Misplaced Pages

Talk:Water on Mars: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:24, 5 January 2015 editBatteryIncluded (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,192 edits →OR in Habitability Assessment: SPAMING his ideas and blog again.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:43, 14 August 2024 edit undoKiril Simeonovski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,426 editsNo edit summary 
(191 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ITN talk|26 July|2018|oldid=852020626}}
{{translated page|cs|Voda na Marsu|Translated from Czech Misplaced Pages|version=3454753}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WPMars|class=B|importance=High|SS-importance=Mid}}
{{translated page|cs|small=no|Voda na Marsu|Translated from Czech Misplaced Pages|version=3454753}}
{{notice|{{find}}}} {{notice|{{find}}}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{Archive box|]}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|solar_system=yes|importance=Mid|ss-importance=Mid|mars=yes|mars-importance=High}}
}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Water on Mars/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
==Habitability==


This article presents many of the same out of date arguments as the ones used in the ] article. See ] for the details.
==B class==
The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
#The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
#The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
#The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
#The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
#The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
#The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Misplaced Pages is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.


I propose editing this article to remove those statements and to add back in the section on which was removed on 9th June 2013 by {{yo|BatteryIncluded}} without discussion. This editor was blocked for sock puppetry and abusive language last November. I don't know if he is still blocked or has stopped editing wikipedia voluntarily, but anyway this gives an opportunity to fix this article.
==Entire talk page with many open sections has just been archived by BatteryIncluded==


There never was any reason to remove this section. But I couldn't get it restored because of his opposition. The present day habitability of Mars is a major topic at present, and the possibility of surface life there is the subject of numerous papers, press releases, and news reports. It's not proven that there is life there. But it's absurd for the ] article to not mention this topic. Nevertheless this is one of the subjects of most interest to present day astrobiologists. It's also the reason why we have planetary protection measures in place to protect Mars from Earth life. If there is no objection, I will restore the old section - updated and with new material added and any errors fixed, in a few days time. ] (]) 14:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Just want to point out to other editors that this has happened. I believe he did this in response to a recent comment of mine in the sction where I mention an idea for a new article on the habitability of present day Mars, the subject of numerous published papers over the last six years and a major conference in February of this year.
:I oppose the restoration of that section. It contained ] and ], referring to sources not explicitly about water and life on Mars. It is very long, somewhat rambling, and would unbalance this already long article. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


:: Okay. But note I said "updated and with new material added and any errors fixed". Wouldn't restore it "as is". The things it says are accurate on the whole but it doesn't use the best sources and as you say is written in a rambling ] way. I think it was the result of work by many editors who just added a sentence or two from time to time. We could just add the ] section of ] which I added to that article yesterday. The topic of the present day habitability of Mars is a vast one and it would unbalance this article as you say to include even a brief survey of the entire topic area. For an idea of how much is involved see my draft here: ]. That article has a natural separation as two separate articles, one on Mars analogues ] and another article on ]. There is no ] or ] in that article which is also cited to ] sources. It covers many of the topics in the old section. If we wanted to include more about the present day habitability of Mars in this article we could include brief summaries of some of the main proposed present day habitats on Mars. The main ones currently are covered here:
I commented that although I had received a response from another editor suggesting I do it as clearly notable, I don't feel able to do it right now as I am pretty sure it would be immediately nominated for deletion.


:: Surface habitats
He archived the page by the next day after I posted that comment. I assume good faith and don't accuse him of vandalism or anything of that sort, just suspect there may be some element of bias involved in his decision that this entire talk page needs to be archived at this moment of time. ] (]) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


:: This is sorted roughly according to the level of attention in the literature - the top four listed here I'd say, by notability, are top priority to be mentioned in a short summary:
:You said your goodbyes in your last post. Besides we care little on what are your plans for your blog. THIS IS NOT A FORUM. BI


::* ]
==Recommendation, new article on the Present-Day Habitability of Mars ==
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]


:: Subsurface habitats
I highly recommend that Misplaced Pages should have an article on this subject.


::* ]
This is the conference on the subject .
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]


:: It could have separate short sections for each, or a bulleted list, with a short description of each of these habitats, why they are considered potentially habitable, and cites to the literature. Then perhaps a separate article on the vast topic of the present day habitability of Mars. ] (]) 11:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Paige is planning to create a new journal solely devoted to this subject. See :


==Draft for habitability section==
{{quotation|At the end of the conference, Paige said he intends to publish a special journal focusing on the present-day habitability of Mars and hopes to reconvene the conference within the next five years}}


I am currently working on a draft for a new version of the Habitability section. You can see it here: ]. Any comments welcome. I plan to expand all the bullet point habitat types in a similar way to the first two with about a paragraph for each one, and then it will be ready to add. ] (]) 22:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the old section from this page on habitability of the Mars surface ].


: I've just added the new sections. Comments welcome! I have retained the links to my proposed "Present Day Habitability of Mars" article but removed the <nowiki>] </nowiki> so that they will be red text links for now. That article covers present day habitability in more detail. What are thoughts about the length, is it about right or should it be trimmed, or indeed expanded? ] (]) 00:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There are many papers on it every year by researchers in the US, UK, and Germany, and including scientists from JPL, DLR in Germany, and the NASA Ames Research Center. It has been a major subject in the literature since 2008 and undoubtedly passes ].


