Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Alex Antunes | September 29th 2009 08:25 AM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Daytime Astronomer articles

All

About Alex Antunes

In "The Sky By Day", Dr. Alex Antunes serves twice-weekly slices of life from the sometimes strange, sometimes oddly normal workday of a NASA astrophysicist. Readers get the inside scoop on what... Full Bio

Here's an experiment.  Prepare for 3 days of hiking.  Pack light-- sleeping bag, tarp, knife, matches.  Bring protein bars and rice for food.  And then pick up 3 gallons (11 liters) of water and start walking.  What's the heaviest part of your gear?  Of course it's the water.

If we're going to get anywhere in this solar system, we need to go where there is water.  Everything else can be dehydrated, miniaturized, made more portable.  You can even make oxygen from water, just by adding some electricity (such as from solar power).  But water-- which also makes up most of our body-- is the one item we so desperately need, but can't mimic.

Enter this game changing bit of Mars research-- there is water on Mars, not just speculative 'might be water', not just locked up at the frozen poles.  Ice water, not methane or some other non-drinkable.  And it's near the surface even at lower latitudes.

 water on Mars! The patch of ice exposed at this late-2008 crater was large enough for the orbiter's spectrometers to take readings and confirm that it is H2O.  Courtesy of Science@NASA.

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) found surface water on Mars in five recent meteor impact sites.  "This ice is a relic of a more humid climate from perhaps just several thousand years ago," says Shane Byrne of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

People sometimes wonder why we want to go back to the Moon or to planets we've visited before.  This sort of story tells us why-- because we need to keep finding new stuff, to keep digging.  The NASA report notes the ice exposed by fresh impacts suggests that NASA's Viking Lander 2, digging into mid-latitude Mars in 1976, might have struck ice if it had dug only 10 centimeters (4 inches) deeper.

NASA mapThis map shows five locations where fresh impact cratering has excavated water ice from just beneath the surface of Mars (sites 1 through 5) and the Viking Lander 2 landing site (VL2),  in the context of color coding to indicate estimated depth to ice. Map and caption from Science@NASA.

And just for fun, that same day, NASA also announced the definitive discovery of water on the Moon.  Small amounts, yes, barely a trace, but then again, the Moon doesn't have any real atmosphere.  Surface water just boils away into vacuum.  But in the lunar soil was clear evidence of water molecules, in small but real amounts.  The Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) on Indian's Chandrayaan-1 mooncraft saw it, and Cassini and Expoi confirmed the results.


Moon water A very young lunar crater as viewed by NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper. On the right, the distribution of water-rich minerals is shown in false-color blue. Courtesy of Science@NASA 


It's not a flowing spring waiting for settlers to arrive, but it is water, and it suggests there might be more.  One theory says the dark, unlit portions of ordinary lunar craters might have water.

Humorously, some use these sorts of discoveries to argue against funding space exploration.  The argument starts with "since we've already explored these places, why go back?", then concludes with "and look, those scientists keep changing their minds!"  In science, change is good.

The purpose of science is to progressively increase our body of knowledge in order to make better predictions that ultimately lead to a better world.  In this case, that better world may be the Moon, or Mars.


Alex, The Daytime Astronomer, Tues&Fri here, via RSS feed, and twitter @skyday


Read about my own private space venture in The Satellite Diaries!

Comments

Excellent article. Cool findings, good context, well done (if not well concealed) subtext.

antunes's picture
Thanks for the nod.  As a followup, there's a neat  space.com piece today about the actual tech used to convert Moon to Water.

Alex


kerrjac's picture
Good article.

(Funding aside) I've never really understood the scientific import of discovering water on mars.

Whenever I read about it, the assumption seems to be that water is a sign of life on mars. I guess the inference being made is that water is thought to be a formative element for life on earth, and so it may play a similar role on mars. But how many of the principles for the development of life on earth can we apply to the development of life on mars? And wouldn't the discovery of water on the moon - which I would think is highly un-habitable - raise questions about the formative role of water in the development of life?

It's clear that - in one sense or another - water is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for life. But if we begin to find water in so many different locations, then it not only weakens this association, but questions underlying causality. (ad absurdum, imagine if substance x is found to be everywhere,  habitats that have life and those that do not)

antunes's picture
the assumption seems to be that water is a sign of life on mars.


It's, alas, simpler than that.  The assumption is "if there is no water, there is no prospect of life".  After all, life doesn't produce water, so water does not mean life is there.  But the lack of water does suggest 'no life possible'.

Once there's water, we can start looking for more complex indicators-- complex carbon chains, amino acids, anomalous methane production, odd lasers being fired at earth, and so in, in increasing complexity.

So detecting water is just the first step to try and find places that a) can support life and b) might have life.  And those are two separate questions.  The first leads to the second, but also leads to "so we can visit", in itself and important consideration.
 
Alex


kerrjac's picture
Thanks for the response.

Just to throw out a bit more skepticism (more curiosity really): Looking at causal inferences, a 'necessary but not sufficient' factor becomes meaningless if that factor is (at the extreme) universally present, or (more realistically) if it is present much more than previously thought.

For example, consider the notion of 'sensitivity' of a medical screen, say, for a disease x. The screen tests for antibodies. You give the screen to everyone, and everyone who has disease x has the antibodies against it. At the same time, 98% of the population has antibodies to disease x, but only <1% at any given time actually have it. The test is useless, but you can still say that antibodies to disease x are a necessary but not sufficient condition for having it.

Now, imagine that every planet and moon we travel to - surprisingly - contains water, but doesn't contain life. In this case, completing the analogy: life is like disease x, water is the antibodies, and testing for the presence of water is the medical screen.

In both these scenarios, you still have what's thought to be necessary but not sufficient factor. But the implicitly overlooked assumption is the sensitivity of that factor. From my very novice position, finding water in clearly uninhabitable extraterrestrial places like the moon seems to raise this possibility, as it questions the link between water and life.

antunes's picture
I agree with 'necessary but not sufficient'.  However, finding water in the moon doesn't necessarily indicate water is ubiquitous... because the moon likely either co-formed with the Earth, split off from the Earth, or otherwise is 'earth-like'.  So the moon isn't a random airless world, but a chunk of Earth.  Water on the moon doesn't say water is really likely even in the most unlikely of places.  It just says, hey, our neighbor has water.

We have so much left to learn!

Alex


Love this science on moon
Amazing discovery

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.