Brent: --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. What is the current thinking about Valles Marineris (if that is how you spell it)?
In the press release, they state that Valles Marinaris is obviously caused by water erosion, but it could have been a catastrophic event. What they are looking for now is evidence of prolonged pooling, which is thought of as a requirement for the development of life.
2. Is there really a good alternative to exlain the erosion there?
See above, not in dispute.
3. Is there solid evidence for water ice at the poles?
Spectroscopic evidence only as of now, but even polar ice is not indicative of past, prolonged pooling.
4. Does water ice at the poles indicate that there may be pools of liquid water during at least a part of a season?
Not currently
5. Although it is frozen for at least part of the Martian year, the water at the poles is water that has been on the planet for a long period. Is this being ignored, and why?
Long-term ice is not as favorable for the formation of life, as liquid water. The polar ice could have been a permanent feature.
6. What is the real significance of the announcement today?
Your next statement is the answer to #6. Remember that for every liquid water scenario put forth, there was always a "dry" alternative. This mission was to try and nail-down the early Martian conditions once and for all, based on the geology
It almost seems to me that NASA scientists are really only stating that the rover is in agreement with what they already knew. What am I missing here?
Nothing at all. We were prepped for something "big", not realizing that what gets the scientists off is not what gets the general public off! It is an important finding, as it lays to rest some "what if" scenarios and assures us of the right direction in future research. No biggie. C. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com