== Polar Ice Sheet ==
If another editor feels as strongly as I do that creation of this new page is a good idea, please let me know via my ]. With two main editors involved in its creation, I feel it would easily survive AfD and be well protected from edit warring. ] (]) 06:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


The new entry states: "There is much evidence for an ancient ice sheet in the south pole region". Would not that be the polar ice cap? It may need clarification. Thanks, ] (]) 23:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
:::There is no need for a separate article just for you to spread your spam. Already existing articles suffice to discuss habitability. The above disingenuous attempt to recruit naïve meat puppets not yet aware of your project to act out your doomsday fantasies on Misplaced Pages will not work. ] (]) 14:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
::::No need to be so nasty, ]. @OP ] is a closely related article and it already has some content on habitability, if you or anyone else can add more content relating to this, I would suggest expanding that section first rather than starting an entirely new article. If there is no question of notability it could be split of at some later date anyway. ] ] 05:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::I second all of Reatlas' comments here. ] (]) 15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::::: Sadly I can't do that. One of the editors of that page also considers me to be a fanatic and deleted a fair bit of material on present day habitability of Mars here and on that page by various contributors (not just me, there was a long section on it already and I just added a few sentences to it). As I understand it, he considers that present day life on Mars is impossible and that therefore the material in the "The Present-Day Habitability of Mars 2013" conference and other recent work suggesting possibilities of habitability of Mars should be ignored, when I tried to mention them in the talk pages.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::::: But there was nothing fringe or fanatical about this research. It was a main stream conference. These scientists are not saying there is evidence for present day life on Mars. Not even that there are habitats on Mars, as that's not yet confirmed. They just presented various lines of evidence suggesting possibilities for present day habitats on Mars. But that was enough to make it too controversial to be included here, so I was told. I've given up on this for now. ] (]) 01:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::::::: Just to say, I gave it a go, not editing the article itself as I knew any edits would be reverted immediately, but added a suggestion to the talk page as a new section just saying that since 2008 ionizing radiation is no longer considered an issue for life on the surface of Mars, and mentioning a few other things + corrections. All of this is totally mainstream now and non controversial.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123132429/http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3e.html to http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220081803/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/mars-ocean-hypothesis-hits-the-shore/ to http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/mars-ocean-hypothesis-hits-the-shore/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221190147/http://onorbit.com/node/1524 to http://onorbit.com/node/1524
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929112931/https://sciencescape.org/paper/21817049 to https://sciencescape.org/paper/21817049
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705011110/http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/media/news_releases/2009/0702.asp to http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/media/news_releases/2009/0702.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323164757/http://now.msn.com/white-mars-rock-called-tintina-found-by-curiosity-rover to http://now.msn.com/white-mars-rock-called-tintina-found-by-curiosity-rover


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::::::: The editor concerned first posted saying that everything I said was nonsense, no discussion or mention of anything I said, just a string of insults. Then after I replied to that, he deleted the whole section from the talk page - see: .


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::::::: I've restored that section on the talk page and asked him not to delete it again, will see what happens. Whether or not, is seems, right now anyway, unlikely that he will permit any editing of the page itself to include this material from the 2013 Habitability of Present Day Mars conference. ] (]) 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Research published in January 2014 of data collected by the RAD instrument, revealed that the actual absorbed dose measured is 76 mGy/year at the surface, and that "ionizing radiation strongly influences chemical compositions and structures, especially for water, salts, and redox-sensitive components such as organic matter." Regardless of the source of Martian organic matter (meteoritic, geological, or biological), its carbon bonds are susceptible to breaking and reconfiguration with surrounding elements by ionizing charged particle radiation. The report concludes that the in situ "surface measurements —and subsurface estimates— constrain the preservation window for Martian organic matter following exhumation and exposure to ionizing radiation in the top few meters of the Martian surface."
Paper: {{cite journal | title = Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars ScienceLaboratory’s Curiosity Rover | journal = Science | date = 24 January 2014 | first = Donald M. | last = Hassler | coauthors = ''et al'' | volume = 343 | issue = 6169| id = {{doi | 10.1126/science.1244797}} | url = http://authors.library.caltech.edu/42648/1/RAD_Surface_Results_paper_SCIENCE_12nov13_FINAL.pdf | format = PDF | accessdate = 2014-01-27}}
So, ], kindly limit your denialist-pseudo-BS to your own blog. Sincerely, --] (]) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


== "Running water" as sand flows ==
: That's for past life, not present day life. There is almost no chance of present day life where Curiosity is, as the ground is dry not just on the surface but probably for hundreds of meters below the surface. Evidence of past life would also be destroyed, and they suspect that this area of organics must have been uncovered relatively recently - where recently means geologically recently like in the last few hundred thousand or millions of years - because if it was exposed for billions of years there would be no organics left or nowhere near the amounts they measured. That's what that quote is about ] (]) 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


The first sentence and other portions of this article may need revision in light of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0012-5 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Another ] entry from the troll. What's new? ] (]) 23:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified (January 2018) ==
::: More on this, just wanted to update on the figures I gave for how long ago those deposits were uncovered. New results just in show that the organics uncovered by Curiosity were probably uncovered between 30 million and 110 million years ago. See ] (]) 15:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Nonsensical sentence in lead ==


I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
"More than five million square kilometers of ice has been identified on the surface of modern Mars, which is enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters."
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161130042608/https://planetarycassie.com/2016/11/04/widespread-thick-water-ice-found-in-utopia-planitia-mars/ to https://planetarycassie.com/2016/11/04/widespread-thick-water-ice-found-in-utopia-planitia-mars/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604112105/http://nepaliblogger.com/news/nepali-scientist-lujendra-ojha-spots-possible-water-on-mars/2793/ to http://nepaliblogger.com/news/nepali-scientist-lujendra-ojha-spots-possible-water-on-mars/2793
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603191033/http://norlx51.nordita.org/~brandenb/astrobiology/EANA2012/single_abstracts/Delatorre.pdf to http://norlx51.nordita.org/~brandenb/astrobiology/EANA2012/single_abstracts/Delatorre.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://erebus.nmt.edu/imagepages/icetowers/index.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
That would be an impossible calculation, since it would be attempting to derive a volume from an area. --] (]) 23:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:Good catch. The units were entered incorrectly. Original source (Christensen, 2006) gives >5 million cubic km of ice. This should be corrected. ] (]) 11:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 15:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
== Article does not mention water in hydated minerals and as hydroxyl ==


