
Signs of Liquid Water Found on Surface of Mars, Study Says - uptown
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/science/space/mars-life-liquid-water.html
======
netcraft
The first I have heard of Don Juan Pond
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_Pond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_Pond))
although I wouldn't say it looks like a swimming pool
([http://www.lakescientist.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/don-...](http://www.lakescientist.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/don-juan-pond.jpg)).

Edit: Here is an article from brown that also draws parallels between Don Juan
and Mars:
[https://news.brown.edu/articles/2013/02/antarctica](https://news.brown.edu/articles/2013/02/antarctica)

~~~
dsfsdfd
Not so long ago it was stated frequently and with certainty that there was no
liquid water on Mars. That there could be no liquid water on Mars. Which
having read into the topic I thought was obviously non sense. Now every one is
like there's water on mars, we've know for a while - you can see the flows. In
fact we deliberately don't go to places likely to be wet for fear of cross
contamination. I feel like I have been fed spin. Why don't other people see
this and more importantly why aren't other people angry at being mislead? I
feel like there is a consistent attempt to manipulate the truth before it is
presented for public consumption, in many spheres of life. Who are these
people that deem themselves entitled enough to decide what is known and what
is unknown?

~~~
zornthewise
I don't think most people intentionally do this. It just makes someone look
smart if they proclaim things confidently and so they do it. I try to be as
honest as possible when communicating and I have caught myself sometimes
stating things with more confidence than I had. I think it might just be part
of how humans communicate...

------
brianstorms
Dumb question probably, but here goes:

Given the latest NASA news about water on Mars, as in, “flowing water on
today’s Mars,” I am still trying to figure out how that would work.

If water boils at 79ºF when the atmospheric pressure is lowered to 0.5psi,
what would it boil at given Mars’ atmospheric pressure of 0.087psi?

How could Mars, which barely has an atmosphere, support liquid water? Why
would not the water basically evaporate quickly if not boil off almost
instantly?

~~~
barkingcat
Those numbers are for pure water. If water is mixed with something, salts (not
just sodium salt, but salts of other elements as well), etc, that changes the
properties of the resulting mixture.

The water on mars is probably "salty" mixture, maybe slush, but we don't
really know what it's consisted of unless we have measurements / spectral
analysis of the water mixture.

~~~
m-app
Indeed. NASA showed the following slide, comparing the different temperatures:
[http://snpy.in/NdFEnS](http://snpy.in/NdFEnS)

------
nmc
Official NASA announcement: [https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-
evidence-th...](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-
that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars)

------
crusso
_R.S.L.s are treated as special regions that NASA’s current robotic explorers
are barred from because the rovers were not thoroughly sterilized_

We're not going to sterilize our research equipment going to Mars and we're
not going to search likely sites where we could find life because we don't
want to contaminate them. And yet, looking for signs of life native to Mars
(or even water which might support life) is the top reason we're there,
judging by the headlines. Seems like someone in NASA needs to work out this
conflict.

~~~
gambiting
The article mentions how equipment that needs to be sterilized is baked to a
very high temperature - but I wonder, can it not be sterilized with radiation,
like we already do with food? All electronics on a rover are already radiation
hardened, after all Curiosity has to work while having a chunk of plutonium
strapped to its back. Is this not an option of some reason?

~~~
gee_totes
What happens when Curiosity contaminates the RSLs with radiation?

~~~
jerf
Humans did not invent radiation, you know. In fact we live in a remarkably
well-shielded area. Certainly better shielded than the surface of Mars.

Besides, we're on another planet. If our payload was nothing but the nastiest
chemical we could come up with, we still couldn't ship enough to Mars for it
to matter.

No, the only payload that could conceivably be harmful is one that can self-
replicate, which at this juncture means life. (Ask again in a hundred years.)

------
leonardzen
Wouldn't it be bad if life forms are found in Mars, according to this?
[http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-
paradox.html](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html)

~~~
NhanH
Speaking in Bayesian probability, it's bad if life forms found on Mars are
more advanced than human, and good if it's much less advanced, or even very
primitive (as it means the Great Filter might be at an earlier stage than us
right now).

And it won't be the former case, for obvious reason.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Finding life on Mars would still change one of the polynomials of the Drake
Equation, which would shift upward the overall expected probability for
intelligent life in the cosmos, which is probably what leonardzen means.

