Water on Mars!!!

Replies

• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  Well, that's indeed exciting. But if water existed on Mars over 1000 years ago; what's its use now? I understand that humans are trying to setup human civilisation on the distant planet; but are the other important factors conducive to living organisms? Does the environment there have enough oxygen; and what are the temperatures ranges?
• 

  durga ch

  Its not about humans setting expetition , that was never a motive , its about knowing if life ever existed on the planet, if it ever fluorished, what factors contributed to change the atmosphere of Mars from a planet like earth to a dry planet like Mars.
  Also, in case astronauts will be sent to Mars in near future, what are the existing condition prevailing ? survival of astronauts possible?
  
  Few scientists have predicted that water might still be flowing down the sruface of Mars.
• 

  Pensu

  Why does it feel like that this news circulates after every 6 months. I am not sure, but I think I have heard this before, that scientist (that too specially at NASA), have found water on some other planet, or some proof that there was water, for that matter. I guess we all have watched "Did we land on moon?" documentary.That looks more convincing than the claim that we reached on moon. Anyways, congratulations to NASA for the achievement!
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  I watched a documentary on Discovery channel about possible mission to put humans on Mars. The documentary clearly mentioned that water existed on Mars' surface millions of years ago; but the changes in the Universe led to water disappearing from the surface. There are no traces of moisture on Mars so far. Even if humans discover water / moisture on the distant planet, I'm not sure whether it's just going to quench our thirst for knowledge or humans are actually planning to build a civilisation on another planet.
• 

  durga ch

  Yes, since the initial expeditions since 1990 on Mars, scientist have always seen Mars as a possible early habitat planet. But very little is known about the red planet, they are only finding evidence for the theories. They might find tomorrow a dried up spring and they might again say that they are sure water was there , that doesn't really mean that they found water. It only means that they have more solid evidence for the fact that 'water was there'.
  Obviously, I somehow believe the moon mission was true, else you always have option to believe that Sunita Williams is only acting as if she is doing a triatheleon in lab space, or hubble telescope is a myth created by NASA or the photographs released of the gorgeous Nebula's a only a work of photoshop.
• 

  Pensu

  #-Link-Snipped-# I am not saying moon mission wasnt true. Nobody knows that except few who actually wrote the script. I am just saying that the arguments in that particular documentary are more convincing. If you havent watched that, I would suggest, you watch it once and then we can discuss about that. Sending people to space is one thing and landing them on another planet(terrestrial body) is different.
  Anyways my point is, if you just want to show that you are superior, you dont need to explore mars and find water there. Spending trillions of dollar in the name of research and saying that there was water doesnt seem legit to me. May be they had to prove worth of that money. I cant remember it completely, but I am sure that found the same thing, something that proves that there was water, somewhere else too. May be that documentary made me too much skeptical, but if its true, its a great achievement nonetheless. 😀
• 

  KenJackson

  This issue pulls me both ways.
  
  From a knowledge and interest position, I'm fascinated by the possibilities. I hope they find water and evidence of a nicer previous Mars. I hope they find life or evidence of it, though I'll be absolutely astounded if anyone ever does.
  
  But from a practical position, there is no way I can advocate that the government tax people against their individual wills to pay for this.
  
  The race to the moon was different. The US and USSR decided that rather than engage in a mass-extinction nuclear war, they each would show themselves technologically superior by being the first to put a man on the moon. It was money well spent. No nuclear weapons were exploded.
  
  But no cause like that exists today.
  
  However, I am delighted that private companies are ferrying goods to the space station. There's no reason that those private companies couldn't spend private funds, if they can attract them, to send rich tourists to Mars and gather scientific evidence while they're there.
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  I'm not at all interested in knowing whether there's water on Mars or any other damn planet on the Earth. I'm not looking down on all the engineering advances it's taken to put the rover on the red planet, but I simply don't see any need for humans to find water on Mars and then device techniques to form a civilisation there. This might be off topic, but I'm more interested in " #-Link-Snipped-# "