1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why is NASA and curiosity still looking for water evidence?

  1. Dec 23, 2015 #1
    So I always see in the news that the curiosity rover or some nasa study of previous data discovered evidence of water like its actually news. Wasn't it shown a decade ago that there is conclusive evidence that lots of water existed on mars? I don't get why they're still spending so much time looking for water and doing analyses to confirm that water flowed on Mars. Its like spending time and money finding more evidence that gravity affects us. Can someone explain why nasa is wasting so much time and resources looking for more evidence of prehistoric water on mars? it makes no sense.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 23, 2015 #2

    CWatters

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    How much evidence is needed to constitute proof?
     
  4. Dec 23, 2015 #3
    there's an entire branch of philosophy devoted towards that question but the limestone deposits, the silicates, and the dried up rivers, deltas, canyons, etc are all conclusive enough in my submission.

    I might ask you though how much evidence is needed to constitute proof for gravity? Or do we need over 9000 sigma proof to demonstrate the higgs boson exists? Sometimes its wasteful to look for more confirmation evidence on something that has been demonstrated already.
     
  5. Dec 23, 2015 #4
    Just to clarify what we are talking about: How much time and resources do they exclusively use for this purpose in relation to the overall expenses?
     
  6. Dec 23, 2015 #5
    I may be wrong, but doesn't the new evidence suggest that there has been water "flow" and presence on Mars in the recent past, not just over a geological time scale. In fact, if I recall correctly, the evidence suggests that there is sometimes water present on and near the surface present day. This is much more relevant to the search for life on Mars, correct?
     
  7. Dec 23, 2015 #6

    CWatters

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What do you want NASA to do? Turn Curiosity off? I'm fairly sure that it isn't just looking for water but evidence of when water was present and more.
     
  8. Dec 23, 2015 #7
    Look for life of course. Or focus on a europa mission, or focus on sending a probe to investigate titan's methane lakes, or check our enceladus' under water ocean, etc, etc. I mean I can think of an infinite number of superior missions. We already know there was water on mars approximately up to 3 billion years ago. Curiosity should spend time finding ice so it can analyze the composition and look for advanced organic molecules rather than sift through dirt to confirm water existed.
     
  9. Dec 23, 2015 #8
    They had a satellite which saw water streaks on the surface. If they could some how use curiosity to intercept those streaks and investigate the liquid composition then that sounds more useful than re confirming that water is and has been on mars.
     
  10. Dec 23, 2015 #9

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Unless the landing spot has been chosen right, that could involve a long journey for Curiosity.
     
  11. Dec 23, 2015 #10

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/overview/index.html

    Curiosity isn't just focused on water, but because water is so important to life as we know it finding out when, where, and how water existed on Mars is a primary goal of the mission.

    From here: http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html

    That's why we're focused on Mars.

    Obviously the experts at NASA and all the institutes associated with NASA disagree with you, as we're still making Mars a priority and analyzing its soil. Don't you think they may actually have some very good reasons for this?
     
  12. Dec 23, 2015 #11
    Thanks for your reply. Don't we already know how when and where water existed on mars? And don't we already know the soil composition since the days of the 1970s? I thought the viking lander figured out a good chunk of stuff in the 70's. Then i'm pretty sure the two rovers before curiosity found ample evidence of limestone and silicate deposits, and deltas, and lakes, etc. It just seems like instead of analyzing soil to figure out what we already know, why not use the rover to try and find and sample the water streaks which nasa satallites detected or try to sample ice and test for advanced organic molecules that could be indicative of life? I mean i think the mission was flawed from the beginning because it doesn't have the ability to take a microscopic picture or make cell cultures to see cellular activity--instead the entire mission was designed around finding water and detect basic organic molecules which we already knew was there. I mean if huge canyons, deltas, limestone, riverbeds, and other stuff isn't enough evidence that water existed on mars then what could possibly persuade anyone that there was water? Finding life is ultimately better than finding the things which support life obviously. Finally what will confirming that there is and has been water tell us that we don't already know?