But "we don't have enough data yet" still seems like a good answer to the
Fermi Paradox anyway.

~~~
hanspeter
It would shift upward the overall expected probability for intelligent life at
_our level_. However, since we have no evidence of life beyond our level of
intelligence, it also increases the probability that civilizations will not
survive long enough to become much more advanced than our civilization.

------
coryfklein
> For the water to be liquid, it must be so salty that nothing could live
> there, he said. “The short answer for habitability is it means nothing,” he
> said.

This dose of realism dampens my enthusiasm _slightly_ , but if we can find
such clear signs of water via satellite image I think it is a great indication
that water is more present at the surface than previously thought.

~~~
smchang
Although, just a couple of paragraphs down

>“If it was too salty, they would be flowing year round,” Dr. Stillman said.
“We might be in that Goldilocks zone.”

------
peter303
Solar system life may turn turn out t chemically similar. That is because it
arose on one body, then cross-infected other other bodies by meteorite
transfer over many millions of years.

Mars became geologically stable before Earth, so it could have been the
earliest place for life. Then Martian meteors infected Earth.

~~~
chadzawistowski
How could a meteor have launched from Mars and reached Earth? It stretches my
mind to imagine a situation where a meteor drops down, picks up life, then
drops it off on the next planet. Are there records of meteoric impacts like
that?

The best situation I can think of is a catastrophic volcanic explosion which
launches a chunk of the planet into space, but that still sounds far-fetched
to me.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
Here's
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite))
an example how. Asteroid impact.

------
eddd
I know that without water life would have never begun, but I still don't fully
understand why it is necessary. It is still big discovery though, if life is
that common I think we should be more careful during migration there,
"Marsian" common cold could wipe out the entire human colony.

~~~
dangrossman
> I know that without water life would have never begun, but I still don't
> fully understand why it is necessary.

"Life" is a bunch of chemical processes. A necessary prerequisite is therefore
a solvent in which those chemical processes can occur, and which can move
substances around, whether it's within a cell, an organism, or an environment.

Of all the potential solvents, solids can't move stuff around, and in gases,
only volatile and highly concentrated substances would have a chance to react.
It's also _too_ easy to move around in a gas: potential gas-based "life" would
just...fall apart.

So the solvent and carrier being a liquid is also likely a prerequisite for
life. It also has to stay a liquid at a relatively wide range of temperatures,
and be abundant enough so that all the rare coincidences that might lead to
life have a chance of happening and perpetuating.

Water is the only molecule that fits the bill, and happens to be the second
most common molecule in the universe.

~~~
eddd
I am not good at chemistry, but liquid methane–ethane wouldn't fit the
profile?

~~~
eddd
Actually I found comprehensive answer here if anyone is interested:
[http://www.space.com/13639-alien-life-methane-habitable-
zone...](http://www.space.com/13639-alien-life-methane-habitable-zone.html)

~~~
VLM
It doesn't really say "why". Water ionizes really conveniently so you can make
it an acid OR a base (which is sorta unusual and it can talk to acidic or
basic things), and is polar (its got a + and a - electrical side, more or
less, so it can talk to + or - things), and has hydrogen bonds (so you get
liquid lifestyle at gas temps)

For one why, look up amphoteric and zwitterion. Water has a super convenient
pH range where about a ten millionth of pure water self ionizes aka ten to neg
seventh or pH of 7, and all kinds of super convenient reactions occur above
and below that pH and its really easy to manipulate ionization rates around
that level without using too much. You don't need just a liquid but one where
you can really screw around with something like amino acids by easily and
cheaply changing the ionization rate of the liquid. So there are super
convenient chemical reactions that depend on the ionization level of the
liquid and its really easy to manipulate water. Conveniently water "just
works" without having to add tons of other stuff to it.

Liquid methane isn't polar enough to really be useful when messing with ionic
substances (table salt, etc). Whatever you use for a liquid, it needs to be
polar so ionic stuff like salts can dissolve. It turns out that interesting
chemistry doesn't happen with non-polar substances at normal temps; thats why
when you bury stuff for a couple million years the only thing left behind
undecayed (more or less) is non-polar hydrocarbons (crude oil). Ammonia is
polar but has other issues.

The hydrogen bonds are important. Water should be a gas at room temp. Really,
it should, looking at bonds and molecular weight and stuff. Yet the hydrogen
bonds that form keep it liquid at room temp. So you get "gas speed" chemical
reactions at "high" room temperature, yet its liquid to a ridiculously high
temp.

Maybe some custom liquid silicone with some bolted on weirdness could make a
useful artificial blood plasma or "stuff" for life to live in. How it would
make it without the chemical plant being made first is mysterious.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
Sometimes I wonder that not only it is not possible for other forms of life to
exist that wouldn't use water, carbon and others, but that we have life just
because it so happened coincidentally that our universe were created with the
exact properties needed for the laws of physics to support life for a short
while in some places.

------
tomkwok
NASA's 'Mars Mystery Solved' Press Conference starts at 11:30 a.m. EDT.

Live TV:
[http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/](http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/)

