Slashdot Mirror


Probable Water Ice Sighted On Mars

CraftyJack writes "Bright white chunks in the trenches dug by the Phoenix Lander have disappeared, leading Peter Smith & co. to believe that the chunks were ice that has since sublimated."

393 comments

  1. The real question is... by Zosden · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there oil?

    1. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      No. If there was, Brave President Shrubbery would have already launched a preemptive strike to libertyifacate and democratyatize the natives.

    2. Re:The real question is... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

      well it'd be cheaper to go there for it. Of course then we'd crash the oil spaceship into comets aka "the icebergs of the sky" and cause a catastrophe for all the moon weasels.
      btw, I feel the need to mention that H2O ice doesn't sublimate, CO2 ice does.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    3. Re:The real question is... by sjf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well now we understand why he announced the pre-emptive strike:

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4551-bush-to-announce-manned-mission-to-mars.html

    4. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when that joke went over your head, did it make a 'Whoosh' sound or was it more of a sonic boom?

    5. Re:The real question is... by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you fail it. Heinlein figured out how to move things from luna to terra cheaply a long time ago, if Platinum was just lying about on the moon, we would catapult it to earth with little cost. Moving oil on the other hand might be a more dangerous endeavor.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    6. Re:The real question is... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Is there oil?

      So what if there was. There's not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it. About the only thing it would be good for is lubricating the odd rover wheel.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:The real question is... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      btw, I feel the need to mention that H2O ice doesn't sublimate, CO2 ice does. *Whoosh*! (That was the sound of all the world's freeze dryers stopping working simultaneously...)
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:The real question is... by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes it does and can, at low atmospheric pressures (such as there is on Mars).

      --
      Jeremy
    9. Re:The real question is... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's no such word as democratyatize. It's democratalyze. Sheesh.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    10. Re:The real question is... by GeffDE · · Score: 5, Informative

      H2O ice does sublimate. Here's an easy way to prove it. All you need is a freezer and an ice cube tray.

      1. Fill ice cube tray with water (liquid, H2O water) and put it in freezer.
      2. Go back in a day and mark the level of the ice in the tray.
      3. Return later (preferably at least a week) and marvel at how the ice is below the level marked.
      4. ???
      5. Profit.

      The ice was in the freezer the whole time, so it didn't melt (assuming the freezer was set correctly and continuously powered). Therefore, the solid water lost must have changed to water vapor.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    11. Re:The real question is... by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. If there was, Brave President Shrubbery would have already launched a preemptive strike to libertyifacate and democratyatize the natives.

      If everytime we talk about Mars or Titan we must make jokes about oil and America we might as well pick the one jokes which were proven to be 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."

      "Well clearly we now need to spread Freedom and Democracy to the poor oppressed [Martians], who will welcome us with roses and be able to finance their own reconstruction."

      "By an amazing coincidence, [Mars] doesn't actually have democracy over there... Yet."

      You're welcome.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    12. Re:The real question is... by amdpox · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it would be profitable to transfer even iron ore from the moon... mass drivers are great.

    13. Re:The real question is... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Which would you rather have land on top of you at re-entry velocities? 1000 tons of oil, or 1000 tons of Platinum ?

      While moving stuff from Luna with a mass driver might be cost effective, Mars is a lot more delta V (in orbit) and theres also twice the gravity.

    14. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought that was from asshole roommates.

    15. Re:The real question is... by morari · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sailors
      Fighting in the dance hall.
      Oh man!
      Look at those cavemen go.
      It's the freakiest show.
      Take a look at the lawman
      Beating up the wrong guy.
      Oh man!
      Wonder if he'll ever know
      He's in the best selling show.
      Is there ice on Mars?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    16. Re:The real question is... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I want a moon weasel and I want one now!

    17. Re:The real question is... by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Platinum. A fuckup won't kill the environment as much with Platinum.

      Well, we could just build a bigger catapult on Mars, if only it had some sort of giant fucking mountain, we could build the mass driver along the side of it.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    18. Re:The real question is... by hardburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know the above is meant as a (seriously overused) joke, but it did get me thinking. If there was previously liquid water on Mars, and carbon-based life developed roughly along the same lines as on Earth, and internal geothermal processes are similar, than it's conceivable that there is oil, too. Although that's an awful lot of "if's". Also, if we were capable of getting oil off Mars economically, we also wouldn't need oil for energy.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    19. Re:The real question is... by linzeal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oil can be used to make fertilizer, plastics and the like. Who said anything about burning it?

    20. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You weren't honestly discussing an on topic question on Slashdot, were you. Everything here eventually (or immediately) degrades to politics, religion, or inane pedantics. Check this out.

      BOY, IT SURE DOES BEG THE QUESTION WHY WASN'T THAT GUY EXPECTING THIS?

    21. Re:The real question is... by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 3, Informative

      btw, I feel the need to mention that H2O ice doesn't sublimate, CO2 ice does.

      And I feel the need to mention that Mars is not Standard Temperature and Pressure. The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1/100 that of Earth, I honestly don't know if that's reason enough for why H2O may experience sublimation like that, but I'm too tired right now to look it up and/or crunch some numbers and see if it does or not.

      --
      If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    22. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was supposed to say, 'You weren't honestly expecting an on topic discussion on Slashdot, were you?

      Man, somewhere along the lines, I got really stupid their.

    23. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? You have a frost-free freezer. Guess what that means?

      Try it with a freezer that isn't frost free. The ice cubes will get bigger as more and more ice builds up every time you open the door and let in air with moisture in it.

    24. Re:The real question is... by Slimee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And apparently stayed stupid "THERE"

    25. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either exceedingly dense, or my sarcasm detector is on the fritz.

    26. Re:The real question is... by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative
      The triple point pressure of water is 0.006 atmospheres, and that is based on the partial pressure of water on the gas side. The total pressure on Mars is about 0.008 atm, so the partial pressure of water in it would be much less than 0.006. Yes, water ice will indeed sublime (which is the preferred form of the verb in a physics context; "sublimate" is used in a sociological context).

      rj

    27. Re:The real question is... by jmp · · Score: 1

      Well, we could just build a bigger catapult on Mars, if only it had some sort of giant fucking mountain, we could build the mass driver along the side of it.

      Like this one?

      You probably want something steeper, though.

      --
      jmp
    28. Re:The real question is... by settantta · · Score: 2

      btw, I feel the need to mention that H2O ice doesn't sublimate, CO2 ice does. As mentioned in another reply, water ice does sublimate at low pressure. Not only that, but water vapour sublimates at normal pressures too. That's how snow forms....
    29. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      H2O ice does sublimate. Here's an easy way to prove it. All you need is a freezer and an ice cube tray.

      1. Fill ice cube tray with water (liquid, H2O water) and put it in freezer.

      2. Go back in a day and mark the level of the ice in the tray.

      3. Return later (preferably at least a week) and marvel at how the ice is below the level marked.

      4. ???

      5. Profit.

      The ice was in the freezer the whole time, so it didn't melt (assuming the freezer was set correctly and continuously powered). Therefore, the solid water lost must have changed to water vapor.

      Got a newer freezer? Frost free by any chance? I'm not disagreeing with you about the ice on Mars just the ice in your freezer. In a frost free refridgerator a small amount of ice is lost each day from the defrost cycle. The ice will disappear in a few months where as in an older freezer you'll get more ice from the moisture in the air freezing. Sorry. Also the light goes off when you close the door to keep from wasting power and heating the freezer.
    30. Re:The real question is... by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everything here eventually (or immediately) degrades to politics, religion, or inane pedantics. If that's the way things go, that's because that's the way the gods want them to be. Besides, your decision to apply the 'serial' or 'Harvard' comma before the phrase "or inane pedantics" clearly shows a lack of proper use of style guides or general sophistication. The 'serial comma' is appropriate in major publications or papers, but not in newspapers, columns or short elucidations (such as slashdot comments.)

      But, I'm probably wasting my time arguing logical, on-topic points with an obvious liberal.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    31. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Burma Shave

    32. Re:The real question is... by zmollusc · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I would take issue with your use of 'gods'. Surely a typical right-wing type like yourself should know that not even one god has been proven to exist, let alone multiple gods.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    33. Re:The real question is... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Provided that you have good (in both the accurate and non-evil senses) aim.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    34. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would you rather have land on top of you at re-entry velocities? 1000 tons of oil, or 1000 tons of Platinum ?

      A thousand tons of cloned Natalie Portmans please.

    35. Re:The real question is... by freyyr890 · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure how well oil would keep over the several billion years since mars was warm enough to support liquid water, but it is an interesting thought.

      We could get it off Mars if we invested in reusable launch systems on the Martian surface, such as space elevators and mass drivers; however by the time we get the project rolling we'd be long out of Earth-based oil and on to a new energy source.

    36. Re:The real question is... by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

      There could be, if there are bacteria living in the crust that can hydrolyze methane. Methane, which is not normally considered to be oil, is a hydrocarbon and is the source of our oil and it seems to be everywhere in our solar system. So, yes, there could be oil on the moon too.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    37. Re:The real question is... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, we could just build a bigger catapult on Mars, if only it had some sort of giant fucking mountain, we could build the mass driver along the side of it.

      Like this one?

      You probably want something steeper, though.

      I'll refrain from making a reference to the relative spatial positions of you and the joke. ;)

      But escape velocity isn't really a velocity, as your trajectory is irrelevant. (Assuming it's, you know, above the horizon...) As long as you're traveling above a given speed, you'll escape the gravity well whether you're pointed straight up or towards the horizon.

      The reason we launch rockets vertically is to minimize the time spent in dense atmosphere. You get a lot of drag at low altitudes here on Earth, so it's better to climb quickly and get to where the air is thin as soon as possible.

      Mars is another story: Air pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is only ~0.003 that of Earth sea level. Launching a payload at a shallow angle through that would be no huge waste of energy.

      On the moon (or anywhere that lacks an atmosphere), you could lay the mass driver right down on the surface and it wouldn't make any difference.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    38. Re:The real question is... by Grahame · · Score: 0

      There is no such verb as "to sublimate". The verb is "to sublime" --- sheesh!

    39. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..."sublimate" is used in a sociological context. Oh, great! Now not only is there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion to worry about, but now a solid human minding his/her own business can all of a sudden turn to gas.
    40. Re:The real question is... by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Informative

      H2O ice does sublimate. Here's an easy way to prove it.

      There is absolutely no need to prove that.

      Just pull up a phase diagram of water (google is your friend), look at the lower-left
      corner (i.e. low pressure and low temperature), and what do you see ?

      A line where the solid phase borders on the vapor phase.

      And what's a phase transition from solid phase to vapor phase called ?

      Bingo. Sublimation.

    41. Re:The real question is... by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware bacteria needed democratisation...

      --

      Your head a splode
    42. Re:The real question is... by wobbelyheadbob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Everything here eventually (or immediately) degrades to politics, religion, or inane pedantics. If that's the way things go, that's because that's the way the gods want them to be. Besides, your decision to apply the 'serial' or 'Harvard' comma before the phrase "or inane pedantics" clearly shows a lack of proper use of style guides or general sophistication. The 'serial comma' is appropriate in major publications or papers, but not in newspapers, columns or short elucidations (such as slashdot comments.) Your full stop should come after the closed bracket!
      --
      The weekend has landed. All that exists now is clubs, drugs, pubs and parties. I've got 48 hours off from the world, man
    43. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, that's the scientific way. Don't prove it for yourself, take someone else's word for it.

    44. Re:The real question is... by GeffDE · · Score: 1

      The freezer I am currently using is not new. I don't know the date of manufacture or purchase because I'm living in an apartment and didn't buy the fridge, but from looking at it, it's old. Regardless, this same experience works in a non-frost free freezer. When in college, I had a small refrigerator made by Amana and still sold by Best Buy with a little compartment for making ice. The ice compartment was surrounded by the cooling element. I would make ice in the fridge, but due to the wide availability of cool drinks on campus, I would not use it often. Oftentimes, I would not use the fridge-made ice for months. Now, the fridge was not frost-free because after having the thing continuously plugged in for 8 months, the cooling element looked like Old Man Winter... It was covered in frost. Even so, when I would go to get my ice cubes, they would be a lot smaller than the size of the tray.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    45. Re:The real question is... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Water ice does sublimate, and it even does it on Earth (notice how ice cubes shrink if left in the freezer for a long time - they are losing mass well below the freezing point of water). Water ice sublimates very readily at low atmospheric pressure as is found on Mars.

