Slashdot Mirror


Water Ice On Mars

cathector sends along a story from SpaceWeather.com on the discovery of water ice on Mars. "Scientists have figured out the mysterious white substance unearthed by NASA's Phoenix lander on Mars. It's frozen water. The breakthrough came last week when Phoenix's stereo camera caught the substance in the act of disappearing. Bathed in martian sunlight for four days, the white substance sublimated — i.e., it transformed from solid to gas without passing through the liquid state. This is how water behaves on Mars.... Some readers have asked, how do we know the white substance is not frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of frozen water? Answer: Phoenix's landing site is too warm for dry ice. The average daily temperature is about -70 F while dry ice requires temperatures lower than about -109 F." The animated GIF showing the ice sublimating is pretty nice too.

364 comments

  1. Wow by suso · · Score: 0

    This is actually pretty exciting news. Hopefully they are right about it.

    1. Re:Wow by thermian · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're absolutelly right, all we need now is some Martian Whisky and the social lives of any future human expedition is well and truly sorted out.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In fact, forget the social lives of any future human expedition!

    3. Re:Wow by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Hopefully they are right about it.
      Of course they're right about it, they have solid photographic evidence.

    4. Re:Wow by pclminion · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd hope that after 300 or so years of chemistry we'd understand how to recognize water...

    5. Re:Wow by omeomi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought this Wired quote about why the water sublimates on Mars is interesting:

      "Just like dry ice does here on Earth, water ice goes from solid to gas when the pressure is below 6.1 millibars and it gets heated (like it does in the Martian sun). It can also go straight from solid to gas above 6.1 millibars when the vapor pressure (amount of water vapor in the air) is low enough. This is because the molecules of water in solid form and gas form are not at equilibrium."

      http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/answering-mars.html

    6. Re:Wow by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are they sure it's NOT martian whiskey? ;) Or some sort of liquid that looks like water when frozen?

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The also have water ice in Delaware county.

    8. Re:Wow by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Very old news to those of us who live in Colorado! It is D-R-Y here.

      -Peter

    9. Re:Wow by TheHandsomeOne · · Score: 1

      but it's so easy to look right through it!

    10. Re:Wow by Bombula · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your joke reveals another truth: the limitations of remote instruments. Countless debates in slashdot threads have been had about human versus robotic space exploration. Many folks argue that robots are just as effective as people. Well, certainly they are more cost-effective, but as this Phoenix episode shows they are certainly NOT more effective in practical terms.

      It took many days to determine that the white stuff Phoenix uncovered was ice (and not salt). An astronaut on Mars would have made that determination within seconds.

      --
      A-Bomb
    11. Re:Wow by Peaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does that make the robot less effective, or just slower?

    12. Re:Wow by bonehead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By virtue of being slower, it is automatically also less effective, since it has a limited amount of time to operate.

    13. Re:Wow by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      I disagree - how does this prove that a robot is less effective from a practical standpoint? I thought the OP's joke was more about the huge amount of effort and press that went into something that is so fundamental here on terra-firma.

      The way I see it: a human would be just as clueless thanks to their environmental suit since basic safety protocols dictate that you're not getting that stuff anywhere near someone's nose, lips or fingertips without knowing its benign first. Besides, NASA didn't even use the lander's built-in chemistry lab or gas analyzer to come to this conclusion - they just took two pictures, and recorded the temperature and the air pressure. So they could have knocked this one out of the park inside a few minutes if they wanted to.

      Come to think of it: either of the Mars rovers could have done this experiment just as effectively.

    14. Re:Wow by Peaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not necessarily - by not needing oxygen, and a way out, etc, it can prolong the stay. Maybe it can even more-than-compensate for its slowness.

      So its not that clear-cut.

  2. Wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    How do we know wind didn't blow stuff away?

    1. Re:Wind? by Mr2cents · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was at the bottom of a trench. Plus, wind doesn't selecticely blow white rocks away while letting the rest of the scene untouched. Plus, you can also see some white areas at the end of the trench getting smaller.

      It's ice. Definitely.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    2. Re:Wind? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only that, but Phoenix has a little weather station on board called the Telltale project. And if you look at this page you can see the weather reports for where Phoenix is on a sol by sol basis. None of them show windy conditions, although it looks like there is data missing for a few sols.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:Wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, wind doesn't selectively blow white rocks.

      But it would selectively blow an ultrafine powder which happened to be white.

    4. Re:Wind? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, we admit it - none of the NASA scientists are as smart as you are, the whole "powder" thing just never occurred to them. Doh!

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:Wind? by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it would selectively blow an ultrafine powder which happened to be white. Surely the wind would be better off snorting it?
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    6. Re:Wind? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The AC is thinking critically, while you appeal to authority. Which type gets to work at NASA?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    7. Re:Wind? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually I was just being snarky. I guess because I've been hanging around on Pharyngula and FSTDT a lot lately, dealing with the "evolution is just a theory!" and "particle physics proves astrology!" wackos.

      --
      This space available.
    8. Re:Wind? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither, because NASA only hires smart people.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:Wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be on to something. The martians are SNORTING it from below! The new ICE addicts!

    10. Re:Wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah right. I forgot the scientific principle of not asking any questions if "smart" people think that's the way it is. My bad. It couldn't possibly be anything other than ice.

    11. Re:Wind? by neumayr · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're right. Definitely photoshopped.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    12. Re:Wind? by catxk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the smart thing for NASA to do these days when their budget is under constant pressure, would be to release spectacular, tabloidish news to raise interest in the agency. The whole water on Mars thing could thus very well be a publicity stunt, in lack of more solid evidence (after reading comments here, there seem to be such evidence, still, critical thinking is of the essence when it comes to NASA).

      --
      Don't be crazy anymore!
    13. Re:Wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who appeal to authority, obviously. The critical thinkers were mostly expelled in the 70's by Nixon's (largely successful) attempt to eviscerate NASA. It's hard to have a truly innovative organization when it's top-heavy with risk-adverse PhD and management types. The old hands-on engineers with good applied critical thinking skills went elsewhere long ago.

    14. Re:Wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under the current administration? Heh.

    15. Re:Wind? by joeytmann · · Score: 1

      While using this as a publicity stunt to drum up more interest is a good idea, they should be careful about the info they release. Release info with out double checking and having to retract statements make you look rather dumb.

      --
      Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    16. Re:Wind? by catxk · · Score: 1

      No one remembers a retract statement. At least a retract usually creates a lesser fuzz than a groundbreaking peace of info, i.e. "we found green men on Mars". This would be especially true if the initial statement is more or less unbelievable. So the net outcome would be positive.

      --
      Don't be crazy anymore!
  3. POOL PARTY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we just need a little global warming.

    1. Re:POOL PARTY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we just need a little .

      Now we KNOW that global warming is definately a hoax ... after all if Jesus saw all four corners of the Earth from the highest point, the world can hardly be a globe, can it?

  4. Stupid terraforming.. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    So, if we sent a bunch of robot tractors to Mars and uncovered the dirty ice caps, wouldn't they all sublimate and all that water vapor would warm the planet? Are we looking at a cheap way to terraform the planet?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I am not a scientist, but assuming that the water they just found is actually water, and that there is enough of it, that would work I think.

      "Cheap" however I don't think is the correct word to use for this type of a project.

    2. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 4, Informative

      escape velocity on mars is 5.027 km/s, and water vapor will slowly move out of mars because of its high rms velocity. So, the answer is "no"

    3. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Quabbe · · Score: 1

      If only Total Recall was right.

      Howser, get your ass to mars!!!

    4. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Aphoxema · · Score: 2, Funny

      We could always just ship the abundance of water we have to Mars. Oh, wait, that's 10 years from now when politicians can't deny global warming any longer and they'll need some other boneheaded assumption to go on like water not being all that heavy to launch into space. The shit practically lifts itself!

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    5. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by KozmoKramer · · Score: 1

      Get your ass to Mars! Get your ass to Mars! Get your ass to Mars!

      --
      My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
    6. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Bob(TM) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, that argument can be made for any atmospheric gas constituent, not just water vapor.

      There is less water in the Martian atmosphere oxygen while the water is more massive, so the oxygen would leave at a proportionally greater rate (assuming we are observing a long term steady state). One theory of the rapid loss has more to do with disassociation of H and O by UV radiation. H would quickly leave by your molecular motion argument leaving a relatively larger amount of O.

      If that's the case, we'd be much better off leaving it subsurface for life sustaining purposes - sublimed ice is lost water. Now, we could use a bunch of nukes to lift dust to the increase greenhouse effect ... :)

      --

      The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
    7. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is less water in the Martian atmosphere oxygen while the water is more massive... Really? I see the atomic mass of an oxygen molecule as 16 + 16 = 32, while water is 16 + 1 + 1 = 18.

      But you're right, either way the dissociated hydrogen is way lighter.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    8. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Bob(TM) · · Score: 1

      Certainly, you're right ... I hand waived a bit driving toward the dynamics where atmospheric oxygen was predominantly due to water disassociation. There is substantially no hydrogen and almost all oxygen is locked in CO2.

      --

      The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
    9. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by TahoeTy · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work. Forces that stipped the mars of it's surface water still exist. Namely unabated solar winds. No magnetic field on mars means no protection against high energy particles (solar wind). Bye-bye water vapor.

    10. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Fizzl · · Score: 2, Funny

      You leave Mr. Stallman out of this!

    11. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Or we could smash a few ice comets into it, which would mean we don't have to give up our own water (which would screw up the environment worse, since the planet would have to readjust to the permanent loss).

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    12. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Unixfreak31 · · Score: 1

      So the answer is build a BIG dome so its protected melt the ice water vapor some plants from earth and Bam in a few years you have a self enclosed eco system capable of keeping human life without outside help. Then from there you teraform the rest of the planet.

    13. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by TahoeTy · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess if you built a BIG enough dome such that it completely surrounded the planet, it would theoretically need no hard structure and could be entirely composed of fabric. Effects of gravity would be net neutral so it would just be a giant bubble with a planet in the center, floating above the surface at a relatively constant altitude, deflecting solar winds and containing heat and water vapor. Desireable global warming. Over time the pressure inside the bubble would increase and we could control it to be 14.7 psi, identical to earth. We could control the temperature by varying the reflective properties of the bubble. And we could send all of the mother in laws there with jet packs to patch meteorite holes. Oops, didn't mean to go personal there.

    14. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sorry, but this really annoys me. What does the escape velocity have to do with the rms temperature of vapor? Assuming a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (which we certainly can at these temperatures) we have that the rms speed is (3RT/M)^1/2, M being the molar weight. If this were to be the 5*10^6m/s you're claiming it is, it would mean that T=1.8*10^10 K. Clearly, that's not the temperature of Mars.

      Then again, I guess that fancy words sound smarter, and more +5 Informative.

    15. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Or we could smash a few ice comets into it, which would mean we don't have to give up our own water (which would screw up the environment worse, since the planet would have to readjust to the permanent loss).

      I've read theories about Phobos having ice content. Plus, it's conveniently located in orbit around Mars...

      But even if you crash both Phobos and Deimos in the short term (because in the long term they will crash there naturally), I doubt they'll add sufficient mass to Mars to enable an effective terraforming measure.

    16. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten, Politicians can do anything if they throw enough of your money at it?

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    17. Re:Stupid terraforming.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot imagine the rms velocity of water vapour molecules at Martian temperatures to be even anywhere close to 5 km/s. Shouldn't it be in the range of a few hundred m/s?

      Please explain ...

  5. $3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by ecklesweb · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, NASA announced today that a manned mission to Mars is planned to retreive the newly found ice in time for the 2012 Kentucky Derby. NASA plans to upstage Woodford Reserve's famous $1000 Mint Julep at the race with its own $3,000,000 version of the traditional cocktail. While plans are still being firmed up, the beverage will reportedly come in a limited edition collector's glass.

    1. Re:$3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be like eating yellow snow, except that it's red Martian pee.

    2. Re:$3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the first person we send to Mars should be a urologist...

    3. Re:$3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats not even funny dude.

    4. Re:$3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Correction: it will be served in just one glass that is roughly the size of Mars. Customers may view their drink with aid of a high-powered telescope (not included).

      The $3M pricetag is to fund the delivery of the other ingredients to where the drink is made.

    5. Re:$3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can ice melt/evaporate at -70F (-57 Celsius) ???

    6. Re:$3,000,000 mint juleps at next year's derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROLL BABY!!!

  6. Snow by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pardon my total ignorance of the subject, but does this mean that it might occasionally snow on mars? Or would the environment be too different to allow it?

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
    1. Re:Snow by Mr2cents · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, martian air is way too dry to form snow. There is water in the athmosphere, but IIRC it is something like a layer 1mm thick if all the water would condense on the ground. What happens is that some of that water freezes to/in the ground if it gets cold enough.

      What I learned from following the press conferences online, is that since mars doesn't have a large moon, the axis of rotation changes much more than earth does, so if it is directed towards the sun, the ice could actually melt.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    2. Re:Snow by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pardon my total ignorance of the subject, but does this mean that it might occasionally snow on mars? Or would the environment be too different to allow it? The area the lander in is covered by ice during the winter so we are going to find the answer to your question quite soon.
    3. Re:Snow by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I recall reading/seeing somewhere that Jupiter can pull Mars off axis causing it to buckle over to around 60 degrees before it works itself back to it's 23 degrees.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:Snow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      we should wisely remember that all these claims of ice or dry ice and so many other speculations are based on our earthly experience and so are limited to our sense perception. the fact is that every planet, all those millions that you can and cannot see in the sky are fully habitable and many many people are living there. this is the knowledge coming from the topmost intelligent people who have ever appeared on this planet and given fully scientific information about other planets. spending billions on exploring other planets is waste of money when such knowledge already exists. For more details read "easy journey to other planetes" by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.

  7. Dupe from Thursday by slagheap · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    First against the wall when the revolution comes
    1. Re:Dupe from Thursday by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The ice froze the dupe-detection machine.

    2. Re:Dupe from Thursday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA.

      PROBABLE water ice found. This is a headline about the CONFIRMATION of water ice. Notice probable != confirmation.

    3. Re:Dupe from Thursday by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      They should provide an "unsubmit" option for submitted stories. I've got an article still in PENDING status that has already been posted by someone else. If I had the option, I'd mark it as a dupe so that it wouldn't show up on the homepage in a couple of weeks.......

      Layne

  8. Water sublimating by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If I remember my chemistry classes correctly (there is a high chance I don't), water would do this under lower air pressure, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, I just thought some kind of explanation would be better than "because it's on Mars".

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    1. Re:Water sublimating by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is water the only material that can sublimate? If not, why should we be so sure this has to be water just because we want it to be?

    2. Re:Water sublimating by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doesn't really need to be under low air pressure, if ice is in the presence of low vapor-pressure it will sublimate (see icecube tray in your freezer).

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    3. Re:Water sublimating by cyklo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed it does, and it's probably better explained using a triple point diagram:

      http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Image:Phase-diag.png

      On earth (at higher pressures), increasing temperature goes from the solid, to liquid, and then to gas phases (the triple-point in the middle is at zero degress celcius)

      The lower atmospheric pressure on Mars (~1% of sea-level earth pressure) means that you go straight from solid to gas. In fact, the liquid part is actually impossible (IANAChemist) unless you increase the pressure sufficiently.

    4. Re:Water sublimating by jberryman · · Score: 2, Informative

      CO2 sublimes on earth of course, and many other substances do under different conditions. Per the summary, we know it could not be frozen CO2.

    5. Re:Water sublimating by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1
      No, CO2 (dry ice) sublimates, too (among other things, such as probably most gasses). But if you read the summary notes:

      Some readers have asked, how do we know the white substance is not frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of frozen water? Answer: Phoenix's landing site is too warm for dry ice. The average daily temperature is about -70 F while dry ice requires temperatures lower than about -109 F."
    6. Re:Water sublimating by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Moth balls sublimate too. Napthalene.

      OK, cue the moth balls jokes... ;-)

    7. Re:Water sublimating by cathector · · Score: 5, Informative

      water sublimation doesn't need to be exotic; it happens in your freezer all the time.
      you know how ice cubes gradually lose their sharp edges and finally become just little puddle-shaped lumps in the bottom of the ice try ? that's sublimation too.

    8. Re:Water sublimating by PieSquared · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much anything can sublimate under the proper conditions. But when you say "a white solid that sublimates at -70 degrees F and martian surface pressure and is found in macroscopic quantities naturally" you narrow down the field quite a bit. In this case, to exactly one reasonable possibility.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    9. Re:Water sublimating by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
      Because there's automatic defrost on Mars?

      Seriously, ever see ice cubes shrink away in the freezer?

      --
      This space available.
    10. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something is wrong with the statement I am replying to. Can someone restate whatever it is the person said?

    11. Re:Water sublimating by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is water the only material that can sublimate?

      To quote wikipedia: This can occur if the atmospheric pressure exerted on the substance is too low to stop the molecules from escaping from the solid state.

      Atmospheric pressure is not as important as the partial pressure of the substance at its surface. That is, in this case, the vapour pressure of water which is practically zero on Mars. Therefore water, if it is not locked down in crystalline form, cannot exist in liquid form because it cannot form an equilibrium with its surroundings to form a 'triple point' (solid/liquid/vapour phase temperature).

      It also depends, as far as I understand, on the interaction between molecules of the substance. If it is too weak, the range of temperatures at which the substance can be liquid is narrow (or practically zero). It's a fairly wide range for water, though.

      I didn't study the topic beyond that and it was years ago.

      PS. Iodine is another substance that sublimates.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    12. Re:Water sublimating by maxume · · Score: 1

      How does a moth ball joke go?

      Toivo forgot to put moth balls in his clothes and then they all had holes in them! Hilarious!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Water sublimating by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      Iodine sublimates at standard pressure I think. Heat it and it turns into a purple gas and will crtstalize on a cool surface.

    14. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, or we just haven't dicovered the other substance - the strongest acid in the universe which will burn your retinas out if you only look at it. Thus we have the failings of science.

      --
      Terence Boylen

    15. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just a dumb headline for the news media.

      There's a mass spectrometer on board (that's what the "ovens" are for - they vaporize stuff for analysis with the mass spectrometer), and the digging arm also has a corkscrew-like ice shaver so that they can get small enough bits of ice to put into the oven.

    16. Re:Water sublimating by JumperCable · · Score: 1

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

      Incidence in nature

      Trace amounts of naphthalene are produced by magnolias and specific types of deer. Naphthalene has also been found in the Formosan subterranean termite, possibly as a repellant against "ants, poisonous fungi and nematode worms." [1]

    17. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know why they didn't put an auger on the arm rather than just a scoop and a rasp. They could drill futher than just a few inches.

    18. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dye-sublimation is a fairly popular method of printing. There are several ways to do it, but often a pretty typical Epson printer is loaded with dye-sub inks which are very expensive and the result is a transfer. At a certain temperature and under a heat press, I think 375 degrees F, the dye sublimates and will dye polyester fibers. This is done on shirts, plaques, name bages, all sorts of things. Many of these products are laminated with a thin layer of polyester which holds the color. Also, when something on earth is freeze dried (astronaut ice cream comes to mind) that is done via a process of dye sublimation of water which will occur when the temperature/pressure combination is correct.

    19. Re:Water sublimating by JeffAMcGee · · Score: 1

      If you leave a tray of ice in the freezer for a few months, the ice will turn into water vapor. You will see the ice cubes get smaller and smaller over time. (Try it if you don't believe me.) This shows that under normal air pressure, water will sublimate, which is just a fancy way to say that it goes from solid to gas without becoming a liquid.

      --
      This sig cannot be proven true.
    20. Re:Water sublimating by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Two things I guess. First, the scoop and rasp allows the other tools that they brought like cameras to be used. An auger just creates a small diameter hole in the ground. Second, the auger and any support instruments would probably add considerable power and weight demands to the mission. They don't need that equipment in order to do useful research.

    21. Re:Water sublimating by sribe · · Score: 1

      Lower pressure or drier (or both, obviously). Ice can sublimate right here on earth. It's hardly noticeable in, say, the northeast. But out here in the Denver area it's quite noticeable when 6 inches of snow goes away without any water ever being visible, leaving behind dry ground. (Not always mind you, just in the right conditions.)

    22. Re:Water sublimating by KKlaus · · Score: 3, Informative

      All materials sublimate. The liquid phase doesn't exist beneath a substance's triple point, so at pressures beneath that level temperature increases cause the material to go directly from solid to gaseous (sublimate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase-diag2.svga has a good picture of what we're thinking about.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    23. Re:Water sublimating by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      No, I think the parent was indicating that people would follow up as if moths shared a particular feature with the *ahem* human male anatomy.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    24. Re:Water sublimating by ignavus · · Score: 1

      "But when you say "a white solid that sublimates at -70 degrees F and martian surface pressure and is found in macroscopic quantities naturally" you narrow down the field quite a bit."

      So we can rule out dandruff.

      Although finding lots of dandruff on Mars would have explained why we haven't seen any Martians - they would have been too embarrassed to come out and be seen.

      (Well someone has to think through the logical implications of these things.)

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    25. Re:Water sublimating by Bazar · · Score: 1

      My limited understanding of how snow happens:

      When the air pressure is low (known as a "high" in weather reports), there is plenty of room for water.
      We get low air pressure when things warm up, as matter expands when it becomes hot, thus on sunny days we get low air pressure.

      As water evaporates into the "high", it becomes more humid, as well as building up water.

      Now when a "low" comes in (aka, a wave of dense/cold air pressure), the air compresses and there isn't enough space for water, so any water there is forced out, if there is only a tiny amount of water in the air, it'll simply manifest itself as precipitation (morning dew) on the ground, if there is more it'll be as rain or snow.

      If the temperature shift is gradual, it'll simply be rain, if its sudden, the rain will be frozen before it reaches the ground, thus we get snow.

      --
      To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
    26. Re:Water sublimating by Nossie · · Score: 1

      and from what I remember the shaver keeps missing the 4 ovens...

      I have confidence, really :)

    27. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "as far as I understand"

      Sounds pretty iffy to me:)

    28. Re:Water sublimating by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty iffy to me:) Yeah it's a bit iffy. But I haven't read anywhere that says "if you raise atmospheric pressure to x (not due to substance y), then sublimation of y ceases" which is what is implied by the Wikipedia article. As for how it can be water, then it's not difficult to guess, since if they knew the temperature at which sublimation occurred and the atmospheric pressure, then they can work out which substance it was most likely to be. Given that they already know there is water on Mars, what they say is fair enough.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    29. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS. Iodine is another substance that sublimates.

      ... and iodine is not what I'd call an excitingly white substance.

    30. Re:Water sublimating by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Funny

      .... and iodine is not what I'd call an excitingly white substance. Not exciting, but certainly sublime.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    31. Re:Water sublimating by locofungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All materials sublimate

      Not sure about helium. If it can sublimate then it's going to be way up the phase diagram at enormous pressure at or close to the critical temperature. But it can definitely go straight from the superfluid state to the vapour state.

      It's quite bizarre when you watch He4 transition to superfluid as you reduce the pressure. It's boiling away vigourously and then suddenly all the boiling stops (and it becomes quite difficult to see because it's refractive index is so close to 1)

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    32. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only happens (measurably) in the 'new' frost free freezers, because they have a type of dehumidifier in them.

    33. Re:Water sublimating by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Thank God. For the longest time I thought little demons were sneaking in the freezer and fucking around with my ice. All your modern technology still frightens me.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    34. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever wonder why the ice cubes in your freezer get smaller? Same thing is happening....you don't need to be on Mars. Your freezer will do.

    35. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost right, except for the 'triple point'. This is a point on a T vs P graph where three phases (solid, liquid, gas) are all equally likely thermodynamically.

      On Mars, the both T and P are lower than the triple point. See here for a phase diagram with T and P for Earth, Mars and Venus labeled. Notice that Mars falls below the triple point on the pressure axis. This is roughly constant - while atmospheric pressure will fluctuate, it won't change by that much.

      The same is not true of temperature. The location on the T axis is an average of the surface temps of Mars. If you let sun shine on the 'white solid', it warms up and goes into the gas phase (sublimation). By knowing T, P, and the amount of time it takes for the solid to go away, you can make a pretty good guess as to what it is - water ice.

    36. Re:Water sublimating by aevans · · Score: 1

      Apparently the site was too warm for ice as well, as evidenced by the fact that it sublimated. So whether it was water or carbon dioxide is completely undeterminable, because it had to have been insulated enough to keep it frozen. If the average temperature is -70F and it needs to work its way up 102 degrees to sublimate, it's a reasonable assumption that at some point it could have been 39 degrees cooler than the average, and CO2 had frozen then, been insulated, and then unfroze when exposed. Which means a much less unlikely range of temperatures, because CO2 sublimates at cooler temperatures than H2O.

      One thing the article didn't mention is the temperature at the time the sublimation occurs. It could be possible that had they shared that information it would have proven that it could not be water far more conclusively than the hypothesis that it couldn't have been CO2. And let's face it, there is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of scientists to discover water on Mars.

    37. Re:Water sublimating by chasd · · Score: 1

      Remember those color printers in the 1990's that had long rolls of translucent colored film ? Those were dye-sublimation printers. I wonder how they got that name ?

      --
      :wq
    38. Re:Water sublimating by nerdguy569 · · Score: 1

      It is only too warm for water ice on the surface, where there is virtually no pressure, below the surface, there is enough pressure to keep it solid. Although water-ice and dry-ice look very similar, they have very different properties, the dry ice at those pressures/temperatures would have almost immediately, while water-ice, which has an inherently low vapor-pressure at that temperature would have remained solid much longer. Dry ice actually does form in that area for a good portion of the year, since the actual lifetime estimate for phoenix, of 90 days, is because that area will be completely covered in dry-ice during the winter. However, it is summer there now, and much warmer, pretty much all of the dry-ice should have already sublimated by now, even if recently uncovered. Hopefully, the people at the univerisity of arizona have done one of the tests to determine which substance this is.

      --
      In the future, we will all be very smart or very stupid.
    39. Re:Water sublimating by mmyrfield · · Score: 1

      Water, in fact, can not sublimate by the very definition of the word. H2O can sublimate, ice can sublimate, but water (a liquid) cannot skip the liquid phase and turn into a gas because it already is a liquid. I like how the article says "Water Ice", as opposed to "Steam Ice"? It's just plain old ICE.

      As for your question, many materials can sublimate under the right conditions, but it seems that in combination with what we know about the atmospheric conditions on Mars, it is most likely water.

    40. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correct

    41. Re:Water sublimating by hob42 · · Score: 1

      Now, I've heard mouse ball jokes before, but I can't say I've ever heard moth ball jokes. Must be a generational thing. ;)

    42. Re:Water sublimating by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      "Macroscopic quantities naturally." Our knowledge of such substances is pretty much comprehensive. So while there is a *chance* this is something new, the chance is minuscule.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    43. Re:Water sublimating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume then that they are trying to find life in the water from millions of years ago, when the atmospheric pressure on Mars surface was higher. The thing is that if you what to find microorganism there they could lose their molecular structure because of the water change of state. How do they do then to know if there was life? Analyzing the vapor?

  9. Better picture by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That animation is actually cut off. The main sublimation that was observed is below the frame of that picture. There's a better one here, where you can actually see the small chunks farther down disappearing completely.

    1. Re:Better picture by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

      thank you!

  10. Martian ice is really big news, folks! by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    It means we finally have a suitable accompaniment for Martian scotch.

    1. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Neat!

      Sorry - it's a Scotch joke.

    2. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      You nead a peat aquifer in Scotland for it to be proper Scotch, no?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

      It means we finally have a suitable accompaniment for Martian scotch.

      Please call it by its proper name, would you?

      Martch.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      How can it be neat, if you're going to put ice into it?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Your question is its own answer, the ice is not in it yet.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      nononono.. it's:


      Neat! *clicks shutter*

    7. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      And on the rocks

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      I think "Scotch" still works. After all, we already know they wear kilts.

    9. Re:Martian ice is really big news, folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, ice like that isn't very good in drinks. I've made drinks on a snow pack and it's best to melt the snow and refreeze it in a ice cube tray.

  11. This is a dumb question, but... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

    A first glance, it doesn't look to me like ice "melting" any more than salt or some other finely-grained material blowing away (no, I'm not saying it's salt -- just something that could move). Is there no wind in that area or something?

    1. Re:This is a dumb question, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is wind, however it apparently didn't move anything else in the pictures. Also, the wind wouldn't be very strong since the atmosphere is so thin.

    2. Re:This is a dumb question, but... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I understand correctly, the water is blowing away.. just not as crystals. It is blowing away as discreet water molecules much like evaporation. The crystals gain energy from the sun and a little from the impact of the atmospheric gases and then the water molecules lift from the crystal lattice and suspend in the atmospheric gas matrix.

      If you visualize everything as tiny versions of the colored balls in a child's play pit, you will notice that each type of ball (atom) has a different weight and tends to stratify. With enough energy added to the ball, it will then de-stratify and lift into the active matrix of the atmosphere.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  12. What about the pressure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    dry ice requires temperatures lower than about -109 F. But what about pressure? A look at the phase diagram shows that carbon dioxide can be a solid (dry ice) at 25 C (room temperature), but at 10000 bar. I dunno what the pressure is on the surface of Mars, but temperature isn't the only thing that dictates if dry ice exists. Pressure is just as important. I doubt that Mars has that kind of pressure though.

    And why are we using F? This is a science article, posted on a web site for nerds.

    1. Re:What about the pressure? by DougBTX · · Score: 2, Informative

      On Mars, between 7 and 10 millibar.

    2. Re:What about the pressure? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sure that quote was with regard to the conditions of Mars.

      You are also correct to assume that Martian pressure is nowhere near what is required for room-temperature dry ice. In fact it's about 1% that of earth's atmosphere. More reading here.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:What about the pressure? by Fools+rush+in · · Score: 1

      I agree !! Obviously many people can't count decimal - what are they doing on Mars ???

    4. Re:What about the pressure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pressure is important, but if you know that you really ought to know that the temperature given for dry ice to sublimate would be either at local pressure on site or at standard earth pressure, and that in either case for dry ice to sublimate at a higher temperature then given would require pressures higher then the pressure needed for the given temperature of -109. And that the pressure on mars is higher then that on earth, meaning that the dry ice would sublimate at -109 degrees or *lower* in the ambient pressure. And for the record standard pressure on earth is about ONE bar, and on mars about 1% of the pressure on earth. As 6 or 7 orders of magnitude from 10k bars needed for dry ice to sublimate at room temperature.

    5. Re:What about the pressure? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Mars has about 0.06 the pressure of earth's atmosphere, which means that carbon dioxide is a no-no for sublimation.

      As much as we want it to be water sublimating, water actually does seem to be the best candidate at the moment for the white flecks.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    6. Re:What about the pressure? by spleen_blender · · Score: 1

      Then you should have no problem converting to K or C, whatever you prefer. :)

    7. Re:What about the pressure? by locofungus · · Score: 1

      room-temperature dry ice

      I'm missing something? At room temperature CO2 is a gas or a liquid. A little above room temperature and it's always a gas.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    8. Re:What about the pressure? by locofungus · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Actually it looks like I'm wrong. http://www.chemicalogic.com/download/phase_diagram.html

      Looks like CO2 is a solid at room temperature at around 4000 atmospheres. I'd never seen the phase diagram plotted out beyond about 100 atmospheres before.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    9. Re:What about the pressure? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Why are you using Celsius? This is science, use Kelvin, and your pressure should be in Pascals.

  13. Interesting press coverage of this. by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've noticed that almost all of the news headlines covering this are qualified statements like "Lander finds water on Mars, according to scientists". As if they're afraid to actually say something straightforward like "Water found on Mars" and they have to make it clear that they're just reporting what someone else is saying (with the implication that maybe they don't really believe it). At the same time they seem to have no problem with other headlines like "Celebrity Arrested Drunk" without the need to qualify it as "Celebrity Arrested Drunk According To Police" etc.

    Maybe it's just me, but I mind it a bit irksome that so many big news outlets seem so detached from any sort of science reporting these days.

    G.

    1. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by murrdpirate · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it can be annoying, but I think it's necessary. Scientists can make mistakes, and we sure wouldn't want the press to report everything said by any scientist as definite truth.

      I actually hear them say allegedly any time a celebrity is arrested. They probably wouldn't be sued if this didn't turn out to be ice, so at least they do it to be accurate.

    2. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by Escogido · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that almost all of the news headlines covering this are qualified statements like "Lander finds water on Mars, according to scientists". As if they're afraid to actually say something straightforward like "Water found on Mars" I think the reason is that the scientists technically have no proof it is actually water - what they have instead is a substance that looks like water, behaves like water and quacks like water. Whether it makes said something water, you be the judge.

      On the other account, I totally agree - the media don't always seem so scrupulous in other areas :)

    3. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by mikael · · Score: 1

      First rule of research - When unable to verify the information yourself, always reference your sources - that way, you don't get blame if the information is wrong or biased.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, those scientists, all they have are "theories," doncha know. You can't trust them. Their stories are always changing, unlike the Word of our Lord And Savior which has been true for millennia.

      All hail Zeus.

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by Click+and+drag · · Score: 1

      All science jouralism does that, due to the fact that new studies often are either wrong or grossly incomplete.

    6. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by kgskgs · · Score: 1

      Scientists have a known history of lying.

      Here are a few examples
      1. Theory of evolution
      2. Theory of global warming.
      3. Theory of "not finding" aliens.
      4. Theory of "a meteorite not colliding with earth next year"
      5. Theory of "non existence of a bat boy"

      Clearly when someone throws a strange news at you, supported by nothing but some mathematical crap, you need to take precaution.
      Also what scientists find mostly kills gossip and makes this world more dull. What cops find usually add spice to normally dull life.

    7. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Fits in nicely with the current mindset of the mainstream media. Report first, worry about the details later, and if you screw something up blame it on the sources you never bothered to validate.

      My favorites are the sensationally attributed headlines like "George Bush Fucks Sheep Sources Say."

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    8. Re:Interesting press coverage of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the reason is that the scientists technically have no proof it is actually water - what they have instead is a substance that looks like water, behaves like water and quacks like water. Whether it makes said something water, you be the judge.
      This is always the case. Science can't prove anything is water, only that it behaves exactly as we would expect water to behave. Science makes predictions, but never proves anything.
  14. average daily temperature by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could we have this important information in units used by, I don't know, the rest of the world?

    1. Re:average daily temperature by Overkill+Nbuta · · Score: 0

      Could we have this important information in units used by, I don't know, the rest of the world?

      Library's of congress? Iv seen that used a lot recently.
    2. Re:average daily temperature by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, as soon as a country from a part of that world, then you'll get your pronouncements to the public in metric. You have to remember that NASA is publicly funded. They need the public engaged in their discoveries, in order to maintain their funding. So, it only makes sense that they report their public findings to the media in units that average ( and the not so average members of congress) understand. I'm sure there are those a NASA that thinks they should be trying to convince the American public to use Metric, but technically that's NIST's job

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:average daily temperature by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Last time they tried that the damn thing shut off its engines 100 feet... er meters... er feet... whichever one it was anyway, above the surface and crashed.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    4. Re:average daily temperature by belg4mit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Send your own fucking probe if you can't be bothered to subtract 32 and multiply by 4/9.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    5. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as any Mars landers from any other part of the world are ready to report it.

    6. Re:average daily temperature by drawfour · · Score: 4, Funny

      They would be better off sending their own fucking probe than subtracting 32 and multiplying by 4/9. I'm not sure what units those are, but certainly not Celsius.

    7. Re:average daily temperature by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      Or 5/9 even.

    8. Re:average daily temperature by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, let's call a typo, but it really doesn't change the point.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    9. Re:average daily temperature by maxume · · Score: 2

      It's about -56 C, which is pretty much just another meaningless number as far as most people's experience goes. Also, ask the monster:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=-70+F+in+C

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Once the rest of the world chips in for our space program.

    11. Re:average daily temperature by dakameleon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Calculate your own conversion to attempt-by-the-French-to-regain-relevance-on-the-world-stage units.

      Gee, if metric is an attempt by France to regain relevance, they've succeeded everywhere bar America. Continuing use of imperial units must be attempt-by-the-Americans-to-deny-progress-and-sanity.

      Metric is the global standard. Get over it.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    12. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this 'world' you speak of? Is it somewhere near Alaska?

    13. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure send your own probe

    14. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the rest of the world sends a probe to mars you can find out your data in metric but seeing as NASA did this and they are in the USA they can use whatever units they want.

    15. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure we could. Then again, that would indirectly mean the rest of the world has no ability to convert foreign information to their own... such a provocative claim would be preposterous I assure you. I mean, since everyone else expects everything to be converted to their measurements, naturally every measurement they release is converted to foreign measurements and released...

      OH I'm sorry, I meant to type www.convertit.com instead, my bad. In case you are too lazy to type that many letters, the answer to -70 Fahrenheit is -56.7 Celsius.

    16. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well... let's see. it was an article published in an american publication, reporting on an american space exploration activity by an american IT website. when you say "useful to the rest of the world" you really just mean "useful to you" don't you?

      so... knock yourself out (compliments of american federal government):

      http://www.wbuf.noaa.gov/tempfc.htm

    17. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    18. Re:average daily temperature by Solandri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could we have this important information in units used by, I don't know, the rest of the world?
      Hah! With this announcement, NASA has predicated that Fahrenheit is now used on the surface of two worlds, thus re-establishing its dominance over that other temperature unit which is only used in part of one world. We will wrest control of this universe back from you metric heathens, even if we have to do it one planet at a time!
    19. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Phoenix lander is an international project including instruments from many non-US contributors. There is little justification for using Fahrenheit in this article, because these numbers do not relate to human intuition -- fucking cold is fucking cold in Celsius and Fahrenheit.

    20. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weather station on the unit is actually Canadian, so we use the proper units.
        Mars Weather Office

    21. Re:average daily temperature by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you, man.

      --
      Property is theft.
    22. Re:average daily temperature by o'davy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Calculate your own conversion to attempt-by-the-French-to-regain-relevance-on-the-world-stage units.

      Gee, if metric is an attempt by France to regain relevance, they've succeeded everywhere bar America.

      And yet they've succeeded in every bar in America. Checking the units used to measure wine and booze ... yep, metric.

      --
      Sig goes here.
    23. Re:average daily temperature by Bazman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because confusion between metric and non-metric units has never been a problem on Mars probes has it?

    24. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. They should cater their articles to you and not their target audience.

    25. Re:average daily temperature by wolf12886 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Make that two worlds and one moon.

    26. Re:average daily temperature by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 4, Funny

      Long live imperial units! I say, if God had wanted us to use metric, He would have given us ten fingers! ...

      oh, crap.

      --
      I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    27. Re:average daily temperature by Elemental+MrJohnson · · Score: 1

      Mis-mod, apologies

    28. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start your own geek website hosted somewhere other than in the U.S. and then we'll talk. Until then just STFU.

    29. Re:average daily temperature by garwain · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand metric, it takes about 10 seconds to locate a conversion program on google.

    30. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not entirely fair. Don't forget Liberia and Myanmar.

    31. Re:average daily temperature by Phairdon · · Score: 0

      The Pheonix may be an international effort, but the "CEO" of the project is NASA which is based in America, the land of such great units like the slug and fortnights per furlong.

      Consider yourself lucky that the temperature was not reported in the more appropriate terms such as Kelvin or Rankine, then 99% of the world population would be confused.

    32. Re:average daily temperature by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      My name is Inigo Montoya. you killed my father. Prepare to die.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    33. Re:average daily temperature by maxume · · Score: 1

      Please explain why Kelvin or Rankine would be more appropriate.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    34. Re:average daily temperature by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Take it easy NASA boy. Were you working in the Mars Climate Orbiter program, or what?.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    35. Re:average daily temperature by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      No. I'm just tired of the witless throngs going on about such triviality.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    36. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calculate your own conversion to attempt-by-the-French-to-regain-relevance-on-the-world-stage units.

      Gee, if metric is an attempt by France to regain relevance, they've succeeded everywhere bar America. Continuing use of imperial units must be attempt-by-the-Americans-to-deny-progress-and-sanity.

      Metric is the global standard. Get over it.

      My car gets 42 rods to a hogshead and that's the way I like it!!

          - Grandpa Simpson

    37. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even have to learn the math ;)

      http://www.google.com/search?q=-70+degrees+fahrenheit+in+celsius

    38. Re:average daily temperature by Phairdon · · Score: 0

      In Engineering you have to use the absolute temperature for calculations. 0 degrees Celsius is not the lowest temperature you can achieve, but 0 degrees Kelvin is. 0 degrees Kelvin or 0 degrees Rankine is absolute zero. It makes all temperature values a positive quantity and that is one of the reasons it is needed for calculations.

      For example, a simplified combustion equation is Q = m*cp*dt where dt is the change in temperature or (Tfinal - Tinitial). You get a different quantity here if one of the numbers is a negative quantity. Using the absolute temperature scale avoids that.

      Kelvin (or Rankine) values are almost always the values referenced for engineering or scientific use.

    39. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the rest of the world wants in Metric then why don't they send their own lander? We don't use the metric system so we'll take the measurements in a way that is meaningful to our citizens. If the rest of the world can't be bothered to take 5 seconds out of their day to convert it to the metric system then they can go fuck themselves.

    40. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send your own fucking probe if you can't be bothered to subtract 32 and multiply by 4/9.

      Its 5/9.
    41. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about -56 C, which is pretty much just another meaningless number as far as most people's experience goes.
      How meaningful is: Cold enough that your piss freezes before it hits the ground? If I remember right that's about -50F if you are standing on the ground.
    42. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Euro-peon (intentional misspelling) with "little brother" syndrome who reads US sites catering primarily to US citizens and can't figure out why the articles seem to be US-centric. Fucking tools.

    43. Re:average daily temperature by maxume · · Score: 1

      I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

      The question was why it would be more appropriate to use one of those units in an article targeted at a popular audience.

      Also, note that it is not necessary to use an absolute scale when you are working with differences. If Ti is negative and Tf is positive, you get the correct difference (Tf - (-Ti) = TF + abs(Ti)) If Tf is negative and Ti is positive, you get the appropriate 'decrease'. If they are both positive, you get the correct increase.

      Using an absolute scale means that you can leave out a factor when you are scaling/multiplying by a measured temperature (the factor that would place you on an absolute scale), it doesn't change anything when working with temperature differences.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    44. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send your own fucking probe if you can't be bothered to subtract 32 and multiply by 4/9.

      5/9
    45. Re:average daily temperature by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Ok, You're technically correct. You should also notice that the article is in English only. NASA doesn't translate any of its press releases into any other language either. I would think that might be a bigger barrier to comprehension than taking the temps subtracting 32 and multiplying by 5/9. Is algebra really that much more difficult than learning a second language (admittedly, My own skills are more mathematical than linguistic)? And yes I know Canada also contributed, but I would think they would have to also translate it into French for the Quebecois, if they were trying to cater to their populace. It think its probably good that an arm of our government is *not* trying to influence foreign populations/governments.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    46. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he had originally intended us to us a base-21 counting system. But then he invented women who were not properly equiped to count to 21 and so he had to come up with a new numbering scheme.

    47. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, You're technically correct. You should also notice that the article is in English only. NASA doesn't translate any of its press releases into any other language either. I would think that might be a bigger barrier to comprehension than taking the temps subtracting 32 and multiplying by 5/9. Is algebra really that much more difficult than learning a second language (admittedly, My own skills are more mathematical than linguistic)? I'm a non-native speaker with an engineering degree. As we had many US published sources in our curriculum, I'm used to converting customary units to metric. I also find doing simple calculations easier than articulating in English. Yet, mentally converting from F to C is way harder than English comprehension. For one thing, the comprehension is automatic while unit conversion requires conscious thinking. It breaks the flow of text for all us non-US people. Also, it is usually not easy to divide by 1.8. Easiest approximate route is to divide by 2, then add ten percent of the result to the result. Which is two steps, on top of initial subtraction, and still approximate.

      For the record, I have no problems with NASA reporting in whatever units they please. They migh even invent their own units, and nobody (outside US) have a right to object. I just wanted to point out that for a stranger, using English is really easier than doing simple math, even if that stranger is an engineer.

    48. Re:average daily temperature by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that it was easier ( once you have learned the language) to understand English than to do simple math. I meant that its easier to do simple math than it is to learn English. Having grown up Dealing with Fahrenheit with US whether and Celsius in Science classes, I've got a bit of dual intuition into temps that doesn't require math. Its not precise, but close enough to prevent severe injury or discomfort.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    49. Re:average daily temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would be better off asking Google to do the unit translation.

    50. Re:average daily temperature by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      That's no moon...

    51. Re:average daily temperature by ?...! · · Score: 1

      If God wanted us to use metric, he wouldn't have given us feet!

  15. Something's not right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I thought the lander was loaded with scientific equipment. None of it can detect water? The best they can do is take pictures?

    1. Re:Something's not right by SWCommand · · Score: 1

      The lander can detect water, but not free in the environment. The lander has a total of 8 ovens that are to cook the soil sample to detect water. However the sample that was extracted clogged up at the screen and wouldn't pass through for several days. During that time any water in that material would have sublimated before they managed to pass any through the screen. That is why they had to use other means to detect water at this current point. But I bet they will figure out a way to get ice into the ovens and there will be your 100% proof of water on mars.

  16. But still... by T3Tech · · Score: 1

    Have they figured out what flavor it is and can they get it back here without it melting so I can sell it in my new Mars Water Ice stores!?!?

    --
    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.
  17. could be CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The average daily temperature is about -70 F while dry ice requires temperatures lower than about -109 F."

    well, it was in the state of sublimating (melting) so I don't think that disqualifies CO2?

    1. Re:could be CO2? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      No, as the point they're making is that it doesn't get cold enough for dry ice to form. If it did, Mars' atmosphere would snow out.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:could be CO2? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Although it seems to be taken as fact now among many, I'm still not ruling it out that it may still be CO2 (or similar), although the little pit seems to only be a few inches deep, maybe the surface of mars can reflect enough of the sunlight to make a few inches deeper -109F (-78C ish) or maybe much more.

      I'm not sure at what speed Mars is rotating unto itself as well as around the sun, but by the change in shadows, there was a lot that melted in what seems to be a fairly short period which could also explain the amount of tempurature difference within a few inches.

    3. Re:could be CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about â'140 ÂC (-220 ÂF) during the polar winters to highs of up to 20 ÂC (68 ÂF) in summers.

    4. Re:could be CO2? by belg4mit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, still not cold enough as far as I can tell given this phase diagram and these temperatures and pressures.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  18. One Problem: by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the problem: We still don't know conclusively. Yes, we have observations which are highly suggestive, but we don't have a chemical composition of the substance, so we don't know for sure.

    Science is a hard mistress; she demands proof before making such claims.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:One Problem: by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, but we know how the substance behaves, we have knowledge about the environmental conditions, etc. Knowing what we know, few substances are going to exhibit those characteristics in that environment.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    2. Re:One Problem: by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Correct, and further experiments will be undertaken to confirm that it is indeed water ice.

      In the mean time, though, it's pretty safe to act under the assumption that there is indeed water on mars.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    3. Re:One Problem: by mikael · · Score: 1

      Can't they perform spectral analysis on the material - whatever the emission lines of H2O are are? Surely the cameras have wavelength filters?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:One Problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Isn't it sad though that we can tell the composition of object hundreds of lightyears away including detecting water but even with a lander right there on Mars we can't confirm water even when the lander is staring right at it? There's something not right about the whole mission. The rovers use RAT tools to expose the virgin surface of rock so we could tell the composition but we can't detect water with a lander designed specifically for that one thing. The landers were a staggering success but this mission feels a bit embarassing. Honestly with the instruments on board could they confirm water if they landed in a pond? They expose frost and which is halfway there and we'll be debating for months or years to come what it really was. Do we need shots of a Martian taking a bath or selling bottled water to confirm it? Still wouldn't confirm anything because martians might bath and drink liguid CO2. I can think of a hundred low tech tests to confirm water. NASA seriously dropped the ball on this one. Apparently the only real test involves getting material into a pencil lead sized hole. By that standard an ice cube couldn't be tested for water. Here's a fun fact. If there are only trace amounts at the surface and the act of exposing it to the air to collect it causes it to evaporate does that mean we can't test for it? How about a heating element on an arm with a gas chromatograph? Stick heating element in soil, heat soil, test escaping gases. Repeat as needed.

    5. Re:One Problem: by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know NASA has made a few major announcements that they have had to retract in the past few years. Remember the "river beds" that had no other possible origin? NASA later admitted that they were likely caused by the wind.

      NASA doesn't let science get in the way of a good press release.

    6. Re:One Problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> Science is a hard mistress; she demands proof before making such claims.

      I shall have this woman.

    7. Re:One Problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Science is a hard mistress; she demands proof before making such claims. Sigh... Science is not about proof. Please review the scientific method.

      - Form some sort of hypothesis (The white stuff in the picture is water ice.).
      - Decide upon consequences of this hypothesis (Water ice will sublimate.).
      - Perform test (Take pictures every day to see if it sublimates).

      If the test succeeds then you have evidence that the hypothesis is correct, but NOT proof. The more evidence the more accepted as truth the hypothesis becomes. Unfortunately the test could have been flawed, there might be a more correct hypothesis, or other problems.

      My favorite incorrect hypothesis supported by evidence and experiment is Tycho Brahe believing in the earth centric model. He made very careful measurements and expected to see some parallax if the sun centric model were correct. Since he couldn't detect it he decided that the earth centric model must be correct because his measurements supported that view. Of course his measurements weren't as accurate as we can make today so his data was off and his conclusion was incorrect.

      In any case leave proof to the logicians and mathematicians. Science demands evidence and experiments.

    8. Re:One Problem: by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      Ok, fair enough, poor choice of words. However, until we have definitive evidence ( chemical analysis ), we shouldn't make proclamations like these scientists ( or the media ) have done.

      As of right now, we have a pretty solid theory.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    9. Re:One Problem: by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Your sig brings back some great memories, by the way. Be excellent to each other... and PARTY ON!!!

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    10. Re:One Problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a harsh mistress. Please don't tell us about your hard "mistress!"

    11. Re:One Problem: by Daemonax · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I myself was about to sell what you've said. Science works via hypothesis and observation/data. We make a guess and then test it, if it's disproven then great. If it's not disproven then perhaps the hypothesis is correct. But it's not proven.

    12. Re:One Problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is a hard mistress; she demands proof before making such claims. No. Science is deciding which model to take based on the available evidence. For such cases of 'find out what this is', it is the most probably thing matching all available evidence. Which is water. Unless new hints to something different are discovered, it will stay that way.
  19. Perhaps they're waiting for NASA to weigh in by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although I agree with you in principle, I think it might be due to the anticipation of NASA's announcement, which could do away with the "according to scientists [working on the project]" caveat.

  20. In Other News... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Funny

    News fails to take responsibility according to one internet poster.

    More at 8.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  21. Um ...Dumb Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is water..and it is in ice form..

    and.. according to Wiki.. Sublimation of an element or compound is a transition from the solid to gas phase with no intermediate liquid stage.

    umm..I think I may be stupid here... but isn't the surface temperature -70f..

    Water freezes at 32..... how did it SUBLIMATE?

    1. Re:Um ...Dumb Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's 1% of Earth's atmospheric pressure. At that point there is no water, only solid and gas. And the sublimation point is a lot lower because of the lower pressure. (Less pressure = less molecules keeping the other molecules tightly packed)

    2. Re:Um ...Dumb Question. by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Water freezes at zero degrees. :-p

      But seriously, this is oversimplified. Water freezes at 0 degrees on Earth, at standard pressure. Furