R
robnissen
Guest
Contrary to the researcher quoted here, I find this very disappointing news:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070920_mars_tale.html<br /><br />While I agree that gaining knowledge is a good thing:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In science, discrediting a theory can be just as important as supporting one. "Some science reporters are acting as if we should be disappointed these new bright deposits weren't deposited by water," McEwen said. "We're excited by any advance in understanding Mars no matter what it is."</font><br /><br />I also agree that discrediting a theory is imporant, nevertheless, I especially find this disappointing:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Dry landslides<br /><br />McEwen led another research team, which studied a variety of landforms also thought to be associated with past water on Mars. They examined images of gully deposits that had been detected last year by the Mars Global Surveyor. The gully deposits were not present in 1999 images but appeared by 2004. The before-and-after images raised hopes that modern flows of liquid water created the deposits. However, observations from MRO suggest a dry origin, McEwen said. <br /><br />Both chemical analyses and images of one of the fresh deposits showed no signs of frost or ice and no evidence for even hydrated minerals, all of which could have given the deposits a "bright" appearance. <br /><br />"We think dry landsliding could've created the bright deposits," McEwen said. <br /><br />The slopes above this deposit and five other locations are steep enough for sand or loose, dry dust to flow down the gullies, the scientists say. Material uphill could be the source.</font><br /><br />Its not that I reallly disagree with anything substantively here, but I think the attitude is simplistic.<br /><br />While increasing our knowledge is a good thing, we can't increase our space knowledge without f