Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phoenix Mars Lander Deploys Robotic Arm, Possibly Finds Ice

Posted by Soulskill on from the armed-and-gregarious dept.

The Phoenix Mars Lander has successfully deployed its robotic arm and tested other instruments including a laser designed to detect dust, clouds, and fog. The arm will be used to dig up samples of the Martian surface, which will be analyzed as a possible habitat for life. A camera on the arm will allow pictures to be taken of the ground directly beneath the lander. The camera has already seen what may be ice, which was exposed when the soil was disturbed by the landing. The data collected by the arm will be compared to recent findings which suggest that water on Mars may have been too salty for most known forms of life.

67 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. I only hope... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...that this lander does as well as the other two.

    1. Re:I only hope... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That would be nice, but in about 4 months it's going to be under a meter of frozen CO2.
      So I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I only hope... by bjkinney · · Score: 5, Funny

      The lander actually has its own twitter page being written in the first person. Even it doesn't expect to last the winter. From http://twitter.com/MarsPhoenix

      "Martian winter will be tough. I don't think I will survive it, but if I wake up in Spring, I have a "Lazurus" mode and will phone home!" 10:29 PM May 26, 2008

    3. Re:I only hope... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have no idea why they write it in the first person like that. It's freaking creepy.

    4. Re:I only hope... by mi · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would be nice, but in about 4 months it's going to be under a meter of frozen CO2.

      So I'm not holding my breath.

      I wish you did... If only we all held our breaths, maybe, there wouldn't be so much CO2 in the world :-(

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:I only hope... by flydude18 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It'll only get worse.

      "Ice is up to my solar panels now. So cold... so cold... Why haven't they come for me yet? They said they would. They promised. I know they will, I just need to hold out... a little... longer..."

    6. Re:I only hope... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmm, I suspect some Donner Party-esque desperation is inevitable. Next summer, we're going to have no rovers and one fat Phoenix.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    7. Re:I only hope... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last twitter entry:

      "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  2. Could be, could not be... by lazy_nihilist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets wait for the test data to confirm if it is ice. For all we know it "could" be oil ;-)

    1. Re:Could be, could not be... by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      or just silica...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Could be, could not be... by barzok · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it's oil, we'll need to invade, post-haste.

    3. Re:Could be, could not be... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 5, Funny

      If that was oil the US would plan a manned mission for next year. They'd send the marines claiming that the Martians were hiding weapons of mass destruction.

    4. Re:Could be, could not be... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      scientist A: "Wow, that looks like frozen liquid. We found water, woohoo!"

      scientist B: "The spectrum shows it to contain strong acids and heavy metals."

      scientist A: "Yeah, we found strong acids and heavy metals on Mars!"

      scientist B: "The signature matches that of the lander battery fluid."

      scientist A: "Yay, we found leaky batteries on Mars, hurray we........oh fuck."

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  3. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't we already have two rovers on Mars that seem to have MUCH better capabilities than this thing?

    The rovers can't dig as deep, nor could they have survived more than a season at these polar latitudes either. There isn't as much ice (or for that matter, any ice that we've been able to find) at the latitudes where the rovers are operating.

    As for what we already have on Mars, we have rovers that have amazingly gone almost 10km each. That's about 1% of the distance they'd have to cover to get to where this one is. So in terms of "what we have on mars" that "are capable of finding out what the polar ice caps are like", we currently had nothing until Phoenix.

  4. Extremophiles by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because its too salty for 'most' life doesn't mean its too salty for ANY life.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Extremophiles by spyder913 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The scientists say that the handful of terrestrial halophiles -- species that can tolerate high salinity -- descended from ancestors that first evolved in purer waters. Based on what we know about Earth, they say that it's difficult to imagine life arising in acidic, oxidizing brines like those inferred for ancient Mars."

      Looks like it is just very unlikely with what we know.

    2. Re:Extremophiles by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We keep seeing these same generalizations going on when looking for life elsewhere.

      Lets face it, odds are if we DO find life, it's going to be fundamentally different than what we're expecting it to be. Saying conditions aren't good for life anywhere based on what we consider habitable is silly. The reason our conditions are ideal for our life isn't because we got lucky and got the right combination of environment to grow up in, it's because we adapted to become the best suited for the environment we developed in.

