Frozen water found on Mars

This is a discussion on Frozen water found on Mars within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Article link: http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?...h=06&year=2008 So I guess now it is official....

  1. #1
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738

    Frozen water found on Mars

    Article link: http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?...h=06&year=2008

    So I guess now it is official.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  2. #2
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    bad reporting, their assertion as to why it is water and not frozen co2 has a hole in it you can drive a saturn rocket through.

    Avg daily temp means nothing, if the temp drops below 109 for brief periods, dry ice can form, then it warms up and the dry ice begins to sublime, but it doesnt explode into sudden gaseous form. It can still maintain a presence as long as the temp in the area drops below 109 on a regular basis. Most of us have seen snow piles that lasted into whether than was well above 32 degrees.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  3. #3
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    Okay here is an official article from NASA:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ph...-20080620.html

    The way I see it...I don't doubt the NASA scientists. I am sure they have done all the proper analysis and have confirmed it is water.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  4. #4
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    the LAPD could have just sprinkled crack on it.

  5. #5
    Unregistered User Yarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,597
    I thought this was old news... but anyway...

    So what? About 70% of Earth is covered with water, a little water is bound to be on neighboring planets. I bet there's even more water there than they think.
    A class that doesn't overload all operators just isn't finished yet. -- SmugCeePlusPlusWeenie
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. -- Alan J. Perlis

  6. #6
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    They are justifiably happy because it was confirmed. Before we argued the presence of water ice. Now we know for sure.

    It's even more important because it's a very good indicator that Mars may have had a denser atmosphere and liquid water sometime in the past. Even, more important, it gives a new boost to the search for extra-terrestrial life on Mars (past or present) since single and multi-cellular organisms can live on ice. Actually on Earth, a whole worm (the ice worm) lives all its life inside ice.

    More... It creates new possibilities for manned explorations of Mars and, for the bolder scientists, introduces a constant (where before was a variable) when discussing the possible terraforming of the planet.

    It's a breakthrough discovery. One of the most important on the past 35 years and the first time we discover the precious liquid in another planet other than ours.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    The way I see it...I don't doubt the NASA scientists. I am sure they have done all the proper analysis and have confirmed it is water.
    With the recent direction NASA has been heading and the crazed non-scientific reports they have recently let fly I seriously doubt the credibility of a great deal of NASA scientists. It's way past time to private the space race. NASA is far too much of a political machine and since it relies on its funding from the government - it sorta has to be. However I feel this flies in the face of great scientific breakthroughs which normally don't align themselves with what we term the status quo.

    And they now want to go back to the moon? C'mon it's been 40 years and the best we can do is still the moon. Isn't it time for some different types of propulsion. Isn't it time to get rid of the shuttle which BTW when they do they are just replacing with the standard rocket which again is old news. And they also send this robot to Mars and yet it has no way of detecting signs of life in its onboard systems. What a waste.

    NASA needs a kick in the arse and hopefully some private firms will give it to them. I used to look up to these guys and now they just disappoint with their wild unproven theories that change from year to year - usually based on what's the 'new thing' in politics.

    I guess I feel like Bruce Willis in Armageddon when he says NASA probably has a bunch of people in a room just thinking 'stuff' up and yet the only plan they have is to send people who are not astronauts into space to save the world.

    Two thumbs down NASA. Way down.

    I hope they revive the glory days of NASA when they were the front-runners of technology instead of trying to do the same old thing a billion times over and over and never gaining anything. The Shuttle hasn't gotten us any closer to what I would call space exploration and I cannot wait till it retires in 2010.

    This article pretty much sums up my feelings. There is a glimmer of hope at the end that maybe we actually will start venturing beyond our own planet. Now that would be something worth funding.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/op...=2&oref=slogin
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 06-24-2008 at 06:03 PM.

  8. #8
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    My father, used to tell me that he would live to the day we would explore other planets or moons. He died without witnessing it. The space race of the 60s bred in him this strong idea anything would be possible now and it would be done fast.

    Unfortunately, the 69 event (just 1 month and 3 days before I was born) had unfortunately nothing to do with space exploration and very little with the breaking of new frontiers. And as such it didn't meet with a follow up through the next decades.

    I think you are however being unfair Bubba. If anything, my complaints go towards the Government which forced NASA onto its knees. If there is going to be any money for them to send a lousy probe to Mars and find water in there, they'll have to sell their souls. Which they eventually do, like many other scientists on completely unrelated fields that are government or privately financed in the US or in the rest of the world.

    I, personally live with the idea that my life would be pretty much uneventful if I didn't witness the finding of extraterrestrial life. I would like to be on this earth that day and celebrate (or run for cover, whichever that may be. Doesn't bother me). I would also like to live the day we fund a permanent colony, even if only scientists, on extra terrestrial grounds.

    I'm only hoping another politically oriented space race starts soon. Something that seems is not going to happen since ESA instead of trying to compete prefers to act as NASA's best friend... government funds, again. Well, that and the fact currently our planet seems to be going down in flames.