~~~
sjg
Seems like the the NASA TV Site is not loading for me here.
[http://www.ustream.tv/NASAHDTV](http://www.ustream.tv/NASAHDTV) is working
however.

------
peter303
They've seen seep-like events in craters and canyons for over ten years. This
study determines it to be water and not something else.

------
beambot
They won't explore the water-flowing sites to: "minimize the chances of life
inadvertently crossing the solar system."

So let's just spread life intentionally. It seems like that is one of our
goals anyway -- not necessarily for governments (ie. NASA), but certainly for
private space flight.

~~~
rm445
The aim is to settle the question of whether life exists on Mars, or ever has,
before clouding the issue with modern contamination. I say modern just in case
of various panspermia-type possibilities.

That doesn't preclude eventually spreading life to Mars. Even if living
indigenous bacteria, or even plant life(!) were found - I think this is the
most ambitious scenario now conceivable, the 'Mars mat' of fiction suviving in
caves - it likely wouldn't be an argument to stop colonisation, though it
might have bearing on arguments about terraforming.

------
charleywolters
I mean that's great news but didn't they announce this like 10 times before?
Isn't there a meme about this, that NASA announced they found water on Mars
like once a year?

~~~
peter303
Soem of the times were for ancient water. But they have shown evidence of
recent water before too.

------
Tinyyy
Youtube Live link, works reliably:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDh4uK9PvJU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDh4uK9PvJU)

~~~
mkobit
Another link/stream/mirror (for those using Ctrl+F) -
[http://mars.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=Show...](http://mars.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1856)

------
foota
Does anyone else think that the form of life found on Mars would most likely
be completely distinct from what is found here, down to the molecular and cell
level?

~~~
mangeletti
Other than the possibility that the origins of life and potential life on Mars
are the same, I think the same thing as you.

Imagine it is completely distinct, and doesn't have cells.

~~~
foota
Yeah, I missed that caveat. I'm really excited to see what it might be and how
it could potentially change our definition of what's living.

------
iridium127
Would that mean that this water have a very high salt content since it is not
frozen?

~~~
exodust
They said "briny water" so yes.

------
madhurbehl
So where is the liquid water coming from ? and as per the article if the
evidence suggests that water would have flowed just 'days' before, is it in
the realm of possibility to detect actual water from MRO ?

~~~
coryfklein
FTA

> “There are two basic origins for the water: from above or from below,” Dr.
> McEwen said. The perchlorates could be acting like a sponge, absorbing
> moisture out of the air... The other possibility is underground aquifers,
> frozen solid during winter, melting during summer and seeping to the
> surface.

Although "rain"/humidity is unlikely, the article also discusses why it can
still be considered a possibility since we don't have good humidity
measurements at the surface.

------
coldtea
Maybe arsenic-based life too? This special announcement for merely "signs of"
(instead of corfirmation) speaks of PR and the need to secure next years
budget...

~~~
sampo
Currently the mainstream opinion is that the bacteria didn't use arsenate, but
were very good at using the small amounts of phosphate that was still present
in the experiment. And that the experimenters were not very good at cleaning
all the phosphate out of the growth medium.

So the highly publicized 2010 study is now pretty much falsified.

