backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 148 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on May 23 at 6:06 AM

New observations show that if life exists on Mars, it's probably going to be much deeper underground than expected

Scientists have posited that if life exists on Mars presently, it is probably hidden out of view in aquifers beneath the planet's barren surface. Unfortunately, new data collected by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter suggests that these aquifers, if they exist, are probably much deeper inside the small ruddy planet than researchers had hoped.

Using the orbiter's SHARAD (Shallow Radar) instrument, scientists have been able to get a very detailed picture of Mars' nothern global icecap and the planet's crust below. Though the data has proven very useful in fleshing out the life cycle of the giant ice cap, it also shows that the martian lithosphere, or the outer crust, is very stiff.

Earth's lithosphere, in contrast, is somewhat soft. A large buildup of ice on Earth in a situation similar to Mars' would actually cause the crust to sag beneath its weight. On Mars, this is not happening. Scientists believe this shows that Mars' lithosphere is quite thick and cold.

Warmed internally by pressure and/or an active core, a planet's lithosphere gradually grows colder towards the outside. Mars' lithosphere being stiff enough to not sag under the immense weight of its icecaps indicates that the any warmth generated internally does not venture far from the core, making the outer crust much colder than anticipated. This cold would prevent liquid water from forming anywhere near the surface. Instead, should it exist, it would be much deeper and most likely inaccessible by any easy means.

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's detailed imaging of the icecap did show evidence for a planetary climate, however. Alternating layers of dusty ice and nearly pure ice are thought to show a timetable of approximately one million year intervals. This coincides with the estimate that the cap itself is roughly four million years old. The climate changes are likely caused by variations in the planet's rotational axis and orbit.

More surface data from the northern polar region should be available very soon as NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander is slated to set down on the planet's surface in just over a week. The lander will explore the polar region and look for signs of the existence of water on the surface in the past.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

so...
By retrospooty on 5/17/2008 9:06:22 AM , Rating: 3
The major question is not "does" life exist on Mars... It is "DID" life used to exist on Mars. Billions of years ago it was much more Earthlike, had liquid water and could easily have supported microscopic life, if not higher forms.




RE: so...
By overzealot on 5/17/2008 9:36:22 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I'm sure it's a high priority to determine that life has ever existed there.
If there is evidence that life has existed on Mars, there's sure to be a lot of interest in whether some lifeforms have managed to adapt the significantly changed ecosystem. Any organism that's existed and evolved for that long would be a biologists dream.
Although, if they're deep it will take many years to discover the truth.


RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By maven81 on 5/17/2008 9:57:54 AM , Rating: 3
Ah the same tired old argument. So killing the apollo program helped us solve problems on earth did it? And spending trillions of dollars trying to eliminate poverty worked so well...
Or could it be that the majority of the problems we face need political not economic solutions?

Why can't we talk about space exploration without this cropping up every time?
Consider that if life is found in the solar system (and I think there's a good possibility), it will give religious leaders something to think about... Maybe that's what you're really scared of. For instance if life is found on Europa, or Enceladus someone will have a lot of explaining to do.


RE: so...
By sld on 5/17/2008 11:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
Religious leaders? I thought the Catholic Church has dogmatically swallowed the life-on-multiple-worlds worldview hook, line and sinker already?

I wonder how many negative results astroscientists are going to come across before they give up. Maybe they don't want to give up because they are desperate in finding a basis for their own beliefs, whatever these may be..


RE: so...
By daftrok on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By Chaser on 5/17/2008 2:39:32 PM , Rating: 1
And where do those morals come from?


RE: so...
By ImSpartacus on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By daftrok on 5/17/2008 7:07:27 PM , Rating: 4
Mainly morals are taught from parents and of course the stories that the religious books teach, which encompass the universal idea of stealing (Kite Runner stated this point very intelligently):
Don't steal material things (thievery)
Don't steal lives (killing)
Don't steal spouses (adultery)
Don't steal virginity (raping)
Don't steal the truth (lying, cheating)
Don't steal your family's honor (disrespecting family)

These are basic morality taught by the holy books which are then fine tuned in your mind, what with the help of parents or religious figures.