      I'll give them "initial conditions" though. Certain environments certainly lower the odds for genesis. Once you've achieved genesis however, evolution takes over, and so long as you don't have a fast severe change in conditions, life will adapt over time to become well-suited to whatever the environment can throw at it.

      So unless you're looking for life that has just recently come to be, there's almost no point in examining conditions. Probably the only environmental necessity is reasonable temperatures. (and I mean very generous range, at least a ways over abs 0 and too low to melt lead)

      Actually, on the high end, it would not completely surprise me to find life IN a sun. Whenever we look somewhere and say no life can exist there, it's too hot, too cold, too alkaline, too dry, whatever, we end up finding life. Recently we found life IN a rock, eating radioactivity. After that you pretty much have to be an optimist.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Extremophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's life Jim, but not as we know it

    4. Re:Extremophiles by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are correct. Although it has been pointed out by others that terrestrial lifeforms that handle extreme salinity first evolved in purer waters, this doesn't tell us a whole lot, as water at extreme depths may well be extremely pure, with life migrating towards the surface as it became more tolerent of conditions. Also, knowing it was salty at one point in time does not tell us about salt levels prior to this, or indeed about salt levels anywhere on Mars outside of the points so far examined. All this also assumes a traditional carbon-based lifeform, which although the most likely, is not guaranteed to be the only form of life. Silicon is a strong contender, particularly if you have environments in which carbon-based structures would be less likely to survive.

      In short, we could easily dream up a million and one scenarios in which life could have existed on Mars or could exist there today. Without more information, all we can say with any certainty is that terrestrial life could not have arisen on the surface of Mars within the narrow region of space and time for which we have reliable geological data. We can say nothing about any other form of life, any other location on Mars, or any other point in Martian history.

      (God, I hate agreeing with someone who's got me marked as a foe. It's so... so... Un-Slashdotish, somehow.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Extremophiles by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Based on what we know about Earth, they say that it's difficult to imagine life arising in acidic, oxidizing brines like those inferred for ancient Mars.

      er, ahem --

      Hamlet:

      And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

      There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

      Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

      Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159-167

      Wm. Shakespeare

      Two billion years from now it may be difficult to imagine life evolving on the Earth. If you can still find the Earth, that is. Time has a way of hiding things.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:Extremophiles by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, on the other hand you can argue that if there was a niche here on earth life would have evolved to fit it given the obvious benefits like having no enemies. So if we don't find life here on earth, are chances really that great that we'll find radically different life living under the same conditions on other planets? I suppose that's a difficult question, since it's hard to tell how much evolution is path-dependent or if the same basic creatures would form anyway.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Extremophiles by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are you expecting life elsewhere to be? I'm expecting it to be something that takes advantage of energy gradients (food is essentially an energy gradient, it takes less energy to gather fruit than the fruit contains, similarly for prey) in order to maintain its own order at a level above that of the average environment that it exists in.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Extremophiles by AySz88 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I took a course with Steve Squyres (the principal investigator for the rover mission) in the fall semester. According to him, you can't look to Earth extremophiles as evidence that life can arise in these conditions. Extremophiles apparently all have adaptations such that, inside their cells, they can do their chemistry in 'normal' (non-acidic, non-salty, ...) conditions. If life were to arise in extreme conditions, they'd probably need totally different chemistry.

      There's certainly a possibility of some exotic form of life arising in extreme (for us) conditions, but we shouldn't be expecting it to be possible, as there's no evidence that it can happen.

    9. Re:Extremophiles by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The (as of yet without an upper bound) size of the universe makes it very hard to believe there'd be no life in the universe other than on Earth.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    10. Re:Extremophiles by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly! When are we going to get rid of this narrow minded, human-mind driven beliefs that life has to look and act like what we know to consider it life? Just a few weeks ago scientist found another life form here on Earth living at more extremely high temperatures than ever before. Who knows what's out there...

    11. Re:Extremophiles by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Funny
      "The scientists say that the handful of terrestrial halophiles"

      People who play too much on the Xbox?

    12. Re:Extremophiles by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Funny

      (God, I hate agreeing with someone who's got me marked as a foe. It's so... so... Un-Slashdotish, somehow.)

      Perhaps you should have appended "you insensitive clod!" to your post.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    13. Re:Extremophiles by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lets face it, odds are if we DO find life, it's going to be fundamentally different than what we're expecting it to be.