    46. Re:The real question is... by clint999 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      SailorsFighting in the dance hall.Oh man!Look at those cavemen go.It's the freakiest show.Take a look at the lawmanBeating up the wrong guy.Oh man!Wonder if he'll ever knowHe's in the best selling show.Is there ice on Mars?
    47. Re:The real question is... by cowscows · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you'd like, I could draw you a diagram that says that at certain pressures ice instantly turns to chocolate milk. Do you want me to do that? It'll change everything you thought you knew about the universe.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    48. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent, I just used the same method to prove the existence of God!
      Look!

    49. Re:The real question is... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      H2O ice does sublimate. Here's an easy way to prove it. All you need is a freezer and an ice cube tray.
      1. Fill ice cube tray with water (liquid, H2O water) and put it in freezer.
      2. Go back in a day and mark the level of the ice in the tray.
      3. Return later (preferably at least a week) and marvel at how the ice is below the level marked.
      4. ???
      5. Profit. Nope
      5. You've got freezer gnomes
      6. Call the exterminator

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    50. Re:The real question is... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Mars is not Standard Temperature and Pressure

      That is a very geocentric attitude. Perhaps Mars has its own Standard Temperature and Pressure.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    51. Re:The real question is... by Mattsson · · Score: 2, Funny

      But in order to know if that phase diagram is correct, it must first be proved by someone.
      And then there's always that certain kind of people who can believe what someone else has proved.
      You know, the kind that says "It hasn't been 100% proved that smoking causes cancer, I've never seen smoking cause cancer. Look. I just smoked a cigarette. No cancer."
      And the "That proves nothing, it might have been god who did it" crowd. :P

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    52. Re:The real question is... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      There is no such verb as "to sublimate". The verb is "to sublime" -

      On the contrary. In fact, being a grammar pedant on slashdot is a poor way to sublimate (third meaning, verb transitive) your desire for perfection.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    53. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good try, but you got your nostalgic references confused. What you're looking for is David Bowie.

    54. Re:The real question is... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But in order to know if that phase diagram is correct, it must first be proved by someone.

      Yes. Better yet, under stringent laboratory conditions. Which means a much more controlled environment than the inside of your freezer (e.g. in an environment that contains _only_ water. Water vapor behaves somewhat different from an ideal gas, which means that your results may deviate as soon as you have other gases in the environment). If you do the freezer/ice cube tray experiment, how do you make sure that there isn't any liquid water involved when you're not looking ? (Oh, I know: You _know_ that water cannot be liquid below 0.01 Celsius ... which means that you're relying on the phase diagram to be correct. Congratulations, you've just proven the correctness of the phase diagram by relying on the phase diagram to be correct.).

      If the current phase diagram had fundamental errors in it, a lot of the processes that rely on water behaving exactly this way simply wouldn't work. Also, there'd probably be something on the order of a Nobel prize in for anyone who can prove the error ... and experimenting with water really isn't rocket science.

    55. Re:The real question is... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 3, Funny

      *CRASH* (That was the sound of all the world's high altitude aircraft falling from the sky from the accumulation of ice the ceased to sublimate from the wings).

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    56. Re:The real question is... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      After recently re-reading the Bible, one thing I found interesting was how the early portions of the Bible mention other gods, for example in the 10 commandments (thou shalt not have any gods before me), rather than claiming there is only one. Later, mention of other gods disappears, and The God enters as a concept.

      However, as proof that at least one exists, I'll just admit here that I am one. Feel free to worship me :-)

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    57. Re:The real question is... by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      We already know that the Martians have weapons of mass destruction,... ;-)

    58. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sublimate... that's just fancy science talk for "Evil Monkeys took it when you weren't looking."

    59. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're going to one-up the pedantry here, I must point out that the GP actually used a parenthesis, not a bracket. Furthermore the location of punctuation is a matter of transatlantic preference.

    60. Re:The real question is... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The Jews weren't monotheists originally. They believed in the existence of other gods, but they were only supposed to worship one.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    61. Re:The real question is... by Enoxice · · Score: 1

      That's a perfectly legitimate use for "begs the question" nowadays.

      The only people who would argue are they same people that would say something like, "that was an ad hominem and that's a logical fallacy!!!" when discussing the weather with a co-worker...though I guess that is an accurate description of a slashdotter.

      --
      Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
    62. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the former

    63. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything here eventually (or immediately) degrades to politics, religion, or inane pedantics. If that's the way things go, that's because that's the way the gods want them to be. Besides, your decision to apply the 'serial' or 'Harvard' comma before the phrase "or inane pedantics" clearly shows a lack of proper use of style guides or general sophistication. The 'serial comma' is appropriate in major publications or papers, but not in newspapers, columns or short elucidations (such as slashdot comments.)

      But, I'm probably wasting my time arguing logical, on-topic points with an obvious liberal.

      1. The serial comma is perfectly appropriate in the standard American dialect, at whatever level of discourse.

      2. Grandparent forgot about sex. Everything is about politics, religion, sex, food, or inane pedantry (a much better stylistic choice for a sequence of abstract substantives than "pedantics;" a real stylist would have noticed that).

    64. Re:The real question is... by Theoboley · · Score: 0

      If there is, Good old George Bush will wage war siting WMD's on Mars, send all our troops there for nothing and we'll still pay 5 bucks a gallon at the pumps.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    65. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you're a transatlantic twit! Hint: it goes after the parentheses. You could be thinking of quotation marks, where the period is inside the quotes.

    66. Re:The real question is... by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      The 'serial comma' is appropriate in major publications or papers, but not in newspapers, columns or short elucidations (such as slashdot comments.)

      Uh, just two points that really need correction:

      1. Anyone at all familiar with slashdot knows that an elucidating /. comment is a contradiction in terms.
      2. short elucidations is at best oxymoronic, but more likely merely another example of Harvardspeek.

      Harvard commas rule. For the cost of a byte, they help you look erudite.

    67. Re:The real question is... by MouseR · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because now they have proof that Mars has weapons of mass sublimation.

    68. Re:The real question is... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because conservatives are known for their high levels of education, diction, scientific acumen, and general reasoning skills. If you don't believe it, just go to any NASCAR race and listen to the fans debate the merits of Plato and Kant.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    69. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "btw, I feel the need to mention that H2O ice doesn't sublimate, CO2 ice does"

      Well, that's weird, because I see ordinary Earth snow and ice slowly disappear all the time even though the temperature is below freezing. I'll be sure to tell it to stop doing that next winter.

    70. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      who gives a f*ck about an oxford comma?

    71. Re:The real question is... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Noticed a typo in my post: For what it's worth, the air pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is 0.0003 atmospheres, not 0.003.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    72. Re:The real question is... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The Jews weren't monotheists originally. They believed in the existence of other gods, but they were only supposed to worship one.

      I don't think it's as much really believing in the existence of other gods as acknowledging the fact that other people believed in other gods.
    73. Re:The real question is... by nodrogluap · · Score: 2, Funny

      Our culture of freedom is superior to the bacterial culture, therefore we must liberate them.

    74. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, your decision to apply the 'serial' or 'Harvard' comma before the phrase "or inane pedantics" clearly shows a lack of proper use of style guides or general sophistication. The 'serial comma' is appropriate in major publications or papers, but not in newspapers, columns or short elucidations (such as slashdot comments.)

      The serial comma reduces ambiguity, and is always appropriate. On a message board populated by technology enthusiasts, one would appreciate the reduction in ambiguity. Consider:

      "This post is dedicated to my parents, God, and Ayn Rand."
      vs.
      "This post is dedicated to my parents, God and Ayn Rand."

      Aren't family reunions confusing enough with the serial comma?

    75. Re:The real question is... by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      Aye, you're free, to do as we tell you.

      --

      Your head a splode
    76. Re:The real question is... by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      On the moon (or anywhere that lacks an atmosphere), you could lay the mass driver right down on the surface and it wouldn't make any difference.

      Except for those pesky space rocks scratching the bottom of your ship and causing drag, and those darned impact crater rims in the way of launch. Ouch!
    77. Re:The real question is... by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      Are you done beating your chest? Because, really, being the punctuation Nazi on /. is like being an art critic in a basic painting class and preaching: "There is no such thing as artistic license. Paint this way".

    78. Re:The real question is... by gnick · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      1. The serial comma is perfectly appropriate in the standard American dialect, at whatever level of discourse. It depends on the style guide you're using. Personally, I use it religiously at all times and would have bashed GGP for omitting it if he'd gone the other way =). Newspaper style guides usually omit it (to save space?) and it's uncommon to see in online news sites. I think it should be used everywhere, as it reduces ambiguity, but I don't write (or typically adhere to) style guides.

      I think a better criticism, as an AC below points out, would be that I referred to it as the "Harvard comma", rather than the proper term, "Oxford comma".

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    79. Re:The real question is... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's when you get more ice. Or yellow ice. Depends on how drunk your roommates were at the time.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    80. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you need to deal with those is a really big space bulldozer during the construction phase.

    81. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, somebody woke up grumpy today.
      [Notices 0 starting score]
      Nope - Somebody wakes up grumpy every day...

    82. Re:The real question is... by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      Then you reply, "You're new here, aren't you?"

      Musn't forget that little nugget.

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    83. Re:The real question is... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      But the whole point of escape velocity is to like, escape. So I would think that pointing the device away from the surface would work well. It's all fuel while you're close to the surface, so get it over with quickly, ie. straight up.

    84. Re:The real question is... by Sheafification · · Score: 1

      The GP's point is that gravity is a conservative force. So in the absence of drag (roughly like on an atmosphere-less planet) it doesn't matter what path you take between two points, you always do the same amount of work against gravity. As long as you refrain from crashing into things, you can point your rocket any which way and escape velocity will still get you away.

    85. Re:The real question is... by Laur · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but water vapour sublimates at normal pressures too. That's how snow forms....
      Sublimation is the phase transition from solid directly to gas. I think you mean the reverse of sublimation, i.e. deposition.
      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    86. Re:The real question is... by Laur · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's as much really believing in the existence of other gods as acknowledging the fact that other people believed in other gods.
      This is a common modern view, but reading the bible doesn't seem to support this conclusion. For example, start with Genesis in the Garden of Eden: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." There are many more examples if you care to look, try http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html
      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    87. Re:The real question is... by 2short · · Score: 1

      "That's how snow forms...."

      Sublimation is transition from solid to gas. Sublimation is how snow un-forms in sufficiently cold dry climates, such as eastern Colorado, or certainly Mars.

    88. Re:The real question is... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          Aw, now that's just nasty.

          She's 5'4, and weighs 114 pounds.

          To provide for 1,000 tons, that would be 2,000,000 pounds, or 17,543 clones.

          I posed the rest of the scenario to my coworkers for some clarification. Should the clones be sent as one solid lump , or as a cluster of flying Natalie Portmans? The consensus was for a "light sprinkling" of Natalie Portmans. From the peanut gallery we heard, "Make sure there's one for each of us."

          Escape velocity from Mars is 11,245 mph. Assuming the pull of Mars gravity and the acceleration into Earth's gravity mitigated each other, and the swarm of Natalie Portmans would still be traveling at 11,245 mph. This is wrong, and they'd be traveling much faster.

          So, you now have a swarm of freeze dried Natalie Portman clones flying through space, and then entering Earth's atmosphere. As they re-enter, they would burn up rather quickly, and my assumption would be that there would be a resulting odor of burning Natalie Portman clone skin and flesh as it burned upon re entry.

          If it was a solid mass of Natalie Portman clones, the result may be slightly different. The outer layers of Natalie Portman clones would burn up, but depending on how densely they were packed, the inner clones may survive, making a shower of now thawed Natalie Portman clones. I would have to assume that the cluster of clones would break up into their component Natalie Portman clones, which should achieve terminal velocity at about 120mph. Then these freeze dried Natalie Portman clones at terminal velocity would go smacking into the ground, water, or whatever.

          I'm not really sure that I'd want freeze dried and thawed Natalie Portman clone landing in my yard at 120mph. While she's really hot as a live human, she'd be less than desireable, and probably even unrecognizable by the time any of us would get our hands on her.