== Subsurface lake coordinates ==
Water on Mars is also present as hydroxyl, in water of hydration, and in the form of other bound water in rocks and minerals. I think this water reservoir should at least be discussed briefly because it probably makes up a significant portion of Mars' total water inventory. Do others here agree? ] (]) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
:Sure! ] (]) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yup. ] (]) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


How is it that the lake is at 1''9''3º W? I looked at ] but could not find any explanation of this apparent deviation from (relatively) spherical bodies having 360 degrees in their two-dimensional surface coordinate systems.
== Notes on Recent Activity on Article ==


Is Mars four-dimensional, or is there something I'm not understanding that I should be? If the latter, it should be explained in the accompanying text, perhaps, since this section is currently linked from the Main Page. ] (]) 19:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You all will notice I've been dabbling with this article, making some minor editing changes here and there, mainly in the intro section. Most of the tinkering has been with the references. IMO, there are too many. Some are inappropriately located and redundant. Also, I think that when citing books, page (or at least chapter) numbers should be given. For example, Mike Carr's ''Surface of Mars'' is a great reference, but covers a lot of water-related topics by chapter. To just cite the book as a reference doesn't help much. I also have mixed feeling about the abundant use of tertiary references (press releases, newspaper articles, etc.). I prefer using primary or good secondary references exclusively, but realize that these are not always accessible to general reader. So I don't know.
:It's 193 degrees east not west. As for why see this ref (you may need to click continue). Remember that earth has 193º W and 193º E as well. It's just that by convention we refer to them as 167º E or 167º W. By comparison, with Mars the standard which has been widely adopted is only to refer to º E. (Of course either way you also need a <ins>]</ins><del>meridian</del>, otherwise 167 or 193 or whatever leads to the question of degrees from where?) ] (]) 20:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC) <ins>20:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)</ins>
::See also ] which explains the various issues more generally (including how you define ]/]/]/]). ] (]) 21:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::OK, thanks. ] (]) 02:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


== Section: Habitability assessment ==
In short, I think the references need to be culled and better arranged. Not a sexy task, I know, but necessary to allow easier editing to improve the article. Any thoughts? ] (]) 08:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


The "Habitability assessment" section should be a brief summary of the parent article (]). The reason for its present length has to do with the bias of a user that was recently banned indefinitely. In the past I sanitized it from POV and synthesis but it remains too large and I think it nearly hijacks the topic. I am planning on replacing it with a summary with emphasis in water. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers, ] (]) 23:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC) --formerly ].
BTW: Carr has written a whole book with the same title as this article. Though a little dated now, it's still a good resource. I've added it to the bibliography and recommended reading list. ] (]) 09:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


:I went ahead with a summary of this section, per ]. Please feel free to improve it. Cheers, ] (]) 16:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Hello. Yes the references need to be culled. Some history: up to a few months ago, this article was extremely long with multiple redundant sections and references of all qualities. I performed a major cleanup and reformatted the article in June 16, 2013. I made an effort to keep all references for future cleanup (see my notes under .) ] did considerable work following mine but a lot of redundant/outdated references remain. Please feel free to continue your high-quality edits, as I for one, appreciate the input from experts like you and Dan Hobley. Cheers, ] (]) 14:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


== Water at the south pole too ==
::Thanks much for your comments. I know how these articles can get cluttered over time and how much thankless work is involved cleaning them up. Seems a never-ending task. Glad you and others are out there interested in this subject. BTW: Dan's the real expert. I'm just a dabbler, but thanks anyway :) Cheers. ] (]) 17:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


tempted to just fix this but i'm not sure of the technical defintions so i'll just ask...
:::I have a copy of The Surface of Mars sitting a few feet from me right now! Most of the refs to the Carr are mine, so I can probably (slowly?) add some more detail. Pages probably shouldn't be too terrible to put in. And thanks again for all the effort on this article guys - it's just so so much better than it was before BI's epic efforts in June. I feel like we could get this thing really very nice if we put in just a bit more effort, and it is a fairly important topic for WP.
:::Agree we should probably try to strip back refs too, though to some extent a big list is inevitable for a big topic like this. I also would agree we can remove some of the tertiary stuff, though I've also run into editors elsewhere in the science articles who actively prefer them because of access. I guess I also am unsure. Is there recommended policy we can follow here? ] (]) 18:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


is the second sentence "The only place where water ice is visible at the surface is at the north polar ice cap." still correct given the latest finding of water ice in the Korolev crater (which is linked to further down in the article)? --] (]) 03:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Thanks Dan. And ditto on you and BI's great efforts here. I hadn't seen this article until recently. I'm sure it is infinitely better than before with your guys worked on it. I think the policy is to prefer primary and secondary references...but I'm not totally sure either. Hope the ''Surface of Mars'' comment did not come across as disparaging. Not my intent at all. I just may have a different preference than others. Best regards, as always. ] (]) 19:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh, and I also know how these references can multiply. I added a few myself...D'oh. ] (]) 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


:Good catch. It was my mistake. The ] is near the north polar cap, not the southern cap (which is mostly CO2 ice). Thank you, and my apologies. ] (]) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::In a science article like this one, most primary references will be from papers published in peer-reviewed journals, which lately, are accessible for a fee. Misplaced Pages favors free access sources. I think a balance can be reached by quoting the papers' abstract, books, and deleting redundant references from news media. We could also delete older (outdated) references. Cheers, ] (]) 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


