A helluva lot of ice found on Mars

[Coriolis]

Nice and pretty link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A spacecraft orbiting Mars has scanned huge deposits of water ice at its south pole so plentiful they would blanket the planet in 36 feet of water if they were liquid, scientists said on Thursday.

The scientists used a joint NASA-Italian Space Agency radar instrument on the European Space Agency Mars Express spacecraft to gauge the thickness and volume of ice deposits at the Martian south pole covering an area larger than Texas.

The deposits, up to 2.3 miles thick, are under a polar cap of white frozen carbon dioxide and water, and appear to be composed of at least 90 percent frozen water, with dust mixed in, according to findings published in the journal Science.

Scientists have known that water exists in frozen form at the Martian poles, but this research produced the most accurate measurements of just how much there is.

They are eager to learn about the history of water on Mars because water is fundamental to the question of whether the planet has ever harbored microbial or some other life. Liquid water is a necessity for life as we know it.

Characteristics like channels on the Martian surface strongly suggest the planet once was very wet, a contrast to its present arid, dusty condition.

Jeffrey Plaut of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who led the study, said the same techniques are being used to examine similar ice deposits at the Martian north pole.

Radar observations made in late 2005 and early 2006 provided the data on the south pole, and similar observations were taken of the north pole in the past several months, Plaut said.

Plaut, part of an international team of two dozen scientists, said a preliminary look at this data indicated the ice deposits in at the north pole are comparable to those at the south pole.

SEARCH FOR LIFE

"Life as we know it requires water and, in fact, at least transient liquid water for cells to survive and reproduce. So if we are expecting to find existing life on Mars we need to go to a location where water is available," Plaut said.

"So the polar regions are naturally a target because we certainly know that there's plenty of H2O there."

Some of the new information even hints at the possible existence of a thin layer of liquid water at the base of the deposits.

But while images taken by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft made public in December suggested the presence of a small amount of liquid water on the surface, researchers are baffled about the fate of most of the water. The polar deposits contain most of the known water on Mars.

Plaut said the amount of water in the Martian past may have been the equivalent of a global layer hundreds of meters deep, while the polar deposits represent a layer of perhaps tens of meters.

"We have this continuing question facing us in studies of Mars, which is: where did all the water go?" Plaut said.

"Even if you took the water in these two (polar) ice caps and added it all up, it's still not nearly enough to do all of the work that we've seen that the water has done across the surface of Mars in its history."

Plaut said it appears perhaps 10 percent of the water that once existed on Mars is now trapped in these polar deposits. Other water may exist below the planet's surface or perhaps some was lost into space through the atmosphere, Plaut said.

Enough ice to cover the planet in 36 feet of water. Now if we can only get to the ice, we could do a lot of stuff.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Your comment just reminded me of that episode of The Simpsons where the Kwik-E-Mart is shown getting their bags of ice from explorers venturing to the Antarctic to brave cold and polar bears for ice cube satisfaction.

It's not so silly. Think of the gimmick value of drinking Lipton ice tea with the cubes coming all the way from Mars. You'd make a fortune from all those rich foo-, I mean, venture capitalists.

[Dominus Atheos]

Is that 36 feet at the lowest depth, or average depth?

[Dominus Atheos]

Edit: I mean would the water rise 36 feet over the top of Olympus Mons, or would 36 feet just be the average depth?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Edit: I mean would the water rise 36 feet over the top of Olympus Mons, or would 36 feet just be the average depth?

Covering that Goliath? I don't think so. I expect it's an average depth, else there's a fuckton of water ready to be tapped.

[Coriolis]

Your comment just reminded me of that episode of The Simpsons where the Kwik-E-Mart is shown getting their bags of ice from explorers venturing to the Antarctic to brave cold and polar bears for ice cube satisfaction.

It's not so silly. Think of the gimmick value of drinking Lipton ice tea with the cubes coming all the way from Mars. You'd make a fortune from all those rich foo-, I mean, venture capitalists.

There might be the small problem of whatever chemicals might be in the ice. No worries, we'll melt it and purify it. And make millions off of bottled water sales!

[Teleros]

Edit: I mean would the water rise 36 feet over the top of Olympus Mons, or would 36 feet just be the average depth?

I doubt they took in many of the mountains, valleys etc on Mars into account for that figure. It'd be interesting to see what Mars would be like if that water was deposited into seas etc though, rather than the sort of blanket they talk about in the article.

[Guardsman Bass]

Sounds good for potential terraforming - once we get past the carbon dioxide ice on top.

Incidently, that's got to be an average number. Olympus Mons is somewhere around 95,000 feet tall.

[Mr Bean]

I say we send a team, start melting the ice and see what happens with Mars the Water planet.

[CmdrWilkens]

Likely as not the way they are presenting it is simply taking the rough surface area of Mars then figuring how deep the water would cover it were the surface a perfectly uniform sphere.

[K. A. Pital]

Waterworld on Mars - the first stage of terraformation!

[CaptainChewbacca]

I found this picture a while back, its a good notion of what Mars would look like with an ocean:

[Molyneux]

Well, that's a nice bonus in case we ever decide to terraform that rock...

[Alferd Packer]

How would we go about terraforming Mars, generally speaking? Would we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm it up enough for plant life to survive?

[Admiral Valdemar]

How would we go about terraforming Mars, generally speaking? Would we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm it up enough for plant life to survive?

Watch Red Planet, only minus the crash, space bugs and AMEE.

[CaptHawkeye]

How would we go about terraforming Mars, generally speaking? Would we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm it up enough for plant life to survive?