          Then again, for most guys, there's a better chance of a freeze dried and thawed Natalie Portman flying through space and landing in their front yard, than for the real one to even give you the time of day. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    89. Re:The real question is... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that ice sublimates right out of the ice cube trays in my frost-free freezer.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    90. Re:The real question is... by 2short · · Score: 1

      Except for atmospheric drag (minor on Mars), "straight up" isn't any better than any other direction that misses the ground. As the speculation is about a catapult, you need to build a very long straight thing, so the closer to flat along the ground, the easier it will be.

    91. Re:The real question is... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Like the 10 commandments? ;)

      you shall have no other gods before me.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    92. Re:The real question is... by CorSci81 · · Score: 1

      They do that in mine too. Darned things sublimate right out of my ice cube trays and somehow magically reappear in my cocktail glass.

    93. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Snarky

    94. Re:The real question is... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I am no expert on Hebrew, but my understanding is that anything that you put all of your attention toward is a "god". So, money, cars, women, men, music or whatever can be a god.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    95. Re:The real question is... by rk · · Score: 1

      This one seems quite relevant now.

      Get a large sealable container (Rubbermaid, or even a gallon freezer bag), put a single ice cube in it. Put the container in the freezer. The container will not allow any moisture in or out, and over time, frost-free or not, I predict that the ice cube will get smaller. If I'm wrong, or if I'm right, we've learned something. That's science.

    96. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait for the final data transmission from Phoenix in a few weeks, when it is revealed that the probe actually crashed on the surface and the past twenty-five days of science have been simulations running in its memory banks.

    97. Re:The real question is... by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      I've heard sublimation referred to in both directions (my highschool text book called them sublimation 1 and sublimation 2).

      --
      Jeremy
    98. Re:The real question is... by Monkey · · Score: 1

      As they re-enter, they would burn up rather quickly
      Clearly, it would necessary to cover them in hot grits first.
      Additionally, if these were Natalie Portmans of the naked and petrified variety (as the best kind always are), it would alter the dynamics of both the cluster and array deployment methods you propose.

    99. Re:The real question is... by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 1

      Is there oil?
      Irregardless it's inflammable. ;)
      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    100. Re:The real question is... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      water expand when frozen.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    101. Re:The real question is... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Just take the damn ice out of the freezer and look at the vapor that comes off.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    102. Re:The real question is... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          I think I'd rather them mentally adjusted, and delivered intact and breathing to my house...

          Mmmmm.. My own clone harem of Natalie Portmans...

          I'd never leave home again. I may never eat again, and would die with a huge smile on my face. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    103. Re:The real question is... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Just take the damn ice out of the freezer and look at the vapor that comes off.

      Um ... hate to break it to you, but that is not water vapor subliming from the ice cube, but water vapor from the surrounding air which condenses as the ice cube cools off the air.

    104. Re:The real question is... by PeolesDru · · Score: 0

      So the first thread "Is there oil" is not "offtopic", but is rated "funny". Apparently the prerequisite for bing a mod is being a douchebag.

  2. Was there ever doubt? by Gewalt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Haven't we known for a good many years that there was water ice at the cap?

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    1. Re:Was there ever doubt? by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, we've even mapped the ice at the poles. But this is still important for a couple of reasons.

      First, it's confirmation that the white stuff at the poles really is ice (and not some unknown martian substance that just looks like ice).

      Second it means that the lander is digging in the right places to find all of the interesting stuff that goes along with water. It's tremendously interesting to discover whether there's carbon-based fragments in the water (suggesting life did or could exist) and to figure out what else is in the water.

    2. Re:Was there ever doubt? by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, we've known this for several presidential administrations:

      If there is water, that means there is oxygen.

      If oxygen, that means we can breathe.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    3. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Indeed, we've known this for several presidential administrations: If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe. Only if you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen first. That takes energy. Since the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide you might as well plan to split it into carbon and oxygen.
    4. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's tremendously interesting to discover whether there's carbon-based fragments in the water (suggesting life did or could exist) and to figure out what else is in the water. This is too shallow to be fossil ice. It has to be brand new precipitated water. It should be pretty pure, unless something is living in the ice right now.
    5. Re:Was there ever doubt? by pokerdad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only if you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen first. That takes energy. Since the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide you might as well plan to split it into carbon and oxygen.

      I'm pretty sure the poster (and anyone else who would be browsing slashdot) knew that; the quote is from Dan Quayle, he's the one who needs help.

    6. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Only if you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen first. That takes energy. Since the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide you might as well plan to split it into carbon and oxygen.

      I'm pretty sure the poster (and anyone else who would be browsing slashdot) knew that; the quote is from Dan Quayle, he's the one who needs help.

      Ah right thanks. I am not up to date on Dan Quayle quotes.

      I am surprised we didn't see him running for President this year ;)
    7. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Ethan+Allison · · Score: 1

      Or does exist...

    8. Re:Was there ever doubt? by joocemann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know, but I do know that 'knowing' that water is on mars is a big objective. I'm curious why they are observing and interpreting strange data instead of applying some (probably easily produced) technical gadget to detect the presence of water.

      It can't be that hard to make the device. You'd think that if they put so much importance on whether or not water is on mars, that the rover would be equipped with something to test that. Guess not.

    9. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      I wasn't either, had to look it up. Glad I did tho.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    10. Re:Was there ever doubt? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      This doesn't prove that there is water ice on Mars. It only proves that there was water ice on Mars: We just vaporized it!

      This is much like the experiments conducted by ye olde Viking landers in the 1970s, which didn't test for the presence of life, but tested (inconclusively) for the presence of life-which-has-just-been-killed. I find myself uncertain whether anyone at NASA has ever heard of Heisenberg!

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    11. Re:Was there ever doubt? by NotZed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "First, it's confirmation that the white stuff at the poles really is ice (and not some unknown martian substance that just looks like ice)."

      Or perhaps it is just weird martian substance that still looks like ice, even close up?

      --
      _ // `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
      \\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
    12. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      figure out what else is in the water. Like drugs.

    13. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      There was a distinct possibility that it was frozen carbon dioxide (a.k.a. dry ice).

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    14. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Cannot anything else sublimate? I would think dihydrogen monoxide is not the only substance capable of this feat.

    15. Re:Was there ever doubt? by gnick · · Score: 0

      It's tremendously interesting to discover whether there's carbon-based fragments in the water (suggesting life did or could exist) and to figure out what else is in the water. Yes - It's interesting, but is it useful?
      Sorry if it sounds like I'm trolling, but I just can't understand our push into space. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but if we can't exploit it (or learn something exploitable from it), why pursue it? It's not that it's not interesting (even fascinating), but not particularly useful as far as I can see. Therefore, IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion) it's also not worthy of public funding.

      Just my opinion - And sure to inflame a handful of folks out there, but it's an honest question. What do we hope to gain from what we can learn here? (Please refrain from SETI-type justifications. If they were there and wanted to talk to us, they wouldn't need us to contact them.)

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    16. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry if it sounds like I'm trolling, but I just can't understand our push into space. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but if we can't exploit it (or learn something exploitable from it), why pursue it? It's not that it's not interesting (even fascinating), but not particularly useful as far as I can see.

      You're right, it does sound like you are trolling. But I'll bite.

      First off, you are aware that one of the best ways to improve your national engineering cadre (and thus, your economy, standard of living, etc.) is to attempt things that are at the border of your capabilities, or even just a tad beyond, aren't you? Even if the only thing out there was a big brass ring that was way far away, it would pay to push your limits by constantly trying to grab it faster, or cheaper, or whatever.

      Second, you realize I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports and junk food that are even less useful. Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east.

      Third, did you ever stop to think about where the vast majority of the available resources are? From energy to precious metals to useful chemical to just plain space the overwhelming majority of the resources we know about are out in space.

      Given all that, it hardly seems sensible to deride the space program as useless.

      --MarkusQ

    17. Re:Was there ever doubt? by harry666t · · Score: 1

      http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc_big.jpg

    18. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

      It should be pretty pure If it is yellow then don't eat it!
    19. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Not as bad as brown snow though.

    20. Re:Was there ever doubt? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Why not? It could be beer!

      --
      This is blinging
    21. Re:Was there ever doubt? by zehaeva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well if you can not understand our push to space then you have not read into anything about Asteroid Mining. see, there is a lot of material out there, far more than is on our little rock here. given that Jupiter is composed of almost entirely of hydrogen scooping off its atmosphere would be a wonderful source of the stuff that we would not have to refine at all. also i can not imagine that we would not find any nuclear fuels in space as well. given the abundance of resources within our solar system i can not see us living our constantly accelerating lives without at least puttering around our own solar system, if not going to the stars.

      ~z

    22. Re:Was there ever doubt? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      That's crazy talk, do you know how big your Carbon footprint would be?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    23. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Given all that, it hardly seems sensible to deride the space program as useless.

      Not to mention Tang and freeze-dried ice cream! Golly.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    24. Re:Was there ever doubt? by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether parent is a troll or not, the question raised deserves some kind of answer.

      Getting into space is not the long term goal.

      The long term goal is to get back into The Garden. The way to do that is to move all the factories (and most of the engineers) into space. This is all spelled out in the Ecological Manifesto. Which you can find written in the reflection of the clouds on any stillwater lake where you've got solitude surrounded by a few acres of wilderness.

    25. Re:Was there ever doubt? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > This doesn't prove that there is water ice on Mars.

      Depends on how you say it. At the outset: "We aim to prove there is water on Mars." So they have proven the thing they set out to prove. At the time they tried to prove a thing was present, it was present. Whether or not it's there afterward is a different matter.

      It's like saying "I will prove that shooting you in the head will kill you." So I shoot you in the head and you die. It doesn't mean my premise is suddenly incorrect because you cannot be killed again... unless you're a zombie. You aren't a damned, dirty, zombie, are you?

    26. Re:Was there ever doubt? by gnick · · Score: 1

      First off, you are aware that one of the best ways to improve your national engineering cadre (and thus, your economy, standard of living, etc.) is to attempt things that are at the border of your capabilities, or even just a tad beyond, aren't you? Even if the only thing out there was a big brass ring that was way far away, it would pay to push your limits by constantly trying to grab it faster, or cheaper, or whatever. That sounds like the most reasonable justification. It's a weird way to further science (doing really hard stuff, even with poor justification), but it does seem fairly worth-while lacking a better system. Although DARPA-style engineering challenges seem to get more bang-for-the-buck.

      Second, you realize I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports and junk food that are even less useful. Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east. That one I really don't like. Just because we've pissed away a huge amount of money in one place in no way justifies being loose with our spending elsewhere. That kind of reasoning could justify funding anything.

      Third, did you ever stop to think about where the vast majority of the available resources are? From energy to precious metals to useful chemical to just plain space the overwhelming majority of the resources we know about are out in space. That seems worth-while. The only problem is that we're a very long way from that being practical. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is a fantastic science fiction book, but short of possibly retrieving tritium from the moon, we've got a lot of progress to make before extra-terrestrial mining becomes profitable. And the research that needs to be done could largely be done much more economically here on earth.

      I realize I'm the minority opinion on this topic here on /., but I do appreciate intelligent responses when they're made available - Thanks. I have a handful of mod-points - If you weren't responding to my own post, I'd share one with you.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    27. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Second, you realize I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports and junk food that are even less useful. Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east.
      That one I really don't like. Just because we've pissed away a huge amount of money in one place in no way justifies being loose with our spending elsewhere. That kind of reasoning could justify funding anything.

      I suppose, but it could also be used to justify defunding anything. Besides, you used exactly the same sort of reasoning when you said:

      DARPA-style engineering challenges seem to get more bang-for-the-buck.

      In general, cost benefit reasoning is a pretty sound basis on which to make such decisions.

      short of possibly retrieving tritium from the moon, we've got a lot of progress to make before extra-terrestrial mining becomes profitable

      Mining for return to Earth, sure. But rearranging things in space to produce useful results, not so much.

      For example (to merge the two thoughts), the cost of the Iraq war has exceeded the cost to set up a system of space-based solar power that could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The idea would be to use a heat engine design with big concentrators and take advantage of the fact that the massive parts of such a power station are low tech (and could be made from available materials) while the parts that would need to be made on Earth and shipped up are comparatively small. While the tool mass is considerable, you can mitigate this by making lots of identical power stations and amortizing the tool costs.