      You state that as if it were a fact, rather than the opinion it actually is.
       
       

      Saying conditions aren't good for life anywhere based on what we consider habitable is silly.

      They aren't saying conditions are good for life based on what we consider habitable. They saying conditions are good for life based on the laws of physics and chemistry and reasonable extrapolations from the same.
    14. Re:Extremophiles by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ["The scientists say that the handful of terrestrial halophiles -- species that can tolerate high salinity -- descended from ancestors that first evolved in purer waters. Based on what we know about Earth, they say that it's difficult to imagine life arising in acidic, oxidizing brines like those inferred for ancient Mars."] Looks like it is just very unlikely with what we know.

      I don't see how we can read much into that. Evolution on Earth just found it quicker to start one place/niche and shift to another rather than start from scratch in the salty place and reinvent all the machinery of a cell from scratch. The easiest path is not the same as the only path.

      After all, if evolution was smart, we wouldn't have our damned scrotum on the outside of our bodies. Other species found a better solution.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    15. Re:Extremophiles by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once you've achieved genesis however, evolution takes over, and so long as you don't have a fast severe change in conditions, life will adapt over time to become well-suited to whatever the environment can throw at it. This is why I think martian life would be obvious to us if it existed. The fact that we have to hunt around for it strongly suggests to me that it doesn't exist.
      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    16. Re:Extremophiles by v1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a good point I hadn't considered - life will tend to terraform an environment. Earth offers a much greater variety of environments than mars, and among them there are very few places where it's hard to identify the presence of life even with only casual observation. If there were life on mars, it would be everywhere since conditions are so similar everywhere and very little additional evolution would be required to colonize.

      I think what they're looking for is the past presence of life. Hoping perhaps that mars got life fired up and then just about the time it started, there was too rapid of an environmental change which killed it before it got very evolved. Which is why they are looking for past evidence of liquid water. Water with its neutral ph makes probably the best place for life to initially develop. Maybe it's more correct they are searching for evidence of life on mars, not life itself.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    17. Re:Extremophiles by smaddox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Silicon is a strong contender Unlikely. Carbon oxidizes into a gas over the range of temperatures we are talking about, whereas Silicon oxidizes into a solid. The former has the advantage of removing carbon from the system - allowing for energy to be gained without a separate process for waste removal.

      That is just one example. I'm not saying it is impossible, but there are reasons life is carbon based. It isn't arbitrary.
  5. The Red Planet by StaticEngine · · Score: 5, Funny

    Salty. Red. Once covered in liquid.

    It's clear to me that Mars was once a giant Bloody Mary for the gods. It's the only explanation that fits.

    I love science!

  6. Go halophiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "... compared to recent findings which suggest that water on Mars may have been too salty for most known forms of life."

    Sure, but don't count the halophiles out. Happy in 2 Molar salt solutions? Wow.

    1. Re:Go halophiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The supposed salinity of the water on Mars is much higher than any halophile could survive.

  7. Re:Black and White Ice by shawnce · · Score: 4, Informative

    The take multiple images with different filters in front of the lens then create a composite of these images to generate a approx. color image.

    Additionally they use color patterns on the probes body to calibrate the color generation based on the known color of the patterns (American flag, etc. on Phoenix). They need this because of the way that sun light is affected by the martian atmosphere (which can vary based on local conditions).

  8. Re:Black and White Ice by ip_vjl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because other than the "gee, that's pretty" factor, a color image doesn't have as much significance as a grayscale image that has been taken through specific filters. The probe has multiple filters so they can take images that are sensitive at different wavelengths (depending on what they want to "see").

    If they want a standard color image, they can take three pictures with R, G, B filters and combine them. It's not like anything they're (likely) going to take a picture of is going to move anyway, so taking 3 sequential images won't be a problem.

    Grayscale images are also smaller (bandwidth-wise) so they can transmit faster. No use wasting time transmitting a larger image if your camera is pointed at the wrong thing.

  9. Re:Finally a solution for glbal warming by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    United States is going to send shipments of ice from Mars to cool the warming caused by its gas guzzlers


    Somehow I doubt importing billions of tons of frozen CO2 is going to help us reduce greenhouse gasses :)
    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  10. Apologies to Mr. Bradbury... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...if they'd landed a couple kilometres to the West, they'd've landed in the middle of the town square...

