Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Probable Water Ice Sighted On Mars

Posted by timothy on from the pronounced-wooder-ice-in-philly dept.

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."

39 of 393 comments (clear)

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

    Is there oil?

    1. 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

    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought that was from asshole roommates.

    7. 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
    8. 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

    9. 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.
    10. 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?
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

  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 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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.

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

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

    --
    Check out my sysadmin blog!
  5. 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.
      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  6. Yeah, we know. by oskard · · Score: 5, Funny

    This was proven SO long ago.

    --
    Sigs are for Terrorists.
  7. 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.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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...

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  10. 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 ?

  11. 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.

  12. 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?
  13. 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!
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.