      --MarkusQ

    28. Re:Was there ever doubt? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Third, did you ever stop to think about where the vast majority of the available resources are? From energy to precious metals to useful chemical to just plain space the overwhelming majority of the resources we know about are out in space. Isn't that a little redundant?
      Sure, the universe contains most of our resources, because by definition, the universe contains everything.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    29. Re:Was there ever doubt? by jaminJay · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and not some unknown martian substance that just looks like ice.

      Martianmallow?

      --
      Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
    30. Re:Was there ever doubt? by THE+anonymus+coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just my two cents to add...

      Exploration of the next horizon is part of being human. To stop exploring would be to deny something that is fundamental to who we are. The principle of utility is a horrible metric when the objective is poorly understood....

      For a long time, art made no sense to me, seemed like a waste of time, but it is an expression of human creativity and a reaching for beauty. Unless you care about seeking beauty, art doesn't make sense. Unless you care about seeking the truth of the universe, space exploration doesn't make sense.

      So, the question I would pose to the grandparent is what happened to make you lose interest in exploration? Have you never been curious about what is over the next hill that you haven't seen? Because really, that is what this is all about.

      --
      I guess thats all I have to say.
    31. Re:Was there ever doubt? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    32. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, you realize I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports and junk food that are even less useful. Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east. That one I really don't like. Just because we've pissed away a huge amount of money in one place in no way justifies being loose with our spending elsewhere. That kind of reasoning could justify funding anything. I suppose, but it could also be used to justify defunding anything. Quick analogy:
      [AC walks into a pet store.]
      AC: Wow - That dog crate is only $12.99. Marked down from $79.99. That's a great deal! I don't own a dog and my wife is allergic to them, but that crate will really come in handy if I ever get divorced and buy one. And, I paid way too much for my house - The crate cost is only a tiny fraction of the money I wasted on that deal! I'll take it!
      Wasting money should not be a precedent for wasting more.
    33. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Noren · · Score: 1

      Long term, we should move all our population out into space and keep Earth as a park.

    34. Re:Was there ever doubt? by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      At some point wouldn't that involve creating a giant space laser that could destroy the planet?

      Only if we let Dr. Evil write the specs. A more reasonable design would beam the power at frequencies and densities that were harmless to living things; specifically, you wouldn't want anything that would interact with water if you expect it to get through the atmosphere.

      If we're talking about what we could have built using the funds from Iraq it would be very easy to completely replace fossil fuel with biodiesel, wind and terrestrial solar.

      Sounds good, but if you do the math it's not so pretty. Biodiesel only works if you're willing to accept wide spread starvation as a result of all the farm land you displace. Large scale molten salt solar in extensive deserts might get you there, but the ecological impact is still considerable. Really, nuclear and space based solar are the only options I've seen that could get the job done.

      --MarkusQ

    35. Re:Was there ever doubt? by 2short · · Score: 1


      Factories don't actually take up that much space. People do.

      Assuming we move all food production, factories, and everything off the earth, and leave only space for people to sit next to lakes and have solitude, you can be surrounded by five and a half acres of land at the worlds current population. Of course, your 5.5 acres might be in Antarctica, world population is growing fast, and we're really not going to move all the farms into orbit ever.

      If you want to get back to "The Garden", space exploration is irrelevant.

    36. Re:Was there ever doubt? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports

      "much more" is a bit questionable...

      NASA FY2007 actual outlays: $15.8 billion
      MLB and NFL 2007 sales: $6 billion each

    37. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you crazy? The fact is there is embarrassingly little known about the planets and their moons even in our solar system. So if you're waiting for fundamental new discoveries in science, IMHO space research could offer many new insights since there are so many unanswered questions. Anyway, there is enormously little done at the moment so I suggest you go complain about 50% of the US spendings going to the military first, then we'll discuss again.

    38. Re:Was there ever doubt? by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      And if we can get Quaid to turn on the reactor, we're in business!

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    39. Re:Was there ever doubt? by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      +9, Insightful :-)

    40. Re:Was there ever doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you go complain about 50% of the US spendings going to the military first, then we'll discuss again. The fact that money is being wasted is no excuse to waste more.
    41. Re:Was there ever doubt? by jonathansdt · · Score: 1

      Clearly there's a fine line between insightful and funny. At least today.

    42. Re:Was there ever doubt? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Clearly there's a fine line between insightful and funny. At least today.

      The line between the two is almost always non-existent. "Eureka!" moments are times of great laughter. Many scientific breakthroughs begin with the words "Now, that's funny...." Humor is one of the higher level irrational behaviors, and the ability to see the humor of a situation ranks right up there besides insight as a rare and wonderful capacity.

      Of course, none of this explains slashdot phenomena. What happens on slashdot belongs only to slashdot, and any semblance to the real world is, uh... Go ask Cowboy Neal. He'll tell ya.

  3. Rubbish. by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

    The white things were Martian beach loungers. And as they were there first, I strongly suspect they were German-speaking Martians.

    --
    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)
    1. Re:Rubbish. by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      Are you sure they weren't really a colony of Nazis that migrated from the moon?

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    2. Re:Rubbish. by jd · · Score: 1

      No, if there'd been Nazis there, Wallace and Grommit would have seen evidnce. Besides, what would Nazis do with all that cheese?

      --
      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)
    3. Re:Rubbish. by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      And as they were there first, I strongly suspect they were German-speaking Martians. No, the Palestinians will shoot rockets at them and claim the area as their own.

      Karma: shields up!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:Rubbish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fundamentalists always gets thing wrong

    5. Re:Rubbish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this an allusion to the fact that German technology and German scientists put the first man on the moon? :)

  4. Couple more things... by Bandman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excellent. Some coke and rum and we've got ourselves a party!

    1. Re:Couple more things... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Let's build a martian lander with blackjack and hookers!

      In fact, forget the martian lander and the blackjack!

    2. Re:Couple more things... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Next year in Jerusalem!!

    3. Re:Couple more things... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Only if it's some Captain. That's of course the best rum in existence.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  5. Great by TornCityVenz · · Score: 1

    Now all we need to do is ship some vodka and vermouth there and we can call Mars civilized.

    --
    I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
    1. Re:Great by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but how do you shake an entire planet?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      REALLY big subwoofer.

    3. Re:Great by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would turn the whole planet into a Disaster Area!

      --
      Not a sentence!
  6. pictures don't lie? by notgm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but super scientific ovens do? i suppose the ice melted before they could cook it?

    1. Re:pictures don't lie? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      but super scientific ovens do? i suppose the ice melted before they could cook it? There was not expected to be ice in the surface dig. It's only on the third or fourth TEGA chamber that ice is expected to be detected in the sniffer.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:pictures don't lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they only said they didn't expect detection after they cooked the second chamber (to cover their asses?) At 10 ppb detection, if there's water anywhere near the lander or near the surface, it'll pick it up.

    3. Re:pictures don't lie? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      10 ppb or 10 ppm? Is the thing that sensitive?

      In any case, h2o on the surface can only be in the vapor state. That's the reason that the first dig was not expected to return results. The data from the orbiters was that the ice is about half a meter below the surface.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  7. Dry ice? by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In such a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere, how do we know it is water ice and not frozen CO2? What do we know of the Martian surface and subsurface temperatures?

    1. Re:Dry ice? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      In such a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere, how do we know it is water ice and not frozen CO2? What do we know of the Martian surface and subsurface temperatures? Its too warm for solid CO2. Even at night the temperature is barely cold enough for carbon dioxide to solidify.
    2. Re:Dry ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also figure out substances from far away places like mars by looking at them in the infrared

    3. Re:Dry ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps cold enough to keep CO2 frozen beneath the surface until it is exposed to the warmer martian air and sunlight? Without further explanation from NASA, I guess we'll have to assume they've ruled it out.

    4. Re:Dry ice? by tmosley · · Score: 0

      1. Solidify CO2 at night.
      2. Cover with soil.
      3. Continue to exist under the insulating layer of soil until it is removed by martian rover.
      4. ???
      5. Profit!

  8. Yeah, we know. by oskard · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Sigs are for Terrorists.
  9. co2 ice ? by cats-paw · · Score: 1

    TFA does not discuss whether or not in might be frozen co2.
    I thought there was still some question as to whether the poles were covered in water ice or co2 ice.

    Can anyone enlighten me ?

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
    1. Re:co2 ice ? by sjf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since CO2 sublimates, and water does not. (It shouldn't even melt at these temperatures,) I assume that they mean CO2.

    2. Re:co2 ice ? by Teilo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since CO2 sublimates, and water does not. Sorry to have to break it to you, but water ice sublimates also.
      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
    3. Re:co2 ice ? by sjf · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are correct. I had not realized just how low the air pressure was on Mars: it can be around 0.006 atm which is exactly the point where ice will sublimate.
      Cool. Thanks !

      Why the f*ck was I moderated troll ? I was wrong, but trolling ? Sheesh, get a life.

    4. Re:co2 ice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Why the f*ck was I moderated troll ? I was wrong, but trolling ? Sheesh, get a life.
      Yeah I saw that too and thought it was some poor moderating. Only malicious postings should be moderated down. Factual errors that are on topic should just be discussed and not moderated down and jokes that you think are not funny should also not be moderated down, but ignored. Yeah like the whole thing about sublimation of ice would lead someone to read up on it, and it was totally on topic. And really, you did raise a good point about ice not sublimating readily. If it doesn't sublimate at 0.006 atmospheres or higher, then it probably isn't going to sublimate very quickly at any pressure.
    5. Re:co2 ice ? by adnonsense · · Score: 1

      Whoops, my attempt to use mod points to detroll you failed, hope this restores at least your points...

    6. Re:co2 ice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because we all know that water ice DOES sublimate, even at normal pressures. Like a poster mentioned above, ice cube sublimate in the freezer all the time, even when the freezer stay well below the freezing point.

    7. Re:co2 ice ? by Teilo · · Score: 1

      Water ice sublimates on a cold day here in Minnesota. That's why the frost on my window disappears while I am driving.

      It doesn't need low atmospheric pressure.

      And for the record: I don't think you are a troll. :)

      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
  10. sulfur cones 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They knew there must be ice when they found a sign that read "sulfur cones, 10"

    1. Re:sulfur cones 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm leaving a note to future generations. May you always be aware that Slashdot won't include the "cent sign" in any of your postings. If the use of the "cent sign" is central to your joke, then you better try that joke somewhere else.

  11. Oh noooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the "Wall Drug" billboards be far behind?

  12. Not exactly scholarly by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These images show sublimation of ice in the trench informally called "Dodo-Goldilocks" over the course of four days.

    Oh really? No qualification there? No "this appears to be sublimation of ice" but a definite "this is a picture of ice"? The dumbing down of the net is officially complete.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    1. Re:Not exactly scholarly by Chlorus · · Score: 1

      If only there was a way to mod down pedantic posts...

    2. Re:Not exactly scholarly by nicklott · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You, sir, are a pedant. When I get up every morning I don't know that my dog is really my dog and hasn't been stolen overnight and replaced with a very clever mechanical copy. I can't really check without dissecting him and that tends to upset both of us, so I assume that it being highly improbable that burglars would have replaced my crappy dog with a very expensive robot he is still my dog. It makes life much simpler.

      Likewise we know there is ice on mars, and one of the very few ways that a solid lump can disappear without trace is for it to sublimate. Other ways are for something with long limbs to have reached over and picked it up or perhaps they were iron rocks attracted by passing magnetic clouds, or perhaps a tiny blackhole opened for just long enough to remove those pebbles. However we've pretty much proved conclusively that there is no long-limbed life on Mars and every other way is vanishingly improbable so Occam's razor tells us that it is likely enough that this is ice that we can, on website designed for popular consumption, dispense with the endless qualifiers.

    3. Re:Not exactly scholarly by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      Even the Slashdot title said "Probable Water Ice Sighted"

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    4. Re:Not exactly scholarly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you considered all the possibilities. I certainly think not. NASA, once again, in their eagerness to make news, will have egg on their faces.

      I'm a chemical engineer...in my circles, NASA engineers/scientists are there for a reason. Let me illustrate:

      "It must be ice," said the Phoenix Lander's lead investigator, Peter Smith. "These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it's ice."

      No scientist or engineer would ever consider this as "perfect evidence". The evidence does allow SOME conclusions, and as you stated, eliminates a bevy of possibilities via Occam's Razor, but until you have unequivocal proof, you don't proclaim your circumstantial evidence as theory. NASA has abandoned the scientific method for some time, and replaced it with manipulation through marketing. It really is no wonder why the rest of the scientists out there groan whenever NASA makes another claim.