    Meanwhile, I'll keep shouting joy at what may be "little improvements" like finding water on Mars, and hope for the day I will see there a permanent manned scientific base pulling ice water off the ground and using it as fuel to sustain their housing, machines and general habitat.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    I'm only hoping another politically oriented space race starts soon. Something that seems is not going to happen since ESA instead of trying to compete prefers to act as NASA's best friend... government funds, again. Well, that and the fact currently our planet seems to be going down in flames.
    I don't agree about the world going down in flames part but for the most part we agree. NASA is a disappointment because they basically sold out to non-science just for funding. This is the piecemeal problem with a national space agency funded by the government. They control the funds - they get to dictate the science...even if it's not science.

    The big problem in our current scientific method is that we basically have forgotten how it works. It seems now that the more absurd the theory the more attention it gets - regardless if there is any science to back it up. Science as in the scientific method. I've read some about the current state of 'peer reviews' as it relates to IPCC reviews but not just IPCC but also several other fields. It seems that in our busy world that scientists themselves really don't have the time to accurately peer review another person's work. And I'm talking about a non-biased peer review not a 'yes-man' review. A review in which all views are taken into consideration. If we are to go anywhere in science in the future NASA, its scientists, and scientists worldwide MUST stop this horrible idea of absolutism. Essentially they only look at theories that that fit the current scientific view and others who don't meet this are not just debated...they are ridiculed.

    I thought this only existed in religion and the church. Myself being a trained minister realize that nothing about religion is science - nothing. Even my college pounded this into our brains that religion, no matter how you slice it, is NOT science. Religion is about faith and also is quite intolerant of opposing views, etc, etc. It can't be tested and can't be proven. I cannot prove to you that God exists nor can I prove to you he does not. I cannot perform expirements to show the existence of a heaven nor a hell. Nor can I present all of it to you in such a way as you finally say....ok...that makes sense. Any evidence I give to you would all be circumstantial and wouldn't even hold up in a court of law. All of the evidence could be refuted by other theories just as prevalent as my own and thus it is not science. I'm fine with that.

    However, I'm not fine with this very dangerous trend in the scientific community of conformance and absolutism. Let me relate this to computer science. If I tell you that you should use my algorithm because its the fastest and most efficient I'd better have sufficient evidence to prove it. If I ridicule your tests which prove my algorithm actually is incorrect or is flawed and I do not take your input seriously - you would think me to be a poor computer scientist and certainly would not want me on your dev team. But that is exactly what is happening in our science today. I thought only religion held these types of views that were unshakeable, unquestionable, and not up for debate. Now our own science is like a religion with believers and non-believers. None of us who are college trained can possibly believe that this approach is right or in any way contributing to technology and progress.

    Science is always up for debate. You and I to this day can still debate gravity and how it works b/c we still don't completely understand it. That's what I used to love about science and yet now it seems we are heading into the dark ages of the scientific method where opinion and political pressure reign supreme.

    Science creates progress. When a society stops using the science and starts relying on opinion and the current political trends - it is in serious trouble. We left this era a long time ago and I hope we are not attempting to go back to it. The only reason someone would not want their findings debated is because they know their findings won't stand up to the rigors of the test. If the science and research is sound then it will stand up to any amount of debate. Regardless the findings should always be up for debate but those debates should follow the scientific method - not hearsay, brainwashing, silencing others, or trying to ridicule the person behind the research.

    Hopefully NASA and the scientists around the world will shake off this horrible trend and get back to what counts. We are getting nowhere as it is. However I also realize that most of the scientists out there don't have a voice and so it is difficult to judge the current state simply based on what's being published. It's getting harder and harder to find good solid news anymore so who is to say what the actual 'consensus' is - which by the way a 'consensus' is a political term and not a scientific one.

    I guess I just want some people to post their findings, show us the equations, and possibly give us some answers. Let the science be judged, proven, and tested. Is that too much to ask? Let's get science to back away from the politicians (whom no one in their right mind trusts), back away from the pop culture, and give us some good hard fast solutions and answers. I'm not just talking about global warming or abiotic oil vs biotic oil - I'm talking about the whole gamut of theories that are presented to us today as fact - when they are not anything but a theory and should be presented as such.

    Sorry so long but I do love science and research but this new 'I'm right because your wrong and an idiot to boot' trend is a bit scary. What does it matter if someone else thinks another is wrong? In the end the science and logic of the matter comes to light and wins. But where there is squelched debate there can be no progress.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 06-24-2008 at 11:25 PM.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarin View Post
    I thought this was old news... but anyway...

    So what? About 70&#37; of Earth is covered with water, a little water is bound to be on neighboring planets. I bet there's even more water there than they think.
    It opens up the possibility of colonizing mars. Without a natural reserve of water on Mars, we would need to transport water from Earth to Mars which would be...bad. The importance of finding water on Mars has alot less to do with finding new life and alot more to do with moving in.

  11. #11
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Somehow I dont think we are going to be moving in anytime soon. I reckon we will probably have the entire ocean floor inhabited before we manage to settle another planet. Although its a novelty IMO space exploration is a waste of money at the moment.

  12. #12
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Sorry so long
    Not at all. Never scared me. Besides it was a pleasant reading.