::Due to the latest IP edit, I wish to remark that both polar ice caps contain water ice, but the southern cap has a thick layer of CO<sub>2</sub> covering the water ice. Therefore this statement in the article is still correct: "The only place where water ice is '''visible at the surface''' is at the north polar ice cap." Perhaps we can follow that sentence by mentioning the fact above? Cheers, ] (]) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::I spent some time reviewed all the references for their reliability. They all are of high quality and found nothing outdated that grants deletion. Of particular interest is the Habitability section, which displays long strings of references. ''Mea culpa''; It developed from an edit war between me and a fanatical user convinced of a impending and fatal Martian microbe invasion. I could trim them but in my experience with that user, he might get a second wind, and his contradicting 10 peer-reviewedpapers is harder than one. Cheers, ] (]) 15:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
::::::: BI, the OR part of that section is when you say that life on the surface is likely dormant. Many well known scientists such as Nilton Remmo have become optimistic for prospects of life on the surface of Mars very recently, over the last few years (from 2008 onwards) as a result of models, experiments replicating Mars conditions on the Earth, and observations that all point towards the possibility of liquid water that forms on the surface of Mars occasionally. Just a few droplets of cold salty water on ice salt interfaces, or cold brine flows just a mm or so thick, but that's enough for microbial life. As Nilton Remmo said about his team's experiments that created droplets of water in Mars analogue conditions, a tiny droplet of water is like a swimming pool for a microbe.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-07-19T06:09:38.797472 | Sagan Viking.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


== Please update with "Valley formation on early Mars by subglacial and fluvial erosion" ==
::::::: Life that revives from time to tine - if radioresistant, can repair all DNA damage for up to several hundred thousand years of dormancy in a few hours. The level of cosmic radiation on the surface of Mars is similar to the interior of the ISS and does not prevent life if it revives occasionally.


Please update section "]" with info on this study. It's currently included in ] like so:
::::::: For more on this, see ], which includes some of the more notable material I posted to the Life on Mars talk page about this over the last year or so. I know that you keep hiding this material from the talk page as forum / soapbox / spam - but it isn't, it is mainstream science. Do take a look at it again and read it more carefully!


<blockquote>
::::::: They are talking here about sparse populations similar to the microbes that are able to survive in the hyperarid core of the Atacama desert - even with an extensive search it is hard to find it, but if you look, for instance in the micropores of certain salt pillars you find small populations of a few microbes, slowly metabolizing. Similarly in the Antarctic dry valleys - look just below the surface of some rocks, and if you are lucky, you find patches of microbes which may have lifetimes measured in thousands of years, they metabolize so slowly. If these postulated habitats on Mars exist, then Mars life may be like that.
Scientists report that valley networks in the ] of ] may have been formed mostly ], not free-flowing rivers of water, indicating that early Mars was colder than thought and that extensive glaciation likely occurred in its past.<ref>{{cite news |title=Early Mars was covered in ice sheets, not flowing rivers: study |url=https://phys.org/news/2020-08-early-mars-ice-sheets-rivers.html |accessdate=6 September 2020 |work=phys.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Crane |first1=Leah |title=Ancient valleys on Mars may have been carved by glaciers |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2250398-ancient-valleys-on-mars-may-have-been-carved-by-glaciers/ |accessdate=6 September 2020 |work=New Scientist}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Grau Galofre |first1=Anna |last2=Jellinek |first2=A. Mark |last3=Osinski |first3=Gordon R. |title=Valley formation on early Mars by subglacial and fluvial erosion |journal=Nature Geoscience |date=3 August 2020 |pages=1–6 |doi=10.1038/s41561-020-0618-x |s2cid=220939044 |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0618-x |accessdate=6 September 2020 |language=en |issn=1752-0908}}</ref>
</blockquote>


Maybe this also warrants renaming the section due to "river valleys" indicating rivers of free-flowing water.
::::::: I am not a troll and have always edited wikipedia according to the guidelines and in good faith edits, followed BRD, and never been a disruptive editor. Have said a bit more about this below, collapsed it as most readers of this talk page surely won't be interested in the details:


--] (]) 15:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
{{cot}}
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::: The most you could say is that I wrote overmuch on the talk pages when I tried to defend the content when a couple of other editors deleted just about everything I'd ever contributed to the Mars section, in multiple articles, over a period of a few days without prior discussion and without giving me any opportunity to rewrite and fix any issues they had with it. I know that I wrote pages and pages of talk page text to try to persuade editors to reverse those edits and to preserve some material on planetary protection in the colonization articles, and to preserve the sections on habitability of present day Mars surface. It might have worked better if I had written less. But I think it should at least be understandable, that someone would try hard to defend their content in a situation like that. And that is the only thing I did wrong, and that is not enough to label me a troll.
==Source of water?==
This article should mention the hypothesized source of the water on early Mars.
Unless we believe that every rocky planet in the universe features water oceans.
] (]) 04:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