      They have run samples with TGA-MS, which will detect elements to 10 ppb. They should have a definitive water spike to present to us if that's ice.

    5. Re:Not exactly scholarly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in conclusion, you think there's water on Mars? Thanks for the update.

  13. Ice Alright! by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    now if the lander can just uncover some gin and tonic and we are in business!

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    1. Re:Ice Alright! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I am sure gin and tonic is available on Mars, but it might be known by a slightly different name.

    2. Re:Ice Alright! by H0D_G · · Score: 3, Funny

      like Jynnan Tonnyx?

      --
      Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
  14. Insert K'breel reference here by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Any volunteers? :)

    1. Re:Insert K'breel reference here by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Don't fall for Brand X's claims, only buy Tripmaster Monkey Brand K'Breel speeches!

      --
      Fnord.
  15. This is why robots aren't great for science by putaro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We often see the scientific community putting manned spaceflight down, saying that it is not useful for scientific research. Had we sent people, with even a minimal laboratory, we'd have known within about 15 minutes whether what they were digging up was ice or not. Since the lander doesn't have an "ice" experiment/module on board, we're reduced to guess work.

    The reality is that manned spaceflight is not *economical* for scientific research at this point. We should be working on getting our launch costs down so that we could actually send people to do things, build factories in space, and start getting some real benefit out of space.

    1. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it. Maybe a robot isn't perfect in its science capabilities, but it is well armed with equipment. Robots are great to go dangerous people. Which do you think is better for science: A: Robot lander crashes, retry again in a few months B: Philip Fry crashes on moon and dies a death, are we ever going to try that again?

      And there is always C & D. C: Robot lander lands on Mars and completes mission. D: Philip Fry completes mission, but the return module will not leave Mars. Will we ever try that again?

      I'm a big fan of robots to do stuff like this.

    2. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      We should be working on getting our launch costs down so that we could actually send people to do things, build factories in space, and start getting some real benefit out of space.

      Space: Because India's getting too expensive.

    3. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Loadmaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      B: Philip Fry crashes on moon and dies a death Oh! Had they only built the ship with 6000 and 1 hulls this would have been avoided. When will they ever learn?

      I agree though; this robot isn't as good as a human, but the folks at NASA are pretty bright. It's speculation now but after a few more tests they'll have the data they need for a solid conclusion. It's still very early in the lander's mission on Mars. We need to have a little patience.

    4. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look! It's another idiot babbling about sending people to Mars!

      putaro, leave space science to the smart grownups, k?

    5. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by CraftyJack · · Score: 4, Informative

      the lander doesn't have an "ice" experiment/module on board TEGA has that capability. Verifying the presence of water ice is an explicit science objective of this mission.
    6. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Narpak · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Not to mention discover better ways of maintaining the integrity of the human body. Apparently Zero Gravity isn't exactly reckomended for your health.

      The most significant adverse effects of long-term weightlessness are muscle atrophy and deterioration of the skeleton, or spaceflight osteopenia. These effects can be minimized through a regimen of exercise. Other significant effects include fluid redistribution, a slowing of the cardiovascular system, decreased production of red blood cells, balance disorders, and a weakening of the immune system. Lesser symptoms include loss of body mass, nasal congestion, sleep disturbance, excess flatulence, and puffiness of the face. These effects begin to reverse quickly upon return to the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_gravity#Health_effects_of_weightlessness

      I imagine that traveling to Mars and staying there to do serious research would, without significant advances, mean a shorter lifespan and for some; a martian burial.
    7. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Robots are great to go dangerous people.

      I meant: Robots are great to do dangerous jobs instead of people

    8. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Sparohok · · Score: 1

      Nobody's saying that manned spaceflight wouldn't be useful for science. However, it certainly isn't cost effective.

      We could invest in lowering launch costs, but we could also invest in improving robotics. Based on the last few decades of experience, in which the economics of spaceflight have barely changed, while robotics capabilities have improved by many orders of magnitude, I know where I'd put my money.

      In the meantime, with today's technology and today's budgets, there is not the slightest doubt that unmanned science provides better bang for the buck.

      Martin

    9. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Bartab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it.

      Find a couple astronaut capable people who have recently been diagnosed with cancer. Couple years to live, don't bring them back.

      A little cold hearted to design, but I'd guarantee you would have no lack of volunteers.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    10. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Ironlenny · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you refering to the Philip J. Fry from universe A or universe 1?

      --
      There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
    11. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      according to this coin toss, universe A.

    12. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by zerkshop · · Score: 1

      Cmon. Where's the fun in exploration if its not risky enough you may very well die doing it?

      Whats the difference from dieing in Iraq as a soldier but not in space as an explorer? We send soldiers to die all the time, but all of a sudden if it was someone who died going to the moon in your scenario we pack up and don't try again?

      When the space draft comes, I'll be ready to be flung off this planet for science :)

    13. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by khallow · · Score: 1

      Given that Phillip Fry's mission will do a lot more than a bunch of robot landers, but is more dangerous and costly, we need some sort of balance. Solely sending robot missions with a feedback time of years between missions is not that balance.

    14. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I'll guarantee you bad publicity anyway, and a disaster when one of them demands an emergency rescue mission so he can spend his last months with his family.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered whether a person dieing (from being stranded) on mars might actually encourage people to return more so than any other possible reason. Imagine the media coverage whilst we watched his/her last hours, the books and movies that would follow. Then imagine the idea of leaving this persons body for ever more on a lonely distant rock. No, I think if someone could not return, that would stimulate the populas to send a rocket ship to get the brave heroe's remains back. Far more insentive than any reason scientific research could provide.

    16. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      a disaster when one of them demands an emergency rescue mission so he can spend his last months with his family.

      That's why we put a HAL9000 on board.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Had we sent people, with even a minimal laboratory, we'd have known within about 15 minutes whether what they were digging up was ice or not. Since the lander doesn't have an "ice" experiment/module on board, we're reduced to guess work.

      Wouldn't a big lab and a human-like robot be cheaper? Yeah, the latency sucks - can we fix that with VR for buffering commands?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      You're right. To send people, it would be faster, but 1000 times more expensive (and I don't think that the above figure pulled out of my ass is a terrible exaggeration)

      However, in the case of this mission, a robotic lander was absolutely the way to go. If you'll remember, the Polar Lander used an extremely risky trajectory that was calculated to only have a 50% probability of success, due to the various difficulties associated with a polar landing (which requires you to plot a collision course with your planet, rather than the usual technique of inserting yourself into the orbit, and 'slowly' allowing yourself to return to the atmosphere). Putting humans in that sort of risk would simply be unacceptable. The MPL was essentially expendable surplus hardware that would have been scrapped, due to the high failure rate of similar missions.

      Human mars exploration might be a good idea. However, in this case, sending a robot was completely justified. Polar landings are risky, and we have very little experience with them. If we land a human on Mars, it sure as hell won't be near the poles the first time.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    19. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by trawg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And there is always C & D. C: Robot lander lands on Mars and completes mission. D: Philip Fry completes mission, but the return module will not leave Mars. Will we ever try that again? While I agree with the main sentiment of your post - that robots are better to send in the short term than people - I'd like to think that even if the first manned Mars mission met with disaster, there'd still be brave people queuing up to try again a second time.

      See: Apollo 1.

    20. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by trawg · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the story of the Mission to Mars movie :)

    21. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Bartab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At some point the public, law, and morality has to accept that adult humans can and should be able to make choices that are irrevocable.

      Besides, considering the trip length to Mars, anybody with 2 years to live wouldn't make it back. Even if there was a way back.

      BTW: Don't delude yourself that this won't happen. NASA won't do it, sure. The Chinese will.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    22. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The transhumanists are out in form again today!

    23. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by khallow · · Score: 1

      Anyone launching people on one way trips to Mars isn't particularly concerned about bad publicity. I don't see enough value in doing suicide trips to justify the cost and risk. Round trips aren't that big a burden.

    24. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by khallow · · Score: 1

      So why hasn't it been determined that that was water ice yet? Simple questions that take four days to make an educated guess about. That's the problem with robotic missions. Everything takes longer when there aren't decision makers onsite. Even when robotics gets to the point that such determinations can be made quickly by the probe, you still have the situation that anyone Earth-side is several minutes out of the loop. And it'll be a while before really advanced AI's are allowed that degree of lack of supervision.

    25. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Zadaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Manned space flight is afraid of a few deaths? What evidence do you have?

      Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee die during a ground test and we still landed on the moon 2 years later.

      Dick Scobee, Michael Smith, Judith Resnik, Ellison Onizuka, Ronald McNair, Gregory Jarvis and Christa McAuliff died in the Challenger explosion and we were back riding the same design to orbit 2 years later.

      We lost Rick Husband, William McCool, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark and Ilan Ramon in the Colombia reentry. And again, 2 years later we're back in space on the same vehicle.

      Just because you're too much of a wimp to risk your life doing something amazing and unique, don't condemn the rest of us to mediocrity.

    26. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I imagine that traveling to Mars and staying there to do serious research would, without significant advances, mean a shorter lifespan and for some; a martian burial. And then we could monitor the body decompose. If there is no bacteria on Mars, then the body should decompose in a rather interesting way that may be beneficial to study.

      Hell, I'm young and healthy, but I would _still_ volunteer for this mission. Unfortunately, I am certain that my wife would volunteer me as well..

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    27. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      I imagine that traveling to Mars and staying there to do serious research would, without significant advances, mean a shorter lifespan and for some; a martian burial. And then we could monitor the body decompose. If there is no bacteria on Mars, then the body should decompose in a rather interesting way that may be beneficial to study.

      Your body contains plenty enough bacteria for it to decompose by itself.

    28. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by zwei2stein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are plenty of people who would volunteer for such suicide mission even if they were NOT terminally ill.

      Really, if you can have people whose JOB is to murder other people and public is totally confortable with it (hint: its Soldier), volunteers for suicide missions should not concern public at all.

      Cultural taboo to overcome is "suicide", not "kill".

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    29. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by MLS100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention they'd get a spot in the history books as the first person(s) on Mars.

    30. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Your body contains plenty enough bacteria for it to decompose by itself.

      And then what? No maggots, I would suppose. With nothing to feed the bacteria after I'm gone, what next?
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    31. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem would be with the people sending someone to die, not the person doing the dying.

    32. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by IchNiSan · · Score: 1

      The good part about this is that as soon as the astronauts reached the point of no return, someone would come up with the ultimate cure for all cancer. Kind of like the whole light a cigarette to make the bus come process.

    33. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's not "B: Philip Fry crashes on moon and dies a death, are we ever going to try that again?", it's "B: Philip Fry crashes on moon and dies a death, guess we'll send a robot next time."

    34. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Don't sweat it, he's new here. Loadmaster, try a search for 'one way mission to mars' here on slashdot. There's some really excellent discussion about it - the first that I can remember was from back in 2002...

    35. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      to continue being cold hearted, this shouldn't happen because if the guy croaks before he gets to Mars then we've wasted all the cash and effort.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    36. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

      So? your argument only leads to the conclusion that we should sent a lab as complete as possible. Ok, a human would be more versatile than any automated lab we can design presently, but then so would the costs of sending him there (and bringing him back).

      --
      Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    37. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by antirelic · · Score: 1

      There is also the case of the two rovers on Mars right now that are still going 2 years after their original expected termination period. Not too many humans going to survive 2 years after their planned expiration period... (think: starvation)

      --
      20th century Marxism is not progress...
    38. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think we'd run out of people willing to go, even with a high death rate?

    39. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      So why hasn't it been determined that that was water ice yet? Simple questions that take four days to make an educated guess about. 4 days? What's 4 days? The damn thing has been in planning / design / construction for a nearly a decade. And months and months to get there. Even after we land things, it takes days to get things up, running, tested, and start stuff.

      Yes, a person (or really good AI) could do things faster; but manned missions cost an order of magnitude more than unmanned, and I'd rather have 10 landers than a single manned one.

      It's just slow, but if I can wait 2 years for Spore, I can wait a week for scientific results.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    40. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Just hope they don't die on the way there, and waste the n billions of dollars it took to get them there.

    41. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by BigJClark · · Score: 1


      Well worded, space brother.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    42. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by DanOrc451 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Human psychology, particularly when dealing with nations of people, doesn't always work logically.

