3 ms·

I hope so but this type of finding has been wrong before. See the recent discrediting of liquid "brines" on Mars: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article

I hope so but this type of finding has been wrong before. See the recent discrediting of liquid "brines" on Mars: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516306029 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001910351... Until a rover or other probe tests it directly, I'll remain skeptical.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
And unfortunately, these glaciers are at relatively high latitudes (50+ degrees). Cutiosity and Opportunity are near the equator.
tinix 9y ago
Right? In 2015, there was this: "NASA confirms the best-ever evidence for water on Mars" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/28/new-evidence-of-liquid-water-on-mars-confirmed-by-nasa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2... From your link: "This implies that RSL are not fed by large, near-subsurface aquifers, but are instead the result of either small ( < 120 km diameter) aquifers, deliquescence of perchlorate and chlorate salts or dry, granular flows." Keyword there is "granular flows" Here's another source for similar findings a few months prior. "Granular flows at recurring slope lineae on Mars indicate a limited role for liquid water" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0012-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0012-5 I too remain skeptical.
djsumdog 9y ago
Also, if this is accurate, how do we know it's water? I mean most likely it is, but is there a potential for it to be some other type of frozen liquid? Potentially a non-drinking one?
- azernik 9y ago
  Spectroscopy.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Incorrect, you're confusing different findings that are totally different areas of research merely because they have "water" in common. We have long known that there is tons of frozen water on Mars outside of the poles. Through many individual discoveries we've learned about shallow subsurface permafrost over much of Mars; we've learned of a long history of sizable quantities of liquid water on Mars; and we've learned of subsurface glaciers of very ice that are almost entirely water ice by volume. The brines research is still an open question, as in all scientific research there is a back and forth between different interpretations of the given data, it's quite possible it will ultimately not shake out as a valid interpretation (but it's also a bit much to say that the brine theory has been "discredited" merely because an argument was made against it). Regardless, the existence of subsurface glaciers, of which this is an extension of, is a far less controversial result. We know Mars has subsurface water ice, we know some of that is in the form of glaciers, these are merely certain examples of those glaciers that are significantly exposed to the surface.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

And unfortunately, these glaciers are at relatively high latitudes (50+ degrees). Cutiosity and Opportunity are near the equator.

tinix 9y ago

Right? In 2015, there was this: "NASA confirms the best-ever evidence for water on Mars" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/28/new-evidence-of-liquid-water-on-mars-confirmed-by-nasa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2... From your link: "This implies that RSL are not fed by large, near-subsurface aquifers, but are instead the result of either small ( < 120 km diameter) aquifers, deliquescence of perchlorate and chlorate salts or dry, granular flows." Keyword there is "granular flows" Here's another source for similar findings a few months prior. "Granular flows at recurring slope lineae on Mars indicate a limited role for liquid water" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0012-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0012-5 I too remain skeptical.

djsumdog 9y ago

Also, if this is accurate, how do we know it's water? I mean most likely it is, but is there a potential for it to be some other type of frozen liquid? Potentially a non-drinking one?

azernik 9y ago
Spectroscopy.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

Incorrect, you're confusing different findings that are totally different areas of research merely because they have "water" in common. We have long known that there is tons of frozen water on Mars outside of the poles. Through many individual discoveries we've learned about shallow subsurface permafrost over much of Mars; we've learned of a long history of sizable quantities of liquid water on Mars; and we've learned of subsurface glaciers of very ice that are almost entirely water ice by volume. The brines research is still an open question, as in all scientific research there is a back and forth between different interpretations of the given data, it's quite possible it will ultimately not shake out as a valid interpretation (but it's also a bit much to say that the brine theory has been "discredited" merely because an argument was made against it). Regardless, the existence of subsurface glaciers, of which this is an extension of, is a far less controversial result. We know Mars has subsurface water ice, we know some of that is in the form of glaciers, these are merely certain examples of those glaciers that are significantly exposed to the surface.