I totally understand being very cautious about their findings, but the wording of this paragraph struck me as odd: > The ratio that Curiosity found in the Cumb

I totally understand being very cautious about their findings, but the wording of this paragraph struck me as odd: > The ratio that Curiosity found in the Cumberland sample is about one-half the ratio in water vapor in today's Martian atmosphere > suggesting much of the planet's water loss occurred since that rock formed > However, the measured ratio is about three times higher than the ratio in the original water supply of Mars, based on the assumption that supply had a ratio similar to that measured in Earth's oceans > This suggests much of Mars' original water was lost before the rock formed. So I guess a lot of water was lost both before and after the formation of the rock, and they only have ballpark figures for the hypothetical amounts?