      Each one of those three cases you mention, while tragic and horrible, don't really fall into the nightmare scenario of human space exploration.

      It's not just the deaths we fear, it's the helplessness and impotence of an impending death we can do nothing about in the void of space, or the horror of unretreived bodies. A fiery death is something we as humans understand. There is tragedy, there is heroism and glory, we honor their sacrifice, and we can move forward.

      There is a huge difference, emotionally speaking, between a shuttle reentering Earth's atmosphere and incinerating, and what could possibly happen on a manned mission to the Moon or Mars.

      Imagine a scenario where, say, Apollo 17's boosters fail to fire after landing on the moon, dooming the landing crew to run out of oxygen and die on the moon. No amount of Apollo 13-style duct tape heroics can save them. They slowly die as a horrified public watches, and there is nothing that anyone can do to save them. Their bodies remain on the Moon, and every time someone looks up at the night sky, they see dead Americans in adddition to or in place of a crowning human achievement, until a future mission possibly retrieves their bodies.

      Or imagine a manned Mars mission where a critical rocket malfuntions and the crew is doomed to hurtle out into the void of space, and there is NEVER realistically a possibility of retrieving the bodies once they finally die.

      Now, I don't know if this would usher in a new dark age of space exploration, because it has never happened. I'm not advocating against human space exploration either. Clearly, for all of our costly fleshly limitations, humans are by far still the greatest possible conductors of science and exploration.

      However, it is also important to acknowledge that we don't truly know how humanity as a whole would react to the worst that could possibly happen in human space exploration because, thanks to the brilliance of engineers and a good deal of luck, it hasn't happened yet.
      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    43. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      Most of these don't seem like effects of weightlessness. It seems more like a tightly controlled germ-free environment where one doesn't exercise. These same effects can be achieved in a small chamber WITH gravity as well. This is why they recommend a "regimen of exercise". It would be interesting if there was a control group on effects of no exercise w/o germs and (effects of weightlessness - exercise control group effects).

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    44. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Of course, you realize, the cost of sending the Mayflower across the Atlantic was comparably equally expensive back then. The travel time was about the same. We are technologically capable of sending vehicles to Mars in a three month period. We'll see colonization of Mars, by private enterprises before NASA probably. It's terribly expensive, but I think we are close to the time where it will be economical soon enough. Reusable space craft is the key, and cheap sub-orbital craft. I can see how mining and manufacturing of mined materials would be economical for certain materials on Mars. Once the Australians have built a ship around that scramjet of theirs we'll have great suborbital craft. Might even work on Mars, although a spring loaded cannon might be more efficient.

    45. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      I think a greater concern would be: how can a suicidal person be trusted to do his/her best on the mission instead of nihilistically slacking off and awaiting the inevitable?

    46. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it.

      The first man on Mars might be someone who volunteered for a one-way-trip.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    47. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the Philip J. Fry from Earth, or the Philip J. Fry from hovering squidworld 97-A?

    48. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      We should send the terrrrists. Need to kick start the Empire somehow.

    49. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by khallow · · Score: 1

      4 days? What's 4 days? The damn thing has been in planning / design / construction for a nearly a decade. And months and months to get there. Even after we land things, it takes days to get things up, running, tested, and start stuff.

      You must have no sense of irony. First, 4 days is a thousandth of ten years and about 4-5% of the mission lifetime. As I see it, the key problem is simply that you have a observation cycle on the order of decades and then the observation is limited to what capabilities you can cram on one or two vehicles. You observe something then design the missions that are going to follow up on the observation. A manned mission could cut that cycle from years to minutes to days. Another problem here is that many important matters are ignored due to limits on probe capabilities. For example, it's been more than 30 years since the Viking landers arrived on Mars, yet we still haven't done a follow up study to the "labeled release" experiment which some think showed an indication of life on Mars.

      Finally, the economics of probes versus manned missions are distorted by today's launch costs to Earth orbit. People require considerable support mass. But once you can afford that due to lower, more reliable launch systems, it's really not much more expensive to put people on Mars than gear.

    50. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jan 2015.- Astronauts diagnosed with cancer are sent to Mars in one-way mission.
      Feb 2017.- Successful landing of Mars Mission.
      Apr 2017.- Astronauts find out Martian (almost non-existing) atmosphere cures cancer...

    51. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by 2short · · Score: 1

      "We often see the scientific community putting manned spaceflight down, saying that it is not useful for scientific research."

      If manned spaceflight is better, why doesn't an astronaut pitch in and dig up a sample? Manned spaceflight has a vastly larger budget at NASA than robotic probes. Yet they are busily trying to keep their toilet working at the edge of the atmosphere while this probe analyzes samples on Mars.

      "Had we sent people, with even a minimal laboratory, we'd have known within about 15 minutes whether what they were digging up was ice or not."

      Had we sent humans, the mission won't get there for (optimistically) another 20 years, so diagnosing it as ice in 15 minutes might not be a time saver. With robots we can design and build another probe that can do whatever experiment you want astronauts to do, send that, do the experiment, take the knowledge gained, and repeat dozens and dozens of times before the human ever gets there, and at a fraction of the cost.

      You seem to assume sending humans would be better because humans are quite clever. This is true. One of the really clever things they do is build remote probes, because it's a much better way to explore space.

      "We should be working on getting our launch costs down..."

      There's a pretty strong market for launch capabilities to support the only "real benefit out of space" we've found: terrestrial communications. If you, or anyone, really knows how to reduce launch costs, the economic incentive is there and massive; it doesn't want for public subsidy via NASA.

    52. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people will just move on, as usual, once we start doing serious space exploration, and a tragedy as you describes occurs. What about people who left for the New World, and were killed by natives/disease/storms etc. Did the "Old World" collapse? Nope. I'm not articulating it as well as I could, but think of this somewhat more vulgar example than I prefer, but gets near my optimum point: Sexually transmitted diseases are horrible, ghastly things that will ruin and end one's life. I will not be graphic, but you get the idea. Anyway - do ghastly STD's stop people from having sex? Do you really think exploration is going to stop either, another basic function, even if it means some bumps in Outer Space?

    53. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Mars has gravity, lower than Earth but it's there. Going there would be more problamatic but people already stay in space for months at a time (I think the record is a year or so).

    54. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      On the way to mars you just tether the habitat part of the spacecraft and the spent booster stage together and have them swing around one another, you could easily get 1g from this. Once on mars, you can do extra exercise (like they do already on the ISS) and there are probably some fancy drugs you could take too, I seem to recall there being one in the works for losing calcium but don't quote me on that.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    55. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Find a couple astronaut capable people who have recently been diagnosed with cancer. Couple years to live, don't bring them back.


      And why would you? With cancer-reduced physical fiteness, chances are they wouldn't even make it up to Mars, much less back...


      What a dumb idea. Cruel, nah, st00pid, you betcha.

    56. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      So why hasn't it been determined that that was water ice yet? Have patience, it's a 90 day mission. That specific test hasn't been run yet. Wait until they take a grinding. That will generate ice particles that are small enough to fall through the screen.
    57. Re:This is why robots aren't great for science by khallow · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong. This is a hell of a lot better than nothing. But this 90 day mission can only do a limited number of things. They'll have to design and launch another such mission if they want to follow up on something that isn't covered by currently planned missions. That's something like a 10-20 year return time. Maybe longer if it turns out to be like some of the astrobiology experiments on Viking which won't be covered until a mission in 2013. Point is, a manned mission to Mars could generate a hell of a lot more science and exploration data.

  16. what they should do by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is send a dozen or two probes to Mars full of bacteria/fungus and whatever other DNA based lifeform that shown ability to live in extreme conditions and populate the planet of Mars. A few of the probes should carry heavy drilling equipment.. bore into crust of mars and dump a few loads of bacteria..

    its pretty obvious we'll fuck this planet up sooner rather than later so its probably a good idea to spread the seeds of life somewhere else. Maybe in 100 million years new life forms will thrive on Mars.

    1. Re:what they should do by Zosden · · Score: 0

      We as a species have decieded it is unethical to do anything like that. That is why when they build these things they do it so there is no possiblity of life or even human signs on the equipment.

    2. Re:what they should do by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      I bet you could write about three thick books on that theme. You could pit a bunch of conservative geology types against power mad engineers with a small group of middle ground heroes in the middle

      But what would you call it. Something Mars. I know Red Mars, then the next book gets a slightly different name.

      The only problem is that the third book would probably run out of ideas about 10% of the way through.

      Maybe its not such a good idea to after all...

    3. Re:what they should do by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is seeding a dead planet with life considered unethical? Since when? You say that we decided as a species that doing so was against our moral conduct but I've gotta ask.. when did that debate take place? By who? The supreme court of the world?

      Maybe you have a problem with it but the Chinese and Indians wont. So much for your supreme court ruling.

    4. Re:what they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't know the planet is dead yet, doofus. There is still a very real possibility of extremophile microorganisms existing on mars.

    5. Re:what they should do by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      even if there were, what's the big deal about seeding a rock populated with a bunch of freakin' weirdo germs with something more useful to us? Germs have no rights.

    6. Re:what they should do by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Self interest.

      If there is a form of life on Mars, studying it might give us insights into the origin of life on our planet; provide examples of forms of life that can survive at very low temp/pressure and high radiation levels - which even if they are of no immediate use, may form the basis (through selective breeding or direct manipulation) of forms that are of use.

      These opportunities and many others those with more time and smarts can think up are lost if we contaminate or wipe out the environment.

    7. Re:what they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you do go ahead and write it, don't screw up and have them charging the batteries on a battery powered airship by holding a wind turbine out the window. hint: This would be perpetual motion. I seem to recall he also had it managing to hold position in a wind that was higher than its maximum speed...

    8. Re:what they should do by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      When did we vote? Was I asleep?

      --
      Fnord.
    9. Re:what they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, "Water is from Mars, Sulphuric Acid is from Venus"?

    10. Re:what they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I really don't understand why people rate Kim Stanley Robinson. I gave up trying to read Red Mars because it was just so dull; recently I gave her another chance with "40 signs of rain" but found that was pretty crappy too. The narrative just doesn't go anywhere.

    11. Re:what they should do by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      You would have no idea if the 'bunch of freakin weirdo germs' are useful or not.

      I would guess that they would be unbelievably useful in understanding biology.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    12. Re:what they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that the third book would probably run out of ideas about 10% of the way through.

      so it would be kinda like The Matrix series?

    13. Re:what they should do by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but if you do that, you might destroy the environment for the existing life, who will suffer terribly, but in the end will survive. And 1000 years from now, when we have forgotten all about it

      they will come.

    14. Re:what they should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah...

      1. Dump organisms on Mars
      2. Wait 1 billion years
      3. Profit!

    15. Re:what they should do by loafula · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt we'd be effective in our seeding. A big problem with Mars is that the planet has cooled to the point where it's core is no longer liquid. The solid, cold core does not generate a magnetic field anywhere near the strength of the earth. Because there is no magnetic field, solar radiation literally cooks the surface of the planet. On Mars, you have two choices: freeze beneath the surface, or fry on it.

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  17. Re:Big Freakin Deal by Zosden · · Score: 0

    One world aliens. Enter dramatic gopher.

  18. Re:Big Freakin Deal by xSauronx · · Score: 1

    now we can wash off the rovers?

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  19. Re:Good News by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Prof: Good news everyone!
    Bender: Uh oh. I don't like the sound of that.
    Prof: Today you'll be making a delivery to the planet Mars!
    Bender: Bo-ring. Let's go get drunk!

  20. They are one step ahead of you by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Why do you think it disappeared so fast?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  21. Re:Big Freakin Deal by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    We've also got things that swim in the water. We've got stuff that walks on the ice. We've got stuff that moves through the vapor.
    Submarines, ice skates and airplanes!

    What do I win?

  22. CO2 by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Um, we know that dry ice (frozen CO2) is on the poles. Bright white chunks that sublimate are dry ice. Ice tends to be clear and rarely sublimates. It would most likely melt first then evaporate. How about next time you see bright white chunks you analyze them. (disclaimer: I did not RTFA of course)

    1. Re:CO2 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Um, we know that dry ice (frozen CO2) is on the poles. Bright white chunks that sublimate are dry ice. Ice tends to be clear and rarely sublimates. It would most likely melt first then evaporate. How about next time you see bright white chunks you analyze them. (disclaimer: I did not RTFA of course)

      The air pressure is too low for ice to be liquid And the temperature is too high for CO2 to stay solid. There is a small overlap during the night where the atmosphere is cold enough for dry ice to form but the most you would get is a bit of frost.
    2. Re:CO2 by Teilo · · Score: 1

      Go study. It will do you some good.

