Maybe journalists are scientifically illiterate or maybe they are reporting it and I keep missing the key point:
There was liquid water on Mars or there is liquid water on Mars?
“Is”, at least periodically. Very briny water that turns liquid in the summer.
There is.
Over the last ten years or so, we have amassed almost certain evidence - dry streambeds, minerals that form in water, etc - that there WAS a lot of liquid water on Mars in the distant past.
The recent announcement is that there is pretty good evidence that occasionally small streams of liquid water flow on the surface of Mars now.
If I was on the surface, what would the flowing water look like? (I understand this could differ as flowing water bodies differ on earth, but a general idea, would I see it as a stream, a pond, a puddle, mud)?
A damp streak of mud seeping out the side of a hill. Probably no visible running water on the surface.
It’s also extremely salty water, which is why it can be liquid at subfreezing temperatures.
in Mars.
They found some kind of powdered water. It’s really cool, and they’re thinking of bringing it back to earth so they can market it. It’s ightweight, easy to transport. Great for camping and hiking. All you have to do is add water.
Hello all, I’m a newbie, so bring on the welcomes.
Um, I’m pretty sure you have to add coffee to get water.
Welcome.
Welcome to Mars.
Vilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome !
The only acceptable fluids are fermented agave-based fluids.
The discovery is not all that earthshaking. The “dry valleys” of Antarctica also have saline lakes, but nothing in them save microbial and algae based life. What is likely is that slumping topsoil layers have exposed permafrost layers, which melt in the summer heat and briefly flow.
It is a safe bet that NASA wants their budget increased.
Of course they want their budget increased. Everyone and every organization in existence wants their budget increased. That’s a pointless observation.
But if you’re implying that they’re overexaggerating the importance of this discovery in order to secure funding they don’t really deserve, then that’s just stupid. This IS a huge discovery. The big difference between Mars and Antarctica is that Mars is on ANOTHER PLANET. This is the first time (I believe) that liquid water has been detected anywhere other than Earth. This makes finding life on Mars much more likely than it was.
You can argue, if you like, that these discoveries don’t matter, or it’s not where our priorities should be, but trying to claim that this is no big deal, or a discovery not worthy of media interest, is idiotic.
That depends on what you mean by “detected”, I think. The evidence is quite strong for liquid water under the icy surface of Europa, too. It’s never been observed directly, but then again, from what I understand, neither has this water.
Right…liquid water on Europa has been theorized, and there’s a strong argument to be made that it’s there, but I don’t think there’s any direct evidence for it. The Martian evidence isn’t quite “direct”, but it’s pretty damned close.
It’s pretty Marsshaking, though.
Apparently it is there, in a very salty form. I have read that there may be frozen oceans beneath the dirt in some locations.
If we could get a nuclear reactor on Mars close to some of the water, we could desalinate it and do all kinds of things with it. Or, who knows, there may be oil, coal and natural gas on Mars from ancient plant life. Global warming really doesn’t matter on Mars, does it? It’d be better with more atmosphere, whatever the source.
Energy + water = let’s go to Mars.
Just out of curiosity, how far down into Mars’ crust would you have to dig before it started getting warm?