Confirmed: Mars was as wet as Enthusiasts have hoped and claimed

NASA: Liquid water once on Mars- Evidence red planet was once 'soaking wet'

Mars rover finds evidence that Red Planet could once have supported life

So, not only do we know where the water went, we now have even yet still more evidence that water flowed and persisted on the surface of Mars. The tenuous position of the 'Dry, Cold Mars' scientists is getting more and more untenable- especially with Opportunity finding rocks that form in the acidic conditions of hot springs.

Furthermore, we know that: Mars has water (and thus oxygen), iron, carbon dioxide (for more O2, and for plants), lead (and is rather highly enriched in it), is structurally similar in terms of crust/mantle, and has a day almost exactly the same length as Earth's, and a year almost twice that of Earth's.

Yet we're to believe that Mars is Mt. Everest, a place for crazy people to go as a challenge, but no place to live- even though Mars has been warm and wet in the past and could be again...

Share this

The fact remains that the

The fact remains that the most inhospitable place on Earth is still far, far, more inviting than anyplace on Mars.

Do you see people flocking to live in Antarctica, or the Sahara desert? What makes you believe that there is any urgency outside a small circle of ?religious fanatics? to live on Mars?

Brian - I appreciate your

Brian -

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the pronouncements of past conditions on Mars. Based on the data you mention, and your statement "...could be again...," knowing what we know about the development of the Earth's atmosphere, over how long a time, realistically how soon could Mar's atmosphere be made hospitable to human life? Can a human life supporting atmosphere be developed on Mars based on its current orbit around the Sun?

Can these questions, and numerous others, be addressed?

There are some huge problems

There are some huge problems associated with attempting to colonize Mars. Problem you don't typically hear from Bob Zubrin, the Cult of NASA or their supporters.

For starters, the atmosphere is so thin that a lot more radiation strikes the surface of the planet then here on Earth. This radiation would be extremely hazardess to any life form attempting to get a foothold on the surface (like plants).

Another big problem for Mars is the fact that it has no large, rotation stabilizing Moon like the Earth has. Every 10,000 years or so the rotation axis of Mars shifts so that the Poles become the equator, and the equator becomes the poles. I am sure you can imagine the effect that such a change would have to life here on Earth.

Mars doesn?t haven?t a molten core, it doesn?t have plate tectonics, which are also significant factors for life.

For anyone interested I would recommend the book ?Rare Earth? (by Ward & Brownlee).

i don't see anything

i don't see anything particularly wrong with going to mars. the radiation problem is far worse during the journey there and back(presumably), as you would be housed under the surface while there, limiting exposure. fuel would be converted and plentiful, as is water(extrapolation). it boils down to the funding of it , for me. Who/why should every tax payer bear the incredible burden of these journeys? everything they(gov't) touch goes up in price exponentially. what is the limit to their spending on this project? do the largest mass of taxpayers really care, when they'll be long dead before any of it comes to fruition(25 years from now min.)?