Is evidence for Mars water big news?

I was hoping for a little more, like direct evidence of past/present life. So, in that respect, I feel a little let down (I just set myself up for something truly mind-boggling).

Water is a key step, though, because life as we know it on this planet requires water in some capacity.

I personally believe there is/was life up there and I am hoping for proof in my lifetime.

how long the water was there, and where it went.

If we can follow the water, we have a good chance of detecting evidence of life.

so if water was there, where are the fossils? :shrug:

Not sure whethether the rovers that are on the planet now are fully equipped to study for fossils.

but it's worth speculating about. Too bad they can't pick up samples and bring them back here.

Speaking of your point, I understand there is another mission to Mars planned for 5-10 years out that will do just that - land, scoop up samples and return them back to Earth.

*clapping my hands like a 3 year old waiting for my favorite treat* :D

really want anything brought back?
A run of the mill microbe from Mars could wipe out a good percentage of life on this planet.

microbial life.

If there was water there probably was life. Maybe even Martians. This may not fit into the fundie scheme of things and so the science will have to be destroyed.

so they'll ignore any evidence on Mars.

to explain it. "Scientists have uncovered the Gommorah of Biblical fame!"

For the rest of us its a big YAWN, especially since the "water" dried up eons ago (NASA wouldn't even venture a guess as to when that was).

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/The_Meteorite.html

I recall reading about meteorites that were discovered in Antarctica in the late 1980s which were Martian in origin appeared to contain tiny fossils and gave every indication of proving that Mars, at least at one time, had water on it.

Not to knock the current research...proof positive is always better than 99% sure. It's just not surprising.

IIRC is that they could never conclusively proof that they had not been contaminated with earth detritus before we discovered them. There needed to be samples taken from Mars with the same little critters in them.

I'm sure someone else, paging TXLib, has better info than me.

First, we know the meteorite (ALH84001) was from Mars because tiny gas bubbles locked in the meteorite match the isotopic content of the martian atmosphere, measured by the Viking landers in the 1970s.

The sites of the suspected nanofossils are unlikely to have been contaminated during their presence on earth.

Basically, the evidence is suggestive of microbial life, but inconclusive.

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/antmet/marsmets/alh84001/sample.htm

The Martian meteorite has been a big controversy ever since a NASA team claimed they found fossils in it back in 1996. In short, though, the consensus is that if it contained any evidence at all for past Martian life, its evidence was extremely inconclusive; perhaps even worthless. It still has its defenders, but most do not believe that that evidence is worth much by itself.

About the only real evidence we've had for water once being present on the surface of Mars is landforms seen from orbit that look like drainage patterns, etc.

Getting solid geological evidence is much more concrete.

But still, until other scientists have had a chance to look at, criticize, and provide alternate explanations for what was presented today, I still don't think we are particularly sure about this result.

Nonetheless, the possibility of concrete evidence for water's past presence of the surface of Mars is a very exciting one for anyone interested in the history of the Solar System.

--Peter

I think it IS important to understand the Solar System; and I think, regardless of our current budgetary woes, we need to be exploring space since we're quickly running out of space on Earth.

This is just a distraction people. Don't fall victim to the media trying to pull our attention away from chimpy.

And I don't care. I'm sorry, it's just not that big of a deal. Outer space isn't a priority. When they find actual life, then you'll have my interest.

it is a stunning find

I kind of disagree that because there's water.. theres such a good chance of there being life...

Just because the conditions are right, doesn't necessarily make it so.

I am really excited about the Mars exploration, don't get me wrong.... it's pretty much one of the coolest things going on right now for me, following the exploration and stuff.. I've always been a space nut.

However, I think there's a pretty good chance Mars is sterile and always was.

Heyo

The point is, we just don't know.

We have one data point - earth. Life formed on earth pretty much as soon as it was possible. The astrophysical theories (and observations) are compelling, suggesting that life precursors have aeons to form before a planetary system forms, so that when the conditions are right, life is almost a certain consequence.

I, personally, believe the Universe is brimming over with life. It is probably a natural consequence of the evolution of the Universe.

we already knew that there was water on Mars.

How can this be "news"?

Read my post above. This piece of "news" is nothing more than a distraction from more pressing matters--Bush's failures for example.

The question is whether warm liquid water oceans may have covered mars in the past, and whether they were there long enough to allow for life to get a foothold.

If it did, and if the water then went underground, life may be there yet. Life is tenacious, and experience with terrestrial extremophiles - microbes that can survive extreme conditions - suggests that martian microbes, if they ever existed, may have followed the water underground, if that is where it went.