Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 495 posts

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#161

Post by TeMPOraL »

nrclark wrote: post #138
softawre wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are we safe forever on Earth ? and that's why Mars exploration is more important than curing cancer. Cancer is unlikely to kill everyone of us all at once.

There's almost nothing we could do to this planet which would make Mars a more attractive option. I guess there's always a meteor/comet risk, but practically anything else still leaves Earth as a better option. Even if we all had to live in bio-domes because the planet was so polluted, it would _still_ be a better option than Mars, just by virtue of the fact that we have gravity and an atmosphere. On Mars, a cracked…

I generally agree (and I'd add: magnetic field, more sunlight - not just for temperature, but also power generation), but come on, Mars does have gravity :).

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#163

Post by larkeith »

smpetrey wrote: post #92
actsasbuffoon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even on moons. There are several moons that have a non-zero chance of having life on them.

I'm betting on Europa. Lovely little moon, so many mysteries. Can't wait to see what we uncover from there.

Heck, even if it ends up being completely lifeless, IMO Europa is still one of the most exciting bodies in the solar system in terms of future potential - Between abundant energy from the Jupiter-Io flux tube, methane fuel from Titan, hydrogen and helium from Jupiter herself, and water from Europa, colonization of the Jupiter system may well be the key to the outer solar system, and potentially even interstellar efforts. More immediately, it could be an essential stepping stone to enable largescale harvesting of the Jupiter Trojans.

Even if you'll never see a Jupiter-rise, I for one love the idea of living on Europa.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#164

Post by FranOntanaya »

liberte82 wrote: post #11

Why don't we send a rover to some of these interesting places? It seems like we're constantly making fascinating finds on Mars, then send rovers to the middle of a random rocky desert.

#1) The need for a large ellipse of flat plains with a minimal amount of hazardous rocks/slopes. Landing accuracy is constrained by our knowledge of the Martian atmosphere. Odd features tend to be on the opposite end of the ground hazard spectrum.

#2) Planetary protection. Mars his a Category V target: it has potentially habitable niches, it has an atmosphere able to carry biological contamination anywhere, and we want to return samples from it to Earth. Chances of contamination are much lower when we stay far away from water ice and active gullies. Modern landers and rovers are much more delicate and intricate than the original Vikings and we can't just bake off all the contamination.

#3) Communications. Equatorial plains have a better view of the relay satellites.

#4) Close up, most interesting features on Mars are still a rocky desert. The Phoenix Lander landed on top of permafrost, which was unintended as it was thought to be just another rocky desert.

#5) Odd features are often complex geologically and characterizing the area near the rover may not say much about Mars nor provide useful context for future, more detailed missions.

#6) Perhaps, a tiny bit of backlash from Viking's ambiguous chemical experiments. It's easier to get conclusive science and write solid papers from old, stable parts of Mars.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#165

Post by enraged_camel »

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #135
enraged_camel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are about a thousand things you use and benefit from everyday that were side effects of other research and spending (primarily military). But you take them for granted and so it is easy for you to make value judgments regarding how money is spent.

> But you take them for granted and so it is easy for you to make value judgments regarding how money is spent. It's rude to make such assumptions about me. I do not take the positive side effects from research for granted. You simply haven't made a case showing why $400B in space research will generate more or better positive side effects than $400B in cancer research. All research will have side effects that can't…

>>You simply haven't made a case showing why $400B in space research will generate more or better positive side effects than $400B in cancer research.

You made the original claim that spending that money on cancer research would be more beneficial. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#166

Post by bvc35 »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #46
collyw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't life thought to have started in "conditions that we humans consider to be absolutely inhospitable".

Yes, but to quote the annoyingly semi-reasonable creationist Ken Ham: “We weren’t there. We didn’t observe it.” (Note: I am not a creationist, I do agree with the logic of that argument, but I also see no scientific basis for any religious origin story of life to have more scientific basis than others). We have recreated the conditions that predate life and found that organic molecules were formed, but we’ve never ob…

You see a man lying still on the ground, blood pooling around his body, and a woman standing close by gripping a knife with bloody hands. What happened? “We weren’t there. We didn’t observe it.”

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#168

Post by larkeith »

DC-3 wrote: post #129
larkeith wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, a bit of reasonably mature humor seems acceptable, it's just multiple posts devoted to jokes derailing the conversation where it's frowned upon. I quite like this system, as it prevents Reddit-esque threads with the same tired memes being repeated back and forth ad nauseum , but still allows for a bit of levity to lighten the conversation and provide some mental refreshment. And yes, I realize I…

So long as you define 'mature' to mean 'in line with the average HN reader's ego and self-image', you're pretty much on point.

That may be the case, but I appreciate it nonetheless - most posters are pretty good at avoiding jokes at the OP's expense, for example, which contributes to HN's relatively good community.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#169

Post by robotrout »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #159
robotrout wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer is often caused when tissue is damaged and needs to heal or try to heal itself repeatedly (inflammation). Sunburn, smoking, chewing tobacco, HPV, acid reflux, can all cause cancer. Saying those are all different cancers that require different cures is a good way to waste a lot of effort and money. It is more accurate to say that inflammation is a cause for cancer, and focus on that.

Point is, this is one of but many causes of diseases jointly classified as "cancer". Cancers share similarities in their (visible) method of action, but they have very different causes. There isn't going to be a single cure for "cancer".

Yes, there are many causes. We are in violent agreement. If you focus on the causes, you are preventing cancer, not curing it. You are playing whack-a-mole.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#170

Post by fjabre »

ryanmercer wrote: post #36
liberte82 wrote: post #11

Why don't we send a rover to some of these interesting places? It seems like we're constantly making fascinating finds on Mars, then send rovers to the middle of a random rocky desert.

For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years. A human can collect more specimens in a day than ALL of the rovers have to date. If we remove this year's launch window, you have 10 minimum-energy launch windows in the next 21 years. 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2037, 2039. If we could g…

Excellent summary. Although I think you're far more likely to make Starfleet 0.5 in the private sector. This problem is too big for current governments because they can't ever agree and ideas will be weighed down by infighting/constituents. Good luck getting 5 countries to agree to anything other than not going to war with eachother these days. Compromises on ideas would be too much for such a mission.

I think the only way to solve this is private industry i.e. SpaceX IPO. Then you've got plenty of cash, fast moving ideas, economies of scale, and most importantly market incentive -> no better type of incentive.

Post reply on HN