Watch Red Planet, only minus the crash, space bugs and AMEE.

And Tom Sizemore, and Val, well no, Val's fine.

I was under the impression that Mars was simply too far away from the sun to support long term life. Isn't it far too cold? I know it's also fairly smaller than Earth, wouldn't decreased gravity present certain problems for some kinds of life? (If we're going to send animals there anyway.)

[Admiral Valdemar]

And Tom Sizemore, and Val, well no, Val's fine.

I was under the impression that Mars was simply too far away from the sun to support long term life. Isn't it far too cold? I know it's also fairly smaller than Earth, wouldn't decreased gravity present certain problems for some kinds of life? (If we're going to send animals there anyway.)

It may have, in the not-too-distant-past, been supporting basic life with the liquid water, rather than as ice flowing on the surface, for whatever reasons. Now that's all gone, the dried husk is all that remains. It doesn't stretch the imagination too much to see that if we do a good greenhouse effect on there, we could produce a far more liveable environment. All right, not quite Earth, but who expects that? You could likely get vegetation growing, likely genetically engineered to cope with the new planet, and then build massive arcologies that contain inhabitants and self-sufficient biospheres that can then have an impact on the planet's infant ecosphere.

Of all the planets, Mars is our best bet for its many Earth-like similarities. Gravity isn't much of a problem once you're used to it (going to back one gee would be harder though) and many other issues are simply to do with the atmospheric content being so thin. Short of Titan a few billion years from now, there are no other well suited terraformable celestial bodies in this system.

[Molyneux]

The problems I know of with terraforming Mars are:

1) No iron core. No iron core means no magnetic field, which means no real protection from charged particles.

and

2) Getting the damned planet to hang onto an atmosphere.

[Solauren]

No magnetic field isn't that big a problem. You could generate an artificial field, or fields, to protect inhabited areas.

Now, that would be a bitch to do on a planteray scale, but that's what 'slow and steady' expansion is for.

As for gravity to keep it's atmosphere, that's a little tricker with 'hard science'. In sci-fi, I'd suggest a massive planetary shield, but in this case.

I'm tempted to say 'okay, so, let's start landing big ass space rocks on it to increase it's net mass. It would take most of the asteroid field.


Then again, the two are also a common problem. Charged particles largely come from the sun, and the sun blows away Mar's atmosphere.

Why not a massive reverse orbital mirror or shield, designed to protect Mars from charged particles from the sun, and the affects of the solar wind?

[Covenant]

The magnetic field also helps mars hang onto an atmosphere. Without it, solar wind strips some away all the time. We'd really be better off just using the water to do things with instead of trying to turn the planet into another Earth.

That or we bore down into the center of mars, pump down lots of molten iron to get a spinning hot iron core, and give it it's own magnetic field or something.

[CaptHawkeye]

Also, doesn't the lack of a magnetic field make navigation on the planet a bitch? Unless somehow we could be gaurunteed non stop GPS coverage on the planet that is available to anyone and everyone on the planet.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You know, being able to terraform a planet and then form colonies kind've covers the idea of having global positioning systems already. It's like wondering if you're space shuttle will have climate control.

[Molyneux]

But terraforming is a stupid idea anyway. Colossal waste of time and money that will never happen in reality. If we ever have people leave the planet, orbital habitats are superior in every way, both technically and economically.

That's perfectly true...until someone goes stark raving and goes out for a walk with no suit on because they've been living in a tin can for the past decade or so.

I wonder...how much metal would be needed, if one were to try to actually GIVE a planet like Mars a molten metallic core?

[Guardsman Bass]

I think Mars actually is big enough to hold on to at least a breathable atmosphere in the long-term (although it would be thinner than Earth's). You've just got to get that water unfrozen, and enough carbon dioxide to stay in the atmosphere, and hopefully by itself (meaning you don't need humans constantly injecting the gas into the atmosphere).

It's by far the best candidate for terraforming. Venus would be much more of a bitch, in spite of the advantages gained by having a more earth-like planet in terms of size.

[Molyneux]

That's perfectly true...until someone goes stark raving and goes out for a walk with no suit on because they've been living in a tin can for the past decade or so.

You shouldn't comment on something you obviously know nothing about. Read a little about the concept, then get back to me. The picture in my signature is a link to a page with tremendous amounts of information. In short though, it certainly isn't a 'tin can'. An orbital colony (or more accurately, a collection of them) would be more like Earth than a terraformed Mars could ever realistically be, complete with even 1g of gravity, not the 1/3 g you'd have to settle with on Mars. And Earth would be mere days away, not many months away, which has implications all over the place, most importantly IMO are economics, but also inhabitants can take a vacation back to Earth for much less cost than a ride back from Mars. And there is the fact an orbital habitat could be built on the scale of decades at most. Terraforming would take at least centuries.

I wonder...how much metal would be needed, if one were to try to actually GIVE a planet like Mars a molten metallic core?

Metal isn't so much the problem as energy. Mars already has an iron core, and probably used to have a magnetic field and plate tetonics, but it doesn't have sufficient radioactivity in it to keep it warm enough anymore. The amount of energy needed would be very large I'm sure (haven't run the numbers), but I think a bigger problem would be getting the energy down into the core. You are talking about a 2000 mile hole.

Ah...my mistake, I thought that you were talking about, say, a domed or underground colony on Mars or the Moon. Orbital colonies sound good to me, as long as the problem of radiation shielding can be dealt with - and that's by no means insurmountable.