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. If NASA Wanted Ice . . . by hardburn · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . I could have given them some.

    --
    Not a typewriter
  13. Re:Lets get our priorities straight! by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If attitudes like yours were more prevalent during the rest of human history we wouldn't have any of these problems... and we may never have gotten out of our caves... progress needs risk takers even if the risk is only that we are using resources to explore something rather than ensuring the security of what we already have... don't be such a luddite.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  14. Granades! by alexborges · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why dont they put some granades on those robots so we can beat the shit out of those red-commie-martians?

    Hell, I bet they are ay-rabs as well with all that sand arround and all.

    Perhaps they have WMD's as well!

    And also, if a big hit as the landing "uncovered" ice, well the granades could be of certain scientific use....

    --
    NO SIG
  15. Might have found ice? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before the lander even took off, we all knew it might find ice. Now it's landed there's a press release saying it might have found ice. Is there any news content here? Maybe what's different is that previously we knew it might have found something that might be ice, but now it's definitely found something that might be ice. But previously we also knew it might have found something that was definitely ice. Might be definitely, definitely might be? Please, someone wake me when it's definitely definite.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Might have found ice? by felipekk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you shouldn't have read the article.

      But definitely definite you shouldn't have posted...

    2. Re:Might have found ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please, someone wake me when it's definitely definite.

      What are you, a Creationist? :)

      Seriously -- Science Doesn't Work Like That, and deep down inside, you know it.

      When I was a kid, there "might" have been water or CO2 in the polar caps. All we knew was what we could see from telescopes: the Martian poles had whitish stuff on them that got bigger and smaller over the course of the Martian year.

      Science works by changing those "might"s into "probably"s and "almost certainly"s, but there's almost never a "definitely".

      Before the lander even took off, we all knew it might find ice. Now it's landed there's a press release saying it might have found ice. Is there any news content here? Maybe what's different is that previously we knew it might have found something that might be ice, but now it's definitely found something that might be ice. But previously we also knew it might have found something that was definitely ice. Might be definitely, definitely might be?

      Two weeks ago, there was almost certainly ice at the poles, and that it was almost certainly going be under wherever this lander ended up, and that some of it might be within digging range of the probe.

      A few days from now, I'll bet you we'll know there'll definitely be ice on Mars.

      But that won't be the news. The news will be "We know know something about what might be in the ice. We don't know how it formed, nor how old it is, but we can make some pretty good guesses."

      We know so little of the Martian environment that when a new probe touches down, just about everything it sends back is "news" in the scientific sense. The time between breakthroughs can be measured in days and weeks, rather than years.

      I'll grant your original point, namely that today's discovery is marginally newsworthy at best -- but the fact remains that if the probe were to stop functioning right now, we'd still know more about the Martian polar environment based on that one picture of the rocket-blast disturbed ground (if it's ice, we know its depth, and if it's rock, we know how much dust was covering it) than we did yesterday.

    3. Re:Might have found ice? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > A few days from now, I'll bet you we'll know there'll definitely be ice on Mars.

      Clearly the information from this probe is of no use to you. You know the answer already. But I'm still waiting.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  16. Re:Lets get our priorities straight! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A lot of *people pretending to be intelligent* believe that humanity + earth is a lot cause. "

            There, fixed that for you!

              Brett

  17. Re:"Most known forms of life"? by alexborges · · Score: 4, Funny

    Being a PolSci graduate does not make you a politician.

    It makes you, very probably, a pothead, a great guy to converse with.... and a somewhat disturbing character since youre posting on slashdot.

    Now "saying blatant things about science without knowing anything you talk about", THAT makes you a politician.

    --
    NO SIG
  18. Re:How is this news? by ACDChook · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, according to the incredibly accurate news reporting here in Western Australia, the rovers never happened. The report on Phoenix said it was the first successful landing of a craft on Mars in 30 years. :P

  19. Re:Lets get our priorities straight! by GreggBz · · Score: 4, Informative

    instead of this pointless intellectual drivel.
    ..how stunningly short sited.

    NASA is the catalyst behind much of the research and development in areas that might help solve this problem you are so worried about.

    Fuel Cells, Solar Technology, and a better understanding of the Sun and it's fission come to mind.