      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
    3. Re:CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Observe your ice cube tray over a while in your freezer. You will observe the ice sublimating.....

    4. Re:CO2 by c10 · · Score: 1

      Or look outside in the winter, if you live where it gets cold and stays cold.

  23. We Blew It by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all this time and effort, we finally found water on Mars, and we let it get away!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  24. Re:Great Scott !! by sjf · · Score: 5, Funny

    You see, you had a splendid joke there, and then you went and spoiled it.
    Any truly civilized individual knows that a Martini is made with gin, not vodka.

    Sheesh, when will these damn colonials ever learn ?

  25. fake picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is it just me or does the picture look fake.. being black and white.... and then a cream yellow... doesnt make much sense to me

    1. Re:fake picture? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I don't think it looks fake. But, you could easily point your radio telescope at Mars and verify that there is a signal coming from that direction.

      20 years from now, we're going to have junior high school students saying that Phoenix and Spirit/Opportunity were faked. I only say this because my spouse is a science teacher and still hears that the Moon landings were faked.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  26. Another article... by yorugua · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another article about the same news: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/mars-phoenix-tw.html

    There is water ice on Mars within reach of the Mars Phoenix Lander, NASA scientists announced Thursday.

    Photographic evidence settles the debate over the nature of the white material seen in photographs sent back by the craft. As seen in lower left of this image, chunks of the ice sublimed (changed directly from solid to gas) over the course of four days, after the lander's digging exposed them.

    "It must be ice," said the Phoenix Lander's lead investigator, Peter Smith. "These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it's ice."

    The confirmation that water ice exists in the area directly surrounding the lander is big and good news for the Martian mission. NASA's stated goal for the Mars Phoenix was to find exactly this -- water ice -- and then analyze it. With the latest news, the first step is accomplished. All that's left now is to get the water into the Phoenix's instruments, a task which has occasionally proven more difficult than anticipated.

    Still, this is the best opportunity that humanity has ever had to analyze extraterrestrial water in any form. That had the Phoenix Lander's persona fired up.

    "Are you ready to celebrate? Well, get ready: We have ICE!!!!! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t!!! Best day ever!!" the Mars Phoenix Lander tweeted at about 5:15 pm.

    Their suspicions about water ice beneath the surface of Mars confirmed, scientists and the world will have renewed interest in the outcome of the soil analyses currently being conducted by the lander.

    The samples are being examined for traces of organic molecules, among other substances, but the lander does not have instruments that could directly detect life.

    See the full announcement from NASA.

    1. Re:Another article... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      How do we know it is frozen H2O and not frozen CO2?

  27. One down, three to go ... by rlp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Call me when they find salt, tequila, and Margarita mix. I'll bring my own glass (and lime).

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  28. From global surveyer to today by heroine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Still remember when global surveyer first released the picture of massive amounts of water below the surface. It was too good to be true, no-one believed it, and it got put away.

    Now we've found massive amounts of water just below the surface, enough water to make huge amounts of rocket fuel, and it didn't even make a buried link on CNN. Where in Calif* can you find water just 2" below the surface?

    1. Re:From global surveyer to today by heroine · · Score: 1

      The credit should be Odyssey, not surveyer.

    2. Re:From global surveyer to today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Where in Calif* can you find water just 2" below the surface?

      In a lake?

    3. Re:From global surveyer to today by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "Where in Calif* can you find water just 2" below the surface?"

      Everywhere in the entire state including the deserts. Even when the air is very dry it is never zero percent humidity. The siil 2 inches down will have some small amount of water if the air has ny at all

    4. Re:From global surveyer to today by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's not true. many peple believed it, there just was no way to get good confirmation with the data at that time.
      Why do yuo think this was sent there to look?

      To answer your question, the shore line.

      There are many place right here on earth with ice above the surface of the land, below it. Really, I don't even follow the point of the question.

      There is a link on the FRONT page of CNN.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. Super colonization plan by caller9 · · Score: 1

    I remember a few years ago someone proposed a phased terraforming operation. Send a lander, have it do phase 1...step 2... big profit.

    So lets get this going. I wanna see some of that big profit.

    1. Re:Super colonization plan by Smoke2Joints · · Score: 2, Informative

      the ultimate aim of these mars exploration missions is to check for signs of life BEFORE we start terraforming the shit out of it. science doesnt want unnessicary genocide on its hands, regardless of the sophistication of the species.

    2. Re:Super colonization plan by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Science doesnt want unnessicary genocide on its hands, regardless of the sophistication of the species. No, that is Politic's job.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  30. Great! by PPH · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Now we can send a manned mission over there and use the H2O they find for fuel for the return trip. Just drop itr right in the tank. Just like all those e-mails say I can do to run my car on water.

    It must be true. The InterWeb never lies.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Great! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Funny

      That actually may not be a bad idea. Can anyone tell me whether a load of catalyst and a reactor would weigh less than a load of hydrogen?

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:Great! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      One can crack H2O into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity. Solar panels provide electricity. Hence, you fly over a crapload of solar panels, some hooge tanks, and a few electrolysis machines.

      Then, you simply wait until you know for a damn fact that you have enough water and hydrogen to sustain a visit of however long, plus a return trip, plus a safety factor of however much. Meanwhile, you can be sending pallets of food, supplies, whatever you need. No human need step foot on the planet until you have everything they'll need.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  31. Yes, it's right below the WMD by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You will also find Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis Presley and Osama Bin Laden playing strip poker :D

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  32. Re:Great Scott !! by flewp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sure, Martinis may be made with gin, but martiantinis are made with vodka. Duh.

    --
    WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  33. Incorrect might not be equivalent to Troll by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Moderators, please get a grip. sjf is wrong, but if you look at their history, and consider the simplicity of the incorrect factual statement they made, they probably are not Trolling. Overrated, sure, but Troll is pretty harsh.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  34. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which flavor? Cherry? Watermelon? Just kidding. That's amazing news. There's gonna be some huge discoveries there sometime soon.

  35. All I want to know is... by T3Tech · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What flavor is it? And can we get it back through re-entry and into stores without it melting?

    --
    Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
  36. That depends.... by raehl · · Score: 1

    s/Philip Fry/George W. Bush/g

    Might not get any science done, but it sure would feel good!

  37. my prediction... by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If they found life on mars you'd spend the next 20 years disproving all the nay sayers claiming the bacteria is really contamination from earth. there are some people who have great emotional investment in there not being life anywhere but earth, and they will do anything to be right.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:my prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most christians i know believe that god is everything and everywhere.

  38. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    Your post is written in very good english, denoting that you have a good level of education. What a striking contrast is made by the content of your post.

    You can't just segregate space exploration from the rest of science. Where do you want to end up? A glorious society that lives with the belief that everything revolves around the earth?

    Rather than telling people they are fucking twits, why not relax a touch yourself and sip your own medicine? Secondly, I agree that things you raise are important to look at. Global warming, food production and a whole other plethora of things. But where I disagree is to say that someone studying something else shouldn't study it and put all that effort into the area that you like. You want more study on world food reserves? Great, get up off the chair in front of that PC and start making a change!

    P.S. Using the word fuck over and over generally makes it lose the emphasizing effect greatly and just makes you look like a snotty nosed kid who can get away with swearing over the internet because mommy and daddy aren't watching.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  39. Water Ice? by mcgeeb · · Score: 3, Funny

    Awesome, what flavor?

    1. Re:Water Ice? by nebenfun · · Score: 1

      Cue Flanders....
      "The best flavor ever. Plain!"

  40. Re:INVISABLE WATR by Kingrames · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it not invisabul it jus look dat way

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  41. I think the point that everyone keeps missing by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the most important thing, and it is something that everyone keeps missing, is that NASA has found a way to turn even rocket scientists into ditch diggers!
    Imagine a bright young engineer studying hard on saturday nights, while all his friends are getting drunk and laid, and thinking how he'll have a successful career with NASA. And when thinking about his lucky friends he says to himself "the world needs ditchdiggers too."
    And some day he gets into NASA, and his boss's first words are:
    "Johnson, this ain't rocket science, Phoenix has landed and I need you do dig me a ditch..."

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  42. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like a million voices cried out "who cares!" and were suddenly silenced ...

  43. Re:INVISABLE WATR by jd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    An' Basement Cat meleted it.

    --
    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)
  44. Ice sublimes. by Dr.+Mu · · Score: 3, Informative
    Geeks sublimate.

    (Okay, okay, I just looked it up: "sublimate" can also be used with ice, but "sublime" is preferred.)

    1. Re:Ice sublimes. by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      IOW, sublime is sublime.

  45. Fantastic Picture of Water on Mars by nkovacs · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Here's a picture from the phoenix lander of water on Mars: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0504/WaterOnMars2_gcc.jpg

  46. Oh goodie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the "waterless" urinals around here tell me there is a "potable water crisis" and we need to conserve water. So maybe some day we can find enough potable water to sustain our immense world population.

    I call extreme BS, but if "they" say so it must be true right? A water shortage on the blue planet? My ass!

  47. Yum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, Water Ice on Mars. I didn't know they deliver.

    Sometimes I make my own, but I do prefer the lemon Italian Ice.

  48. When on Mars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You use vodka out of respect for the fallen Russian probes. When the Dutch lose more probes on Mars to the Russians, we can start switching to gin.

    1. Re:When on Mars... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Ehmm, what exactly do you expect the Russians are going to do to our probes? Just curious ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  49. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I still can't say that I agree on your point of view.

    Space exploration has no benefit for society in general. So there is no point in understanding why we have tides? What about how sunspots generate random levels of radiation that plays havoc with the radio broadcasts and communications that we use? What about looking into the area of space around our humble planet to see if there is an asteroid or comet heading right for us? Don't you think that these three points off the top of my head have some sort of benefit for society in general?

    As for the swearing, my point is that if it is used as commonly as in your original thread, it really does water down. I got absolutely nothing against colorful language. My point is if you put in too much color, the whole thing becomes a gaudy mess rather than a well accentuated splash here and there.
    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  50. They Really Really Really Found Water (Almost) by KidSock · · Score: 4, Funny

    This time they really really really really really really found water. Just like the last time they really really really found water. But that one time they found water they really didn't. But this time they really almost definitely did.

    1. Re:They Really Really Really Found Water (Almost) by crazybit · · Score: 1

      yeah!

      just like Duke Nukem Forever will really really really really really really really come out this year!

      --
      - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    2. Re:They Really Really Really Found Water (Almost) by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah!

      just like Duke Nukem Forever will really really really really really really really come out this year!

      Duke Nukem is already done, but it only runs on Herd.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:They Really Really Really Found Water (Almost) by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Duke Nukem is already done, but it only runs on Herd. Is that like, ground beef ?
    4. Re:They Really Really Really Found Water (Almost) by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Is that like, ground beef? No it's more like either the people with modpoints today don't know what Herd is, don't know what DNF is, or have a quick trigger. +3 Interesting?!? IT WAS A JOKE!!! Don't believe everything that you read on /.. Will someone mod my previous post overrated please.

      (no I don't give a fuck about karma)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  51. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reason you get modded to hell is obvious to this 50yo geek and was politely explained by the GP.

    The fact you think space exploration is a waste of time is your opinion, the way you state that opinion is 95% pure troll/flamebait. The unwashed masses of slashdotter do not have a personal grudge against you, you seem incapable of communicating contrary ideas without spewing bile at the same time.

    Also your original post is flat out wrong...

    "All the bad things about climate change, economic collapse, and overpopulation are happening here and now. The ability to use space exploration technology to address these problems won't be realistic for hundreds of years, if ever."

    Space exploration may not fix these problems but how did we find out about them? The effects of AGW and overpopulation have been measured for the last 30-40yrs using space programs such as landsat. As the GP suggested you cannot seperate science into little piles of factoids and then only fund the piles you want to grow, science is both a body of knowledge AND a way of thinking.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  52. Don't be ridiculous. by StarKruzr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Democratyatize is a perfectly cromulent word.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Don't be ridiculous. by bluie- · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, and it embiggens us all.