[http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-
ph...](http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-phosphorus-
after-all-1.11520)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Criticism)

------
aidos
I'm so confused. "Definitive signs"? Is this the Nasa announcement or
something else? I thought it didn't start for another 15 minutes.

~~~
barkingcat
This is most likely the Nasa announcement. Remember folks! Science doesn't
happen in a vacuum.

The scientific papers that outline this analysis was already available in
astronomy circles - the Nasa event is the press conference letting the bigger
community know.

It's not like it's a secret! All the measurements were already made by the
Orbitor and is presumably analysed by researchers around the world prior to
this unveiling.

~~~
fudged71
"Science doesn't happen in a vacuum."

This is NASA we're talking about, right? ;)

------
codecamper
This is good news for Apple. Liquid Spill Indicators will generate revenue on
Mars too!

------
amai
If there would be signs of oil the US would invade Mars tomorrow...

------
betolink
This is just amazing!!

------
mspokoiny
This is amazing!!!

------
sidcool
Confirmed! Mars has liquid water.

------
a3n
If there is water of any sort on Mars, ice, liquid, salty, whatever, I think
finding life on Mars is inevitable. Life is very, very persistent, and niches
will be filled.

Unfortunately it's also all but inevitable that we'll bring some with us, if
we haven't already. Life is persistent, and ever-surprising.

~~~
tempVariable
Interesting. I read that in Jeff Goldblum's voice as well. Were there any
missions that lifted off Mars and came back to Earth ?

~~~
jkaunisv1
No, we don't have the capability to land something on Mars with enough fuel
for it to take off again.

~~~
wtracy
We don't need to:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Manufacturin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Manufacturing_propellant_on_Mars)

~~~
jkaunisv1
You're right! Even though I cited the Sabatier reaction to a coworker today
when discussing the news, I didn't really think about it when answering. Also,
for some reason I thought it wasn't yet a technical reality.

I guess also wrapped into my statement was the thought that to be able to
launch something back it would have to be landed very well and require some
very complex machinery to prepare for launch, given the success rates of just
being able to land something on Mars without it breaking. I went with the
first reason off the top of my head :)

------
nsxwolf
Latest incarnation of the perennial headline... Best evidence yet of water on
Mars! I've been enjoying these all my life. This and "Nuclear fusion created
in a laboratory for the first time" headlines.

My favorite best-evidence-yet-of-water-on-Mars was that time the Phoenix robot
scooped up an ice cube and took a picture of it.

~~~
ForHackernews
This finding is about contemporary, liquid, water.

~~~
nsxwolf
Not a new discovery in itself, either.

~~~
kenbellows
yes it is...?

~~~
coldtea
You haven't been following these news very closely, do you?

2008: NASA Spacecraft Confirms Martian Water, Mission Extended
[http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jul/HQ_08_195_Phoenix_w...](http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jul/HQ_08_195_Phoenix_water.html)

2009: Meteorite Impacts Expose Ice on Mars [http://science.nasa.gov/science-
news/science-at-nasa/2009/24...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-
at-nasa/2009/24sep_martianice/)

2010: NASA Trapped Mars Rover Finds Evidence of Subsurface Water
[http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2010-355](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2010-355)

2011: Observations from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have revealed
possible flowing water during the warmest months on Mars.
[http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2011/04...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2011/04aug_marsflows/)

2013: Curiosity's SAM Instrument Finds Water and More in Surface Sample
[http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/curiositys-sam-
instrumen...](http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/curiositys-sam-instrument-
finds-water-and-more-in-surface-sample/#.Vgn9dKZrjdQ)

2014: New Evidence for a Mars Water Reservoir
[http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2014/19...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2014/19dec_marswater/)

~~~
mehwoot
First three links and fifth are all talking about ice, not liquid flowing
water.

Fourth link isn't conclusive

 _These results are the closest scientists have come to finding evidence of
liquid water on the planet 's surface today._

The last link summarises that liquid water has not been conclusively found
yet, and it is the most recent:

 _While recent orbiter missions have confirmed the presence of subsurface ice,
and melting ground-ice is believed to have formed some geomorphologic features
on Mars, this study used meteorites of different ages to show that significant
ground water-ice may have existed relatively intact over time.

Curiosity’s observations in a lakebed, in an area called Mount Sharp, indicate
Mars lost its water in a gradual process over a significant period of time._

So none of your links contradict what the person you are replying to said.