== Water still on Mars (March 2021) ==
::::::: And I never said that a microbe invasion of Earth is inevitable. Those were allegations by an editor who was opposed to me, not things I said myself. Carl Sagan was perhaps the first to raise public awareness of this issue and he wrote about this, that "The likelihood that such pathogens exist is probably small, but we cannot take even a small risk with a billion lives." There is a lot of published material on this topic, for instance see for instance. Just about everyone, with the exception of Robert Zubrin, thinks that at least some precautions are needed, and this is also mandated by the OST.
'''' ] (]) 21:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:ALSO, the related refs<ref name="NASA-20210316">{{cite news |last1=Hautaluoma |first1=Grey |last2=Johnson |first2=Alana |last3=Good |first3=Andrew |title=New Study Challenges Long-Held Theory of Fate of Mars’ Water |url=https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new-study-challenges-long-held-theory-of-fate-of-mars-water |date=16 March 2021 |work=] |accessdate=16 March 2021 }}</ref><ref name="CNET-20210316">{{cite news |last=Mack |first=Eric |title=Mars hides an ancient ocean beneath its surface - New research finds a surprising amount of water locked away in the red planet. |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/mars-hides-an-ancient-ocean-beneath-its-surface/ |date=16 March 2021 |work=] |accessdate=16 March 2021 }}</ref><ref name="SCI-20210316">{{cite journal |author=Scheller, E.L. |display-authors=et al. |title=Long-term drying of Mars by sequestration of ocean-scale volumes of water in the crust |url=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/15/science.abc7717 |date=16 March 2021 |journal=] |doi=10.1126/science.abc7717 |accessdate=16 March 2021 }}</ref><ref name="NYT-20210319">{{cite news |last=Chang |first=Kenneth |title=The Water on Mars Vanished. This Might Be Where It Went. Mars once had rivers, lakes and seas. Although the planet is now desert dry, scientists say most of the water is still there, just locked up in rocks. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/science/mars-water-missing.html |date=19 March 2021 |work=] |accessdate=19 March 2021 }}</ref> - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 23:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} - added to the lead of the main "]" article as follows: '''"In March 2021, researchers reported that the considerable amount of water on ancient Mars remains on Mars but has likely been sequestered into the rocks and crust of the planet over the years.<ref name="NASA-20210316" /><ref name="CNET-20210316" /><ref name="SCI-20210316" /><ref name="NYT-20210319" />"''' - should be ok but *entirely* ok with me to rv,rm,mv,ce the edit of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 00:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== Inaccurate claim and original research ==
::::::: In the article that got deleted, on contamination issues for a Mars Sample Return - the aim was to cover some of the research from the many papers and reports on the subject and to present all the views on the matter, as there are many POVs on the extent of the precautions that are needed. The opposing editor in that debate made many allegations about me and my motives for editing wikipedia which other editors believed, but his allegations were untrue. What I contributed were mainstream edits, not fringe, and all good faith edits done with the aim to improve wikipedia. I never presented my own views in that article.
There's an inaccurate claim that researchers discovered a "reservoir of liquid water was at depths of 10–20 kilometres (6.2–12.4 mi) under the Martian crust" supported by the scientific paper. According to the , researchers discovered liquid water saturation, which is very different from what is mentioned in the article. This is an example of ] and should be corrected.--] (]) 09:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::: And incidentally my own view, for what it is worth, is similar to that of Carl Sagan - that it might be possible to return a sample to Earth safely, but I would want to be very sure indeed that the precautions were adequate first. And in situ exploration seems a less expensive way of doing the same thing, more effective, and also with, obviously, no risk of back contamination at all. But the article didn't say that, or come to any conclusions, just presented some of the many different ideas and views that have been put forward in the published literature on the subject - presenting their various POVs in a way faithful to the authors of the papers cited. It wasn't possible to get a clear idea of the article during the deletion debate as the opposing editor had totally rewritten it and for the first few days of the debate did not permit me to edit the article, blocking me by edit warring, so what was deleted was, essentially, the opposing editor's slant on the whole thing, with most of the substantial content removed. When he finally let me edit the article I had just a few days to get it back into shape and was still editing it, trying to get it back in shape, when the deletion debate concluded.
{{cob}}
::::::: ] (]) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

== Proposed new wording for Third Paragraph in Intro ==

Guys, I planned to rework the third paragraph beginning "There are a number of direct and indirect proofs of water presence..." But wanted to get your take first. The new version would read:

:Many lines of evidence indicate that water is abundant on Mars and has played a significant role in the planet’s geologic history. The present-day inventory of water on Mars can be estimated from spacecraft imagery, remote sensing techniques (spectroscopic measurements, radar, etc.), in situ investigations from landers and rovers, analysis of Martian meteorites, and theoretical models. Geologic evidence of past water includes enormous outflow channels carved by floods; ancient river valley networks, deltas, and lake beds; and the detection of rocks and minerals on the surface that could only have formed in liquid water. Numerous geomorphic features suggest the presence of ground ice {permafrost) and the movement of ice in glaciers, both past and present. Gullies and slope lineae along cliffs and crater walls indicate that flowing water continues to shape the surface of Mars, although to a far lesser degree than in the ancient past.

The difficulty is what to do with the existing references, most of which are very good. That was the dilemma that prompted my original comment about the references. Thanks for any input. ] (]) 22:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:Looks good. ] (]) 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks, BI. And thanks for the beer too ;-) ] (]) 14:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:::Good stuff. Only thing is you might want to hedge a bit more in the final sentence. Modern water is still pretty controversial, so you probably want to go for "suggest" rather than "indicate". But the rest is ideal. For the refs, I say stage 1 is to go through and cull any obvious direct duplication - i.e., where we have both peer reviewed lit and 3ary sources discussing the same thing, purge the 3ary source. Though there will still be LOADS of stuff afterwards, I fear. ] (]) 19:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

::::Thanks, Dan. Great suggestions. I'll make recommended change. Don't know how much time I'll have to spend on article. Looks like gov't shutdown is set to end and it's back to paid work. Cheers, ] (]) 20:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Silver linings, I guess! Glad you're looking employed again. :-) I'm also going to be really tight on time for a bit, but I'll try to get some effort in. ] (]) 01:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

== Proposed History Section ==

While off work, I drafted a fairly brief (5-paragraph) section on the history of Mars research regarding water. It's nontechnical, covering telescopic observations from Cassini to pre-space-age spectrographic findings and Mariner 4. However, I'm hesitant to add more length to article if subject doesn't add enough to make it worth while. It would also (alas) add some more references. I was thinking about placing it right after the introductory section. I may just go ahead and place it, letting you guys have at it. If you think it's too much material or otherwise needs reworking, let me know. I won't be offended. ] (]) 16:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding images to section, BI. Looks good ] (]) 22:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

