've never read anything about the possibility of Martian ground
>water; it would depend on how much geothermal heat is still coming up from
>the Martian core, something I've never read about (do you know of any good
>models of the geology of Mars?).
Not off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some around. Email me
if you're interested, I can probably find some stuff for you (and for
me!).
>The fact that bacteria has been found
>thousands of feet below the Earth's surface indicates that underground life
>could exist on Mars (it's life on the surface that looks unlikely).
Well, I'm being totally speculative here, but the fact that there might be
an awful lot of water *very* close to the surface might mean that some
sort of life could be found in the Martian soil. If this ice is also
heated to the extent that might explain the surface features seen on Mars,
then perhaps conditions aren't too hostile for life very close to the
Martian surface.
I can't remember off the top of my head where the Viking Landers put down
- do you remember? The Science paper suggests that there's a lot of
water ice in the soil in the higher latitudes, but perhaps not so much
closer to the equator. I'm just wondering what the analysis of the soil
performed by the landers might have told us and whether it supports the
current research.
<snip>
Jim Phillips
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020602094926.24011B-100000@mail>, Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Tom Kerr wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I think so, but I'm not sure. Was this the film where the good guy ended
> >> up fighting the bad guy in a helicopter over Los Angeles or somewhere like
> >> that? They had a flask of nasty biological stuff that kept rolling around
> >> in the helicopter while they were fighting for control.
> >>
> >> It's been a long time since I saw that film (if it's the one I'm thinking
> >> of), but if that's the one, what does if have to do with Mars? All I
> >> remember is the end of the film.
> >
> > It's the only (?) film that tries to deal in a realistic manner with
> >microbes from space. I believe it was made during the Apollo landings, so
> >the idea of deadly outer space microbes was in many people's minds.
> > It didn't do much for me; the microbe conveniently mutates into a
> >harmless version just in time, then there's a "chilling" image of the
> >microbe mutating/growing again when no one's looking.
>
> Still not sure if this is the film I'm thinking of - it must be a dozen or
> so years since I saw it, and still don't think I ever saw the beginning of
> it. Was there a fight in a helicopter towards the end?
I think so, although it's been 10+ years since I saw it...
> >> And as for a primordial soup, I don't think what's been seen on Mars is
> >> the same thing. You need a bit more than water ice to create life.
> >
> > I've never read anything about the possibility of Martian ground
> >water; it would depend on how much geothermal heat is still coming up from
> >the Martian core, something I've never read about (do you know of any good
> >models of the geology of Mars?).
>
> Not off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some around. Email me
> if you're interested, I can probably find some stuff for you (and for
> me!).
Please! And if it's easy to digest, go ahead and post it!
> >The fact that bacteria has been found
> >thousands of feet below the Earth's surface indicates that underground life
> >could exist on Mars (it's life on the surface that looks unlikely).
>
> Well, I'm being totally speculative here, but the fact that there might be
> an awful lot of water *very* close to the surface might mean that some
> sort of life could be found in the Martian soil. If this ice is also
> heated to the extent that might explain the surface features seen on Mars,
> then perhaps conditions aren't too hostile for life very close to the
> Martian surface.
I did say "on the surface". ;)
Here's how I picture how a Martian water cycle might work: snow
falls at the poles, gets buried by dust storms, melts at a certain depth,
then migrates to the lowest point. This lowest point has "overflow", which
allows water under pressure to occasionally break out. The water carves
small gullies but ultimately evaporates, travels to the poles, and falls as
snow. I think if there's a cycle like this on Mars (a *big* if!), then life
on Mars could easily exist, although it's probably microbial. Has anyone
ever written a sci-fi story postulating such a system?
> I can't remember off the top of my head where the Viking Landers put down
> - do you remember? The Science paper suggests that there's a lot of
> water ice in the soil in the higher latitudes, but perhaps not so much
> closer to the equator. I'm just wondering what the analysis of the soil
> performed by the landers might have told us and whether it supports the
> current research.
Viking I is in Chryse Planitia (22.3 N, 48.2 W), while Viking 2 is
in Utopia Planitia (47.7 N, 225.9 W) (I got my wife the nifty Mars globe
with the color-coded elevation data from the recent probe--fun stuff! :).
I don't think either one of them is in a high-ice area, but I don't have the
hydrogen maps in front of me (I don't think they're far enough north).
Tom Kerr
>On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Tom Kerr wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020602094926.24011B-100000@mail>, Jim Phillips
> <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> > I've never read anything about the possibility of Martian ground
>> >water; it would depend on how much geothermal heat is still coming up from
>> >the Martian core, something I've never read about (do you know of any good
>> >models of the geology of Mars?).
>>
>> Not off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some around. Email me
>> if you're interested, I can probably find some stuff for you (and for
>> me!).
>
> Please! And if it's easy to digest, go ahead and post it!
I haven't had time to dig around, and probably won't for a few more days.