    Furthermore NASA experts aren't right just because they're NASA experts. Plenty of other academics disagree with NASA and NASA's petty politics often gets in the way since everyone's pet project needs to be implemented. Consider the MARS express plan to get humans to mars under the current nasa budget a decade ago--NASA was ecstatic about it at first until they realized it didn't use the international space station and that it would cancel a lot of other nasa projects like the curiosity rover to look for water on mars. The point is that NASA doesn't always do the best things; just because nasa experts say something doesn't mean the rest of the scientific community agrees with them or that they're correct. There are better things to do with NASA's budget. Furthermore not everyone in NASA agrees that confirming water on mars again for the 1000th time should be a priority--many argue that the james webb telescope or a Europa mission is much more important.
     
  13. Dec 23, 2015 #12
    I think it might be worth it to try rather than confirming for the umpteenth time that "ZOMG WATER WAS ON MARS". I don't understand why we need to confirm that there was water when the evidence is basically undeniable.

    Its worth the effort to sample the actual content of water and perhaps see evidence of organic molecules being emitted which strongly support the existence of life. Confirming the existence of life in my submission is a billion times more important than confirming water existed on mars in great quantities. Even if curiosity doesn't make it there, so what? We'll miss out on analyzing some dirt from dried up lakes or riverbeds.
     
  14. Dec 23, 2015 #13
    Curiosity is first of all a minerology lab, but does have other real time instruments for measuring radiation and basic weather conditions.
    It is not any sense designed to be looking for evidence of life presently existing on Mars.

    The type of rocks it discovers can be related to similar rocks on Earth.
    Some of them can only be formed in the presence of water and other conditions prevailing.
    so examining them can tell us a lot about the geological history of Mars.
    Some kind of rocks on Earth, chalks, exist as a direct by product of primative life, algea.
    Nobody is seriously anticipating finding chalk deposits though
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2015
  15. Dec 24, 2015 #14
    But why wasn't the primary objective to find life? I mean I would trade all the evidence of past water and all of the dirt analyses and all of the atmospheric tests for just one clearcut example that life was on mars. Minerology is laughably insignificant compared to the search for extra terrestrial life. I also doubt that curiosity could find chalk deposits with its pitiful little scooper even if they existed. And even if there were huge examples of chalk deposits, some scientist would cast doubt on the results by proposing another mechanism .

    What curiosity should have been is a rover with a microscope and the ability to form cell cultures. NASA should have tried to analyze ice deposits and the ground around ice deposits in order to see if there were any remains of life. Relative to other scientific research, martian minerology is worthless. Equally useless things to analyze include figuring out a model of how the martian atmosphere changes depending on its orbit, mapping prehistoric lava flows, etc. I mean i really don't understand NASA sometimes--its one of the reason why your average joe just doesn't care about space exploration--NASA spends a lot of time doing really boring scientific research that probably impacts no one and yields no cool information. People are going to get hyped if there's a manned mission, or we discover life, or if we have an underwater probe on Europa, not if NASA discovers some extra uranium in martian dirt. Most people don't care, and reasonably so.
     
  16. Dec 24, 2015 #15

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Because goals need to be realistic and achievable, with clear parameters and objectives. The goal of "to find life" isn't really any of those. Especially since we don't even know if life ever existed in the first place.

    Looking for evidence of past water and doing dirt analysis is part of the process of determining whether life ever existed on Mars. How did you think we were going to search for evidence of life?

    How is that going to be useful when there likely aren't any cells on Mars?

    Are you serious? 99.999% of all meaningful science is "boring scientific research" that doesn't immediately impact anyone. If scientific merit was judged on how cool it seemed to the average person, we'd never get anywhere.

    Honestly I can't fathom why you have a problem with Curiosity, especially after my previous post explained exactly what Curiosity's mission is and why it carries the equipment it carries. It's starting to sound like you're complaining just to complain.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Why is NASA and curiosity still looking for water evidence?
  1. Why is there water? (Replies: 21)

  2. Solar Still (Replies: 6)

Loading...