But being punished just for being homosexual or not believing in God or supposedly God-like figures or believing in evolution is blatant human opinion that was spilled onto the holy books when they were created and exaggerated with interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of extreme conservative religious figures. And that spiraled out of control into religion being a business venture rather than a religious journey and that makes me make a frowny face...:(


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/17/2008 7:28:37 PM , Rating: 5
Stripping away religion entirely, many of the things religion suggests people do (kindness, no stealing, etc) make sense for any species that desires to have a higher level of existance than hunter-gathering. All of the things daftrok just listed are rather essential for maintaining peace in any sort of modern civilization, where we all live and work together in cities/communities.

Even enshrining respect for the standard two-person nuclear household makes sense, as any economist knows it's the most efficient way households can take advantage of efficiencies of scale and raise kids. (Note I said two persons, not a man and woman, that much doesn't matter)

Start breaking daftrok's rules, and people start getting angry at each other. Steal enough, rape enough, and lie enough, and people start killing each other. Not good for cities.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 12:27:18 AM , Rating: 4
> "(Note I said two persons, not a man and woman, that much doesn't matter)"

Personally, I believe the male-female nuclear household, however, does have benefits above and beyond a generic "two person" composition. It seems self-evident that when both members have a biologic interest in the offspring, they are likely to be more committed to a successful outcome.


RE: so...
By Hydrofirex on 5/18/2008 7:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, not like you to spout unsupportable flub like that. If you really stopped to consider the facts I think you'd realize that what you're calling "self-evident" is a highly ignorant and one-sided position. Both men and women in any combination and are just as capable of completely disregarding children - or conversely raising them. Show me some proof if you can.

HfX


RE: so...
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 8:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
If Masher wants to fight that battle, I'll let him. However, the data I've seen myself made no distinction between "normal" and same-sex households with respect to how their children turned out. Two parent households trump, by far, single parent households in child outcomes and economic efficiency; that's the only solid thing I've seen.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/18/2008 8:14:06 PM , Rating: 4
> "Show me some proof if you can."

It is well known that there are elevated rates of both neglect and abuse among stepchildren. In fact, there is even a name for the condition, the "Cinderella Effect". See this research paper for details:

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/buller/cind...

On a general basis, people care more for their own biologic offspring. A million years of evolution has programmed us thus. While examples to the contrary exist, if anything they reinforce the general rule, rather than disproving it.

It is for this reason that it seems self-evident that the typical male-female nuclear family is the most succesful at raising and caring for children...and indeed, it explains why that unit evolved socially in the first place.

> "Wow, not like you to spout unsupportable flub like that."

My "flub", as you put it, is always well supported.


RE: so...
By NullSubroutine on 5/18/2008 11:59:10 PM , Rating: 1
No its not. How many 'biological parents' leave their children or abuse them?

Stepchildren studies are not the same as same-sex couple studies.

Male-female nuclear family is not the most successful at raising and caring for children. The most successful are the parents of any number of sex that take an active participation in raising their children, teaching them values, and having good values to teach them.

quote:
Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.


RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 3:03:20 AM , Rating: 4
> "Studies [of] children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences..."

And other studies have shown the exact opposite, though such results predictably receive far less press attention. Here's one such study, whose results showed children of gay parents are at significantly higher risk for a number of negative outcomes:

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF%20readings/...

In any case, the study you cite is fatally flawed from the start, as it compares only lesbian couples who raised children up to their teenage years. Right away that eliminates the worst category of all -- couples who refused to stay together, leaving only one adult to care for the children. That's the entire point I was making...couples for which both parents lack a biological interest, break up more often. Your study excludes that case entirely.

Even worse, the study examined lesbians only, not gays. In regards to child-rearing, males, lacking maternal instincts, are substantially more likely than females to lack emotional bonds to a stepchild for which they have no biological interest.