:Section looks great, but maybe we should rename it for clarity. This is the history of discoveries, not a history of water on Mars, so it's a little ambiguous. However, I'm failing to come up with a succinct alternative right now. Anyone else? ] (]) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

== Adding to rocks and minerals section ==

I'm adding quite a bit of new material to the Evidence from Rocks and Minerals section because the section did not discuss the presence of water bound in hydrated minerals, which is an important part of Mars' water inventory. This is per the comment I made above. ] (]) 21:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
:Hi ], that's nice stuff. But do you think it would be possible to either thin the text back a bit, or failing that, to introduce a subheading or two within the section? That's a big block of uninterrupted text to sit so high in the article. Maybe a picture or two would also help (maybe a nice CRISM image of some hydrated minerals, or something). I can have a go at subdividing into sections if you'd like, but probably not for a while (crazy busy right now...) ] (]) 16:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Yeah, Dan I totally agree. Both ideas are very good. Realized the text was too long after I inserted it. I'll try some of your suggestion when I get time. Thanks a bunch for the feedback--Tom-- ] (]) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Looks way better now! ] (]) 01:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

== Thoughts on article organization ==

I’ve been putzing around with article this weekend making minor editorial fixes. I’d be interested in getting some feedback on my thoughts about organization and other items.

1. Could we change the title of the Ancient Water Bodies section to “Geomorphic evidence” and move it above the Evidence from Rocks and Minerals section? Fluvial features such as outflow channels, valley networks are easily recognizable and understood by the layperson, and this new placement also follows the rough chronological sequence of discovery (Mariner 9, Viking, etc.) as laid out in the Historical Background section.

2. I don’t understand why inverted stream topography has a paragraph of its own in the current ancient water bodies section. These features are certainly very common on Mars but also IMO tangential to the main focus of the section. Perhaps the discussion should be moved down to another section. Maybe I’m wrong here. Any other thoughts?

3. Somewhere the article needs to have a brief discussion (1-2 paragraphs) on the Clifford (1993) model of the shallow martian crust consisting of a variably thick cryosphere underlain by liquid groundwater. I believe some form of this model is still the prevailing hydrological paradigm for Mars. Maybe this could be included in the groundwater section.

4. Organizing the article by spacecraft missions (probes) in the last part seems to add to article length and repetition. Could the info in these sections be weaved into the other sections?

Thanks for any thoughts/suggestions ] (]) 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:Hello. Last year when I did the article cleanup/overhaul (aka: (]), I addressed mostly the duplication of info and format. I also separated the research on past vs. current water. The current format is not the normal evolution of a Misplaced Pages science article, but the product of what I thought was a logical organization. I have only a basic education on planetary geology (3 elective courses only), so please feel free to modify the article format and info; I am glad whenever an expert addresses the actual scientific content of the article.
:Regarding point #1, yes, "Geomorphic evidence" seems a most appropriate section title.
:Point #2, inverted stream topography had a section before, I think it was created so a bunch of example images could be loaded in that section. I have no preference on your moving/expanding or reducing the related information; but if the feature is unique to Mars, I think that some info should remain.
:Point #3: Go for it!
:Pont #4: I was not sure what to do with it, so I just cleaned it up and placed it at the end; yes, that meant I did not address the redundancy in that section but I thought some readers wanted (and created) it as a alternative way of "classifying" or visualizing the same research on the subject. Lets discuss whether we and other interested editors want it deleted, changed or weaved into the existing info. ] (]) 15:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

== Stream water speed ==

@{{u|RJaumann}}: NASA's report () states that the water speed in that particular stream was about 3 ft/s (3.3 m/s). The German team apparently has been making improved calculations factoring Mars' weaker gravity, and I am all for including it, but not by replacing the current cited velocity. The abstract you bring forward does not display the calculated speed you keep entering, and the main research paper does not seem available online, which hampers being ]. If you can find it, let's quote both estimates, OK? Cheers, ] (]) 14:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! Not a ] or a ] ]
|-
|
|-
|
==OR in Habitability Assessment==

I know I posted about this about a year or so ago, but I'm trying again as, first, there have been developments in the last year, especially Nilton Remmo's team finding that water droplets form on salt / ice interfaces in experiments reproducing Mars conditions on Earth - and also I've turned up new citations to back up what I say.

The OR part is the sentence "Even at a depth of 2 meters beneath the surface, any microbes would likely be dormant". The reason that many scientists are now quite optimistic about the possibility of present day life on the surface of Mars is because as a result of new discoveries, they think there may be habitats on Mars where life can revive for a few hours every year.

The thing is, though the levels of cosmic radiation on the surface of Mars are far higher than for the surface of the Earth (protected by our thick atmosphere), they are comparable to the interior of the ISS.

: Levels of cosmic radiation on the Mars surface

]

: are the same as the levels within the ISS

]

Many micro-organisms can easily survive that, even if they spend most of their time dormant, so long as they are able to revive and reproduce, or repair damage. Radioresistant microbes are able to repair damage due to the equivalent of several hundred thousand years of Mars surface cosmic radiation within a few hours of revival from dormancy (they don't need to reproduce to do this, they repair their own DNA). For details: ]

Here is a citation to back this up, that microbes can survive cosmic radiation on Mars if they are able to revive:

{{quote|"Finally there are other harmful radiation sources reaching Mars: ionizing and neutron radiation caused by galactic cosmic radiation and solar particle events.<br><br>"Due to the lack of a magnetic field and the low shielding of the Martian atmosphere (the Martian overhead airmass is 16 g cm<sup>-2</sup> instead of the terrestrial 1000 g cm<sup>-2</sup>) the doses of ionizing radiation at the surface of Mars reach values about 100 times higher than those on the Earth.<br><br>"However, since a great variety of microbes tolerate this type of radiation at similar or even greater doses than those found on Mars, '''ionizing radiation cannot be considered a limiting factor for microbial life on Mars and thus here we will limit our study to solar UV shielding and VIS radiation pentration'''."}}

: (from full text here )

Recently several notable scientists have put forward the view that there may be life on present day Mars.