However, have a look at the "Encyclopedia of the Solar System" by
Weissman, McFadden & Johnson. It's damn expensive, but I suspect your wife
might have easy access to it. It's by far and away the best book about the
solar system and it probably discusses Mars' geology, or at least provides
references. I haven't read the section on Mars for a long time, so can't
remember exactly what it talks about. Worth a look anyway as it's the most
comprehensive book I've read on the solar system. (Lots of experts
contributed to it). I'll try and look for some more stuff next week.
<snip>
>> I can't remember off the top of my head where the Viking Landers put down
>> - do you remember? The Science paper suggests that there's a lot of
>> water ice in the soil in the higher latitudes, but perhaps not so much
>> closer to the equator. I'm just wondering what the analysis of the soil
>> performed by the landers might have told us and whether it supports the
>> current research.
>
> Viking I is in Chryse Planitia (22.3 N, 48.2 W), while Viking 2 is
>in Utopia Planitia (47.7 N, 225.9 W) (I got my wife the nifty Mars globe
>with the color-coded elevation data from the recent probe--fun stuff! :).
>I don't think either one of them is in a high-ice area, but I don't have the
>hydrogen maps in front of me (I don't think they're far enough north).
Thanks for the info, and yeah, I think that's the case. The study
published in Science seems to have better data in the southern hemisphere
(I might be misinterpreting the map they show) and the hydrogen seems to
be abundant below a latitude of about -60 degrees. Assuming the situation
is the same in the northern hemisphere, then the Vikings didn't land in
the hydrogen-rich areas, although Viking 2 might have got close to a
one such region.
el...@no.spam
In article <ufrgjsc...@news.supernews.com>, Tom Kerr <t...@lava.net> wrote:
>I haven't had time to dig around, and probably won't for a few
>more days. However, have a look at the "Encyclopedia of the
>Solar System" by Weissman, McFadden & Johnson.
Holly uses the Junior Encyclopedia of Space:
http://freepages.tv.rootsweb.com/~eeyore/reddwarf/queeg.html
Edmond Wollmann
>
> [alt.astrology.metapsych because Edmo told me not to]
SNIP!
Removed, follow-ups.
This group was created for metaphysical, psychological and spiritual
discussions of ASTROLOGY. Your client continues to post in violation of
the alt.astrology.metapsych charter, in some cases for years now. Please
take action. If you do not act, your company may be or already has been
listed as an abusive ISP.
Thanks for your professionalism
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/charter.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/abusive_isps_list.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. arctur...@earthlink.net (remove-)
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
DanKett1er
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> el...@no.spam wrote:
> >
> > [alt.astrology.metapsych because Edmo told me not to]
>
> SNIP!
> Removed,
Replaced.
Are you feeling especially powerless and ranty today, PantyHead?
Spámster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> el...@no.spam wrote:
> >
> > [alt.astrology.metapsych because Edmo told me not to]
>
> SNIP!
> Removed, follow-ups.
>
> This group was created for
Whine some more for us kook!
Cujo
@spamcop.net:
> el...@no.spam wrote:
>>
>> [alt.astrology.metapsych because Edmo told me not to]
>
> SNIP!
> Removed, follow-ups.
>
Added back. Edmo, that was an on-topic discussion.
Stop being an asshole, azsshole.8
--
There wouldn't be as many satisfied ladies around, if I
hadn't ditched them long ago! - Edmo in a moment of candor.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the August, 2000 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <cryba...@astroconsulting.com> boo hoo'd:
>> [alt.astrology.metapsych because Edmo told me not to]
>SNIP!
That's really fuckin' powerless, Edie. Does it make you feel
better to show you are so powerless?
>Removed, follow-ups.
I did it again, crybaby. So keep up the kook dance. Maybe you'll
figure out the futility somebody...but I doubt it. You just can't
help playing the fool.
>This group was created for metaphysical, psychological and spiritual
>discussions of ASTROLOGY.
You are lying again. The newsgroup was created to entrap
people. You are just upset because we've neutralized that
tactic.
Here's some more info about your entrapment games:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/metapsych.html
--
"I am a Professional Astrologer and consultant doing the admins
who are clueless-- job."
"You MUST take action against this abuser--NOW!!"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM,
convicted criminal, asshole, bully, Kook of the Year 1998,
the Ted Kennedy of astrologers, Village Idiot Award winner,
dumpster diver, smeg for brains, KOOK of the MILLENNIUM,
whiner, ignoramus, comma challenged, plagiarist, dissembler
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.shore.net/~a/wollmann/faves.html
http://www.shore.net/~a/wollmann/spank.html
"Mr. Wollman's account at AzNET was cancelled due to multiple,
seemingly endless complaints about his abusive behavior in Usenet."
-- Jack Bailey
Bill Kno
Any frozen body of water on Mars would soon be covered by the numerous
dust storms that Mars has and by ejecta created by meteors. Whole
oceans could "dissapear" by this thin layer of material that would
sink if the ice ever melted.
If the Hydrogen isn't part of water it is still real good news for
those who wish for Mars colonies. There is vast sources of easy to
obtain oxegen on Mars. (the atmosphere is CO2) We can make water!
Hydrogen WAS the problem. Most plans had us taking hydrogen with us to
add to the oxegen to create fuel, water, and later for use in a number
of chemical reactions to create other substances that we use on earth.