« Hurricane keeps dead zone small | Main | First stars were nasty, brutish and short »

Bookmark in Connotea

Breaking news: water on Mars - August 01, 2008

mars nasa hub.jpgHere’s a familiar sounding headline: “Mars water breakthrough”.

It could be one of many headlines hitting us today from the Phoenix lander, which has finally scooped a bit of ice into one of its ovens (press release) but no! The headline came from a story in the Herald, in March 1999.

The Great Beyond has decided to do a little research, and perform a search on a well-known news search facility to see how many times headlines have screamed WATER ON MARS!!! to us over the years.

Here’s a few real headlines about water on Mars. Try and guess where and when they were reported – answers below the fold

1) Mars water found
2) Scientists find Mars water
3) Probe shows underground Mars water
4) Mars water
5) PLANET ICE!; OFFICIAL: MARS HAS WATER
6) NASA digs to find Mars water
7) Mars water news excites prof
8) UA team sees no recent sign of Mars water
9) Water could be flowing on mars today

Answers:
1) The Sun, June 22, 2000
2) Yorkshire Post, January 24, 2004
3) United Press International, May 28, 2002
4) City News Service, February 13, 2003
5) Birmingham Evening Mail, January 23, 2004
6) Courier Mail (Queensland, Australia), November 27, 1999 – actually, this one doesn’t’ count because its about the Mars Polar Lander, which never made it. But the headline – familiar, non?
7) Guelph Mercury (Ontario, Canada), March 4, 2004
8) The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), March 1, 2008
9) Nature News, December 6, 2006 (yes, we're guilty too)

So enough with the water on Mars headlines, Phoenix. We already knew it was there. Four years ago, a certain Chief News and Features Editor pointed out that we already knew Mars had water. Come back in 2012 for news of the next great discovery on Mars - here's a clue, it will probably be water.

Image: NASA

Comments

How curious that the only headline entirely unsupported by evidence was here on Nature News.

It's good that the question has finally been answered. However, it's not all that simple. They've also found an oxidizing substance that they say is "detrimental" to us. We've got a long way to go before we can actually see a benefit in the red planet.

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thegreatbeyond at nature.com'.

please enter code

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5768