    Let us hope for better days. I do think we are probably reaching the limits of the pop culture indeed. Already we hear dissonant echoes everywhere. But technological advances get increasingly more expensive as we... advance. And I don't see a solution to that other problem. Maybe a large panel of scientists getting finaly frustrated and starting some sort of international consortium fully privately financed (with all the risks that too can carry).

    Or the coming of a scientific messiah. Someone who grabs the seat of power in one of the more active countries and institutes a true scientific doctrine, maintaining the current fund dependency models, but actively promoting science in its various fields. AKA raising the budget considerably.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #13
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    With the recent direction NASA has been heading and the crazed non-scientific reports they have recently let fly I seriously doubt the credibility of a great deal of NASA scientists.
    Although I agree with much of what you said, I would still find their scientists to be credible. You have to remember that the scientist doing the research and analysis is not the same guy as the one up in his nice office negotiating funding from the government. The scientist is usually just another guy like you and me, and he went to some university and got his degree, and he is just doing his job.

    On the other hand I agree with you on many other counts. I agree that back in the 60's there seemed to be bright prospects of space exploration, and now it seems we have just been grounded for almost 40 years. NASA does need to do better.

    It seems now that the more absurd the theory the more attention it gets - regardless if there is any science to back it up. Science as in the scientific method.
    You need to remember that the scientific method can never verify anything as truth. It can only verify something as not being true. (See Wikipedia). The scientific method tests a hypothesis, and by testing this hypothesis you can draw some conclusions. You can absolutely prove what is not true, and you can draw some conclusions about what might be true, but the scientific method can never prove what is true.

    I thought this only existed in religion and the church. Myself being a trained minister
    I am confused. Being a trained minister, are you therefore ridiculing religion or are you just trying to point out the differences between science and religion?

    I know what you are trying to say when you comment that "science and religion are not the same thing", and in some respects you are correct, but in others you are gravely mistaken. Science are religion are both about seeking truth. (If you missed this point from your religion classes, I'm sorry). One can seek truth through science by doing experiments, testing hypotheses, and discussing theories with other scientists.

    Like I said, the scientific theory only disproves, and so much of what is "discovered" in science cannot be verified. Some things can (such as mathematical proofs which are called proofs for a reason). Other things cannot. Even Newton's Laws, although modeling the motion of objects quite well for every day purposes, have been found to not be true. There are cases where they fail, and thus they are just a model that seems to work well in most circumstances.

    Nonetheless, science is a search for truth, and every once in awhile a bit of actual truth is discovered. Religion is the same way. Religion is also a search for truth, but it is a very different search than science. Instead of doing experiments and testing hypotheses, in religion one searches privately and confronts God in order to seek for truth. Truth then comes through revelation (divine communication). Some (especially athiests) might doubt this method of receiving truth. I am not here to argue that it is a good or bad method, but just to point out the fact that it is the method by which one seeks truth in religion.

    Neither religion nor science are immune to this "intolerance of opposing views" as you have stated. Both are methods of searching for truth, and I think both have a long ways to go.
    Last edited by DavidP; 06-25-2008 at 08:42 AM.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  14. #14
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    Although its a novelty IMO space exploration is a waste of money at the moment.
    Except if you dont do the stuff that doesnt turn a profit, you will never learn what does. Your statement sounds liek the same old tired 'stop wastign money in space' argument. I could argue that we shoudl stop wasting money feeding starving people in africa. People want the quick and easy answers from science, and yet don't consider that all teh quick and easy answers have probably been found. Now the only ones left are the slow and difficult (i.e. expensive) answers.

    Nothing is obvious until you figure it out, then it is.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  15. #15
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    I'd rather prefer if we left religion out of it this time. Not because I'm unwilling or afraid of confronting your points David (since I feel you are completely, totally and irrevocably wrong on this matter), but because it will invariably lead to an argument that would deserve instead a thread of its own.

    As for the scientific method, I think you are taking the short-sighted view. In science an hypothesis is either corroborated or contradicted through an application of the scientific method. It is true it doesn't prove. But science is not so much about proving a theory, but exactly about producing and supporting those theories. Even fundamental Laws of physics, for instance, can fall as you so well explained. But that is exactly the strength of the scientific method.

    Without anything to hold on other than theories, mankind has been able to explore the depths of the oceans, understand the story of our planet, explain phenomena like light, gravity and nuclear forces, and explore the depths of space. All founded on the scientific model. The bit you quote on Bubba doesn't contradict any of this. As I read it, it notes the fact there's hasn't been a true effort, on behalf of the scientific community, to disprove or support some of the more outrageous claims being currently produced.

    Global Warming being an excellent example of this lack of proper peer review and in-depth analysis that used to be the mantra of any newfound theory.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Water found on Mars
    By Magos in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-07-2004, 10:50 PM
  2. Request for comments
    By Prelude in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 09:33 AM
  3. Going out of scope
    By nickname_changed in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-12-2003, 06:27 PM
  4. God
    By datainjector in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 746
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 11:01 AM
  5. question regarding code found on this board
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2002, 08:03 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21