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
  53. In later news by RationalRoot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Large groups of Martians are now protesting at the landing site.

    Holding placards saying "Go home - Keep Mars for the Martians" - "You messed up Earth, Leave Mars Alone" - "There's no Oil Here - Go Home"

    It appears we may not be welcome after all.

    --
    http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
  54. what't the big deal? by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Viking lander already observed frost:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_2

    Furthermore, experiments with simulated soil and athmosphere suggest that that frost actually turns liquid when it melts.

  55. At last! by Evildonald · · Score: 2, Funny

    Astronauts will be able to make Long Island Ice Tea on Mars without having to ship expensive ice all the way from earth!

  56. Hmmm by Rog69 · · Score: 3, Funny

    When the roads get iced up round my way, they come out and chuck a load of reddish coloured sand on it and it melts, so how can all that ice exist under all that reddish coloured sand on Mars? They really didn't think this through.

    1. Re:Hmmm by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      When the roads get iced up round my way, they come out and chuck a load of reddish coloured sand on it and it melts, so how can all that ice exist under all that reddish coloured sand on Mars?

      That's an easy one: It's really fscking cold on Mars.

      See if that load of reddish coloured sand helps when it's 50 below zero (Celsius). It won't.

  57. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by LucidBeast · · Score: 1

    Are you sure about "In civilized societies, money is limited and funding is allocated according to the best possible benefit for the society." Could you list those fields, which will be most benefit to the society in the next 50 years.

  58. WTF by Phaid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jesus, I thought I signed onto slashdot, but after reading the comments I realize I must have clicked on Fark by mistake.

  59. excess flatulence? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    where you see a problem i see opportunity

    send 10 fat guys to mars in a small capsule loaded with beans, rice, corn dogs, garlic knots, etc

    when the capsule reaches mars, BOOM, a little percussion decompression, and voila: instant martian atmosphere

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:excess flatulence? by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Problem? I see no problem. I have never had any problems sacrificing people for science. As proved by my RACE OF ATOMIC SUPERMEN! MU HA HA HA HA HA

  60. Hey Mr! I got five kids to feed. by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 2, Funny

    Blue sky on Mars.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  61. frozen sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no, the Germans are hiding on the Moon, not Mars:

    http://www.ironsky.net/site/?p=16

  62. Rita's Are Getting a Little Overextended by slas6654 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Jeez, it seems like you can't go 5 miles anymore without a Rita's.

  63. preach that sophist love, brother! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is absolutely no need to prove that the Earth is the center of the universe, orbited by the other celestial bodies.

    Just pull up a Ptolemaic diagram (google is your friend), look at the center (i.e. within the orbits of the planets), and what do you see?

    A circle which is, in fact, the Earth.

    And what does the fact that the Sun and all other celestial bodies have concentric orbits around the Earth prove?

    Bingo. Geocentrism.

  64. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    public funds that are desperately needed for more important things Like faith-based family planning? Like a bridge to nowhere? Like the failing pyramid scheme that is Social Security?

    real adults deal with real issues and solve real problems Like researching drugs for ED? Like coming up with a sleeker mobile phone? or a new interface for that mobile phone?

    I'm proud to work on space exploration - and I know better than to pass judgment on someone else's chosen field.
  65. We're (almost) ready (marshydro.com)... by Wonderkid · · Score: 2, Funny
    --

    O'WONDERWe're working on it.

    1. Re:We're (almost) ready (marshydro.com)... by glindsey · · Score: 1

      What the hell's a "marshy dro"? One of those new-fangled rap gentlemen all the kids think is "crunk"?

    2. Re:We're (almost) ready (marshydro.com)... by Wonderkid · · Score: 1

      you naughty naughty naughty slashdotter, was that an attempt at humor? keep it up, we need more giggles in space!

      --

      O'WONDERWe're working on it.

  66. They're both words. by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Both are listed in the dictionary.

  67. Mmm... Water Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars has Water Ice? Mmm... I'll take mango flavored.

    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ice#Water_ice]

  68. Water Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean the Martians also have small buildings with Red & White striped awnings and seasonal raggae-esq television commercials; or is it just the crappy paper-cup variety you find in the supermarket?

  69. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

    I can't swear in scientific papers, in polite company, or at work. But I can on Slashdot. I aspire to do it there brilliantly.

    Thank you, Simonetta

    Then you failed miserably. I do respect your opinion; even though I see no harm in looking for life in another planets, perhaps we should spend more time and effort trying to fix the mess we did in this one first. Perhaps we are just looking for a suitable place to mess up just like we did here, who knows.

    But the moment you start cursing like a ten year old who got away from mummy and is allowed to say fuck, just for the sake of it, and start repeating spanish words for no reason (what do you mean? are all the people in NASA spanish? does calling someone amigo makes you argument stronger?) you just look like a retard.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
  70. Italian Ice by yorkrj · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Here in New York we call it Italian Ice. It's my favorite tasty summer treat!

  71. WOW! by celtic_hackr · · Score: 2, Funny

    We'd better throw out those phase change diagrams in the schools' books and remove the triple point of water, someone on /. has confirmed ...
    IT'S ALL A LIE! Water can't sublimate.

    Of course, since the triple point of water is 6.1 millibars @ 0.0098 C, and the average atmospheric pressure of Mars is 6 millibars, it can't possibly ever have favorable conditions for the sublimation of ... err ... uh, I mean, ummm ...
    err ...
    Uh ....
    All your vapor belong to US!

  72. What a trip.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that way just to find out that martians are addicted to crack, too...

  73. I for one welcome ... by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    our carbon dioxide breathing mutant human overlords!

    Mars, atmosphere: CO2 ~ 95.3%, N 2.7%, Argon 1.6%, O2 0.13%.

    Of course we could just build irrigation systems on Mars, inside greenhouse type enclosures, and plant trees. In a hundred years we'd have a breathable atmosphere in the enclosures, if we planted enough trees. Build enough enclosures, plant enough trees and tap enough water, and we'd eventually be able to vent the enclosed atmosphere and be done with the enclosures. Voila! Our first terraformed planet! Of course, I haven't done a critical analysis of this. There is also the possibility that venting the artificial atmosphere into the actual Martian atmosphere wouldn't work. Also, those really cold nights might kill off any tress not in an enclosure that controls the temperature. In which case we'd need to call in Arnold to fix things!

    1. Re:I for one welcome ... by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Of course we could just build irrigation systems on Mars

      There are already canals, we've seen pictures of them!

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  74. obligatory by GregNorc · · Score: 1

    A wizard did it.

  75. It's great for everyone, except ... by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    those poor microbes living in the Martian soil that had all the water ice in their environment and their microscopic bodies sublimated right out of them!

    Cry for the poor microbial Martian lifeforms!

    Better not send any manned missions there for a while and if you do, don't send any laser cutting drills.

    Oh and be careful around any sparkling twinkling sand.

  76. Duh, canals by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Obviously there's water on Mars or else it would be a bit pointless building all those canals, wouldn't it? Do you really think they shipped it onto Mars from another planet?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  77. Re:Great Scott, Bond!! by EEDAm · · Score: 1
    Well.... but then of course, James Bond would tell you the classic Martini is made with three parts gin AND one part vodka;

    'A dry martini,' he said. 'One. In a deep champagne goblet.'

    'Oui, monsieur.'

    'Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's [an English gin], one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. [this is not vermouth by the way] Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?'

    'Certainly, monsieur.' The barman seemed pleasant with the idea.

    'Gosh that's certainly a drink,' said Leiter.

    (Casino Royale)

  78. At night, the ice weasels come. by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

    That's where the ice went.

  79. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ice sublimates you!

  80. OK... by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

    But what does the oven tell us?

    1. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing yet...but again NASA bases it's science on the unequivocal images of "ice".

      seriously, at 10 ppb detection (TEGA-MS) they should be detecting low levels in the surface soil, or even in the atmosphere if it's sublimating.

  81. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In civilized societies, money is limited and funding is allocated according to the best possible benefit for the society. Space exploration has no benefit for society in general.

    It's a pretty thought, but it seldom works out that way. Throwing money at problems, while sometimes helpful (if for no other reason than the fact that it can be used to wipe up the crap that the fan sent flying everywhere), does not fix them.

    Not to mention, space exploration goes beyond mere science (of which there is plenty). Even the aesthetics have at least some value (things like pride at accomplishment, the joy of the intellect, and all that other stuff the professor spouted about in my mandatory fine arts class). Consider, as just one example, the Fremont bridge in Portland, OR. It costs several times what it should have for merely aesthetic considerations. Or consider cities that require 1% of any public building project to be allocated to art.

    Personally, I find space exploration much, much more attractive than a goofy facade on some federal building.

  82. Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! by 2short · · Score: 1

    Not that I entirely agree with the other poster, but: Understanding tides, understanding sunspots effects on communications, searching for asteroids/comets... none of these require space exploration. They all can be, and almost entirely have been, done by earth-bound observation.

  83. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  84. This is great news! by acecamaro666 · · Score: 0

    Ice means we can have ice cubes in our sodas!

  85. Re:The real question is... Nevermind that... I by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    thought I read "POTABLE Water Found on Mars".... Whew!

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  86. That is depressing. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east.

    Gawd that is depressing.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  87. This is why robots are great for Science by Guppy · · Score: 1

    We often see the scientific community putting manned spaceflight down, saying that it is not useful for scientific research. Had we sent people, with even a minimal laboratory, we'd have known within about 15 minutes whether what they were digging up was ice or not. Since the lander doesn't have an "ice" experiment/module on board, we're reduced to guess work. As other folks have mentioned, the lander does indeed have a module for ice. However, I'd still say "this is why robots are great for science" even if it did not -- because you can revise your designs, build a second robot for that purpose, and send it, and still spend far less than what it would cost to send a human.

    It is quite true that reducing the cost of launch capacity would reduce the cost of sending the human. However, I do not see any reason why this would not also proportionally reduce the cost of launching larger (or faster, or more numerous) robots. The one real benefit is public relations, the ability to mint space-cadet heros.

  88. Exactly! by anonymousJUGGERNAUT · · Score: 1

    Which is why underground coal mining no longer exists.

    1. Re:Exactly! by DanOrc451 · · Score: 1

      Or submarines!

      But seriously. There are analogues in space disasters, and there are analogues on earth, but none are quite perfect. All I'm saying is that we don't really know until the worst happens how people will react.

      There are tons of taxpayer money at stake here, one government agency to blame, and an overlay of space mythology and media romanticism that is not at work in any other situation.

      Public overreaction after a manned disaster is a real risk, and one that can't be dismissed out of hand.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  89. Thats just great... by funk1337 · · Score: 1

    So the last bit of water on Mars, just sublimed into space. Damn we're good...

  90. Total sports, $30B by MarkusQ · · Score: 1
    I got the number from here.

    --MarkusQ

  91. Not exactly by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the white stuff on the surface is not water ice, it's CO2. The water is underground.
    Any water on the surface would vaporize away.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  92. Nope by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It is immoral NOT to take these step and make the so they are survivable to our species.
    NOT looking out for the survival of the species is immoral... and the path to annihilation.

    Seed the star, continue forever.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  93. Sorry, the explanation is lacking... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    Just not the same without Manny's broken English.

  94. On Soviet Mars, we probe the aliens! by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who somehow interpreted the first word in the title as, well, "probable"? No, not in the sense of "likely". Probe-able. Must be the Martian connection.

    I also understood "water ice" as a popsicle. A phallic one.

    Yeah, OK, it's probably just me.

  95. So we made a bet by surfersam · · Score: 1

    My friends and I have made a Steven Hawking esque bet that there will be people going to Mars to live out their lives on a permanent colony within one of our life times. We each agreed to deposit $5,000 into a pooled account that none of us would be able to open unless the news was heard. The idea is that the account, like a retirement fund, will be worth millions by the time the bet is decided. So far we have two for and one against. We need more people.

  96. Re:Great Scott, Bond!! by sjf · · Score: 1

    Actually that would be a drink Bond is supposed to have invented and named the "Vesper." No one whose experience of Martinis extends beyond James Bond would call that recipe a classic Martini.

    Mind you, you should drink whatever you want to whatever recipe you choose. The "traditional" Martini has one measure of vermouth to 3 of Gin, which is how I like it. But most people I know prefer the "classic" recipe which involves little more vermouth than is needed to wet the inside of the glass.

    A lush, moi ?