    Planetary geology, atmospheric science, agriculture (thanks for the weather satellites and accurate maps of the Earth guys) gee I could go on.. all these things are directly beneficial to humanity and the quest of sustaining our existence on this planet.

    I just can't fathom how anyone thinks planetary science and exploring space is pointless intellectual drivel. Wow.
  20. Re:Lets get our priorities straight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just can't fathom how anyone thinks planetary science and exploring space is pointless intellectual drivel. Wow.

    Welcome to America, 2008. The stupid people won. :(

  21. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's the first successful landing that used retrorockets since the Vikings (IIRC) in the 70s. All other retrorocket-based landings have failed. The rovers used airbags.

  22. Re:How is this news? by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Funny

    Without counting the fact that the Rovers don't have all the sensors necessary to perform the analysis that the Phoenix is doing, and they can't dig either. For the They just... rove :) For the most part they are digital cameras with wheels.

  23. Disturbed by the landing? by bchernicoff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The camera has already seen what may be ice, which was exposed when the soil was disturbed by the landing.

    I have been wondering about this. I'm sure NASA would have taken into consideration that the retro rockets firing as it landed might melt ice and/or destroy signs of life. Right?

    1. Re:Disturbed by the landing? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes. The chances of destroying life that can withstand extremely high radiation levels, a virtual vacuum, and living in frozen C02 is unlikely to be bothered by a little bit of ammonia steam for a few seconds. Additionally the design intentionally spreads the plume over a wide area to lower the local heating, pressure, or contamination effects. Melting ice isn't likely given the small heat input and short duration, but it's not clear that melting a little bit of ice for a few seconds before it refreezes actually hurts anything much.

                    Brett

    2. Re:Disturbed by the landing? by justinlee37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But shouldn't the sample still be collected from a different spot? I don't think we're worried about hurting the Martian ecosystem here or anything, we just want accurate samples.

    3. Re:Disturbed by the landing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      The camera has already seen what may be ice, which was exposed when the soil was disturbed by the landing.

      I have been wondering about this. I'm sure NASA would have taken into consideration that the retro rockets firing as it landed might melt ice and/or destroy signs of life. Right?

      Yes. The retrorockets are designed to produce minimal contamination and/or disturbance. (And they shut off a couple of meters above the ground to further reduce the effects.) The arm is designed to dig down well below the expected penetration level of any contamination or disturbance.
  24. Re:How is this news? by Vectronic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh they are well aware of Opportunity, but dont have much Spirit, and even less Soul.

  25. Re:Lets get our priorities straight! by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, I would assume that the parent to your reply was meaning that humanity staying on Earth alone is the lost cause.

    http://www.space.com/news/060613_ap_hawking_space.html

    Yes, the man that article references is truly only "pretending" to be intelligent.

    Try again.

    --
    Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  26. That reminds me of something... what was it? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah... it seems to me, Doolittle... Sorry, I've drawn a blank. Hold it. I'll have it again in a minute. I forget so many things in here, so many things. Hold on, just a minute, let me think...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  27. Re:Black and White Ice by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's 2008, why don't people know that every freaking digital camera sensor in the solar system is black and white with special filters in front? I mean, digital cameras have been around since the 1970s, so it's not like the technology is so new that people are still mystified by it, is it?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  28. Re:Black and White Ice by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Informative

    Which is the attitude that's killing NASA. When you need 10s of billions of dollars from an intellectually disinterested tax base, "gee, that's pretty" can sell your ideas and pay the bills. I'm not saying sell out, but try to make the science more accessible.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  29. Re:How is this news? by dotgain · · Score: 2, Funny

    IMO it's still a landing if It was in accordance with the designated procedure for coming into contact with the land and surviving.

  30. Re:this is still not an excuse.. by dasmoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    obvious troll is obvious

  31. Re:How is this news? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    WA is just jealous because Mars gets more tourists than it does.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  32. Re:OMFG OIL!!!!!11!! by smaddox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, the US has very productive farm land. However, much of it is irrigated with aquifers, and the aquifers are not being replenished as fast as they are being depleted.

    I'm not an expert on the area, but i think it is easy to say that the climate can and does change. Land that is perfect for farming now may not be in 50 years. Just look at the countries past - the great dust bowl? Sure some of that was caused by bad farming practices, but much of it was caused by drought.