For instance, at the end of this video, Nilton Remmo says very clearly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWv9UGwjdE#t=135

{{Quote|"Based on the results of our experiment, we expect this soft ice that can liquify perhaps a few days per year, perhaps a few hours a day, almost anywhere on Mars. So going from mid lattitudes all the way to the polar regions. This is a small amount of liquid water. But for a bacteria, that would be a huge swimming pool - a little droplet of water is a huge amount of water for a bacteria. So, a small amount of water is '''''enough for you to be able to create conditions for Mars to be habitable today''''''. And we believe this is possible in the shallow subsurface, and even the surface of the Mars polar region for a few hours per day during the spring." (transcript from 2 minutes into the video onwards)}}

That's Nilton Renno, a professor of atmospheric, oceanic and space sciences at Michigan University who lead the research. He is also project scientist for Curiosity in charge of the REMS weather station on Mars, was on the Phoenix lander team, and author of
See also

The Encyclopedia Britannica says

{{quote|"Despite this setback, the main driver of the Mars exploration program is still the search for life. Because liquid water is so essential for life, the initial focus has been on the search for evidence of warm conditions that would enable the persistence of liquid water. The evidence for such conditions at least on early Mars is now compelling, and '''''there is some evidence that liquid water sometimes flows on the surface in a few places'''''. The exploration thrust will likely shift to search for more-direct evidence such as organic remains and isotopic signatures. It could be argued that the best strategy is to look for fossil remains from the early period in Mars’s history when conditions were more Earth-like. But the Martian meteorite debate and disagreements about early terrestrial life point to the difficulty of finding compelling evidence of microbial fossil life. '''''Alternatively, it could be argued that the best strategy is to look for present-day life in niches, such as warm volcanic regions or the intermittent flows of what may be briny water, in the hope that life, if it ever started on Mars, would survive where conditions were hospitable.'''''"}}

: (from ).

And there was a conference on and in the course of the conference some of the speakers were upbeat and optimistic about finding present day life on Mars in these surface and near surface habitats.

Yes this is one of 17 habitability factors. But in the citations in the article, the first one just says "Solar particle events and galactic cosmic rays were considered external factors that occur infrequently or at low dosage, respectively", and the other one just lists it under "Some factors that may affect the survival and reproduction of Earth microbes on Mars". This doesn't mean that cosmic radiation is deadly for all life on Mars. We even have microbes living in reactor cooling ponds on the Earth.

Other scientists have also said the same thing. Even Robert Zubrin (who you might expect to be most skeptical about it) now says e.g. in a SpaceShow interview that he think there is a reasonable chance of finding present day surface life on Mars. And none of these scientists ever suggest that it is impossible because of cosmic radiation.

Indeed it is a rare paper or talk on this subject that mentions cosmic radiation at all. The authors focus on such matters as UV radiation, the near vacuum conditions, the low temperatures, and high levels of salts as the main issues present day surface life on Mars would have to contend with in these proposed habitats.

So, that's why I call this assessment OR and ]. It would be reasonably accurate as a reflection of our state of knowledge about six years ago when most scientists thought that all life on Mars surface is likely to be dormant.
] (]) 13:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:43, 14 August 2024

In the newsA news item involving Water on Mars was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 July 2018.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water on Mars article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Voda na Marsu from the Czech Misplaced Pages. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. Translated from Czech Misplaced Pages
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Mars / Solar System Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Mars task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).


Habitability

This article presents many of the same out of date arguments as the ones used in the Life on Mars article. See Talk:Life on Mars#Present day habitability of surface of Mars again for the details.

I propose editing this article to remove those statements and to add back in the section on Possibility of enough liquid water to support life which was removed on 9th June 2013 by @BatteryIncluded: without discussion. This editor was blocked for sock puppetry and abusive language last November. I don't know if he is still blocked or has stopped editing wikipedia voluntarily, but anyway this gives an opportunity to fix this article.

There never was any reason to remove this section. But I couldn't get it restored because of his opposition. The present day habitability of Mars is a major topic at present, and the possibility of surface life there is the subject of numerous papers, press releases, and news reports. It's not proven that there is life there. But it's absurd for the Water on Mars article to not mention this topic. Nevertheless this is one of the subjects of most interest to present day astrobiologists. It's also the reason why we have planetary protection measures in place to protect Mars from Earth life. If there is no objection, I will restore the old section - updated and with new material added and any errors fixed, in a few days time. Robert Walker (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the restoration of that section. It contained WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, referring to sources not explicitly about water and life on Mars. It is very long, somewhat rambling, and would unbalance this already long article. Fences&Windows 21:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay. But note I said "updated and with new material added and any errors fixed". Wouldn't restore it "as is". The things it says are accurate on the whole but it doesn't use the best sources and as you say is written in a rambling WP:OR way. I think it was the result of work by many editors who just added a sentence or two from time to time. We could just add the Present section of Life on Mars which I added to that article yesterday. The topic of the present day habitability of Mars is a vast one and it would unbalance this article as you say to include even a brief survey of the entire topic area. For an idea of how much is involved see my draft here: Draft:Present day habitability of Mars. That article has a natural separation as two separate articles, one on Mars analogues Present day Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth and another article on Present day habitability of Mars. There is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in that article which is also cited to WP:RS sources. It covers many of the topics in the old section. If we wanted to include more about the present day habitability of Mars in this article we could include brief summaries of some of the main proposed present day habitats on Mars. The main ones currently are covered here:
Surface habitats
This is sorted roughly according to the level of attention in the literature - the top four listed here I'd say, by notability, are top priority to be mentioned in a short summary:
Subsurface habitats
It could have separate short sections for each, or a bulleted list, with a short description of each of these habitats, why they are considered potentially habitable, and cites to the literature. Then perhaps a separate article on the vast topic of the present day habitability of Mars. Robert Walker (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft for habitability section

I am currently working on a draft for a new version of the Habitability section. You can see it here: User:Robertinventor/Water on Mars Habitability. Any comments welcome. I plan to expand all the bullet point habitat types in a similar way to the first two with about a paragraph for each one, and then it will be ready to add. Robert Walker (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just added the new sections. Comments welcome! I have retained the links to my proposed "Present Day Habitability of Mars" article but removed the ] so that they will be red text links for now. That article covers present day habitability in more detail. What are thoughts about the length, is it about right or should it be trimmed, or indeed expanded? Robert Walker (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Polar Ice Sheet

The new entry states: "There is much evidence for an ancient ice sheet in the south pole region". Would not that be the polar ice cap? It may need clarification. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Water on Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Running water" as sand flows

The first sentence and other portions of this article may need revision in light of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0012-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.242.194 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Water on Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Subsurface lake coordinates

How is it that the lake is at 193º W? I looked at Geography of Mars but could not find any explanation of this apparent deviation from (relatively) spherical bodies having 360 degrees in their two-dimensional surface coordinate systems.

Is Mars four-dimensional, or is there something I'm not understanding that I should be? If the latter, it should be explained in the accompanying text, perhaps, since this section is currently linked from the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's 193 degrees east not west. As for why see this ref (you may need to click continue). Remember that earth has 193º W and 193º E as well. It's just that by convention we refer to them as 167º E or 167º W. By comparison, with Mars the standard which has been widely adopted is only to refer to º E. (Of course either way you also need a prime meridianmeridian, otherwise 167 or 193 or whatever leads to the question of degrees from where?) Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 20:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
See also Longitude#Longitude on bodies other than Earth which explains the various issues more generally (including how you define east/west/north/south). Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Section: Habitability assessment

The "Habitability assessment" section should be a brief summary of the parent article (Life on Mars). The reason for its present length has to do with the bias of a user that was recently banned indefinitely. In the past I sanitized it from POV and synthesis but it remains too large and I think it nearly hijacks the topic. I am planning on replacing it with a summary with emphasis in water. Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC) --formerly user:BatteryIncluded.

I went ahead with a summary of this section, per Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Please feel free to improve it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Water at the south pole too

tempted to just fix this but i'm not sure of the technical defintions so i'll just ask...

is the second sentence "The only place where water ice is visible at the surface is at the north polar ice cap." still correct given the latest finding of water ice in the Korolev crater (which is linked to further down in the article)? --The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. It was my mistake. The Korolev Crater is near the north polar cap, not the southern cap (which is mostly CO2 ice). Thank you, and my apologies. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Due to the latest IP edit, I wish to remark that both polar ice caps contain water ice, but the southern cap has a thick layer of CO2 covering the water ice. Therefore this statement in the article is still correct: "The only place where water ice is visible at the surface is at the north polar ice cap." Perhaps we can follow that sentence by mentioning the fact above? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please update with "Valley formation on early Mars by subglacial and fluvial erosion"

Please update section "Lakes and river valleys" with info on this study. It's currently included in 2020 in science like so:

Scientists report that valley networks in the southern highlands of Mars may have been formed mostly under glaciers, not free-flowing rivers of water, indicating that early Mars was colder than thought and that extensive glaciation likely occurred in its past.

Maybe this also warrants renaming the section due to "river valleys" indicating rivers of free-flowing water.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. "Early Mars was covered in ice sheets, not flowing rivers: study". phys.org. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
  2. Crane, Leah. "Ancient valleys on Mars may have been carved by glaciers". New Scientist. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
  3. Grau Galofre, Anna; Jellinek, A. Mark; Osinski, Gordon R. (3 August 2020). "Valley formation on early Mars by subglacial and fluvial erosion". Nature Geoscience: 1–6. doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0618-x. ISSN 1752-0908. S2CID 220939044. Retrieved 6 September 2020.

Source of water?

This article should mention the hypothesized source of the water on early Mars. Unless we believe that every rocky planet in the universe features water oceans. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Water still on Mars (March 2021)

Long-term drying of Mars by sequestration of ocean-scale volumes of water in the crust Mapsax (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ALSO, the related refs - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done - added related text and references to the lead of the main "Water on Mars" article as follows: "In March 2021, researchers reported that the considerable amount of water on ancient Mars remains on Mars but has likely been sequestered into the rocks and crust of the planet over the years." - should be ok but *entirely* ok with me to rv,rm,mv,ce the edit of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hautaluoma, Grey; Johnson, Alana; Good, Andrew (16 March 2021). "New Study Challenges Long-Held Theory of Fate of Mars' Water". NASA. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  2. ^ Mack, Eric (16 March 2021). "Mars hides an ancient ocean beneath its surface - New research finds a surprising amount of water locked away in the red planet". CNET. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  3. ^ Scheller, E.L.; et al. (16 March 2021). "Long-term drying of Mars by sequestration of ocean-scale volumes of water in the crust". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abc7717. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  4. ^ Chang, Kenneth (19 March 2021). "The Water on Mars Vanished. This Might Be Where It Went. Mars once had rivers, lakes and seas. Although the planet is now desert dry, scientists say most of the water is still there, just locked up in rocks". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 March 2021.

Inaccurate claim and original research

There's an inaccurate claim that researchers discovered a "reservoir of liquid water was at depths of 10–20 kilometres (6.2–12.4 mi) under the Martian crust" supported by the scientific paper. According to the paper, researchers discovered liquid water saturation, which is very different from what is mentioned in the article. This is an example of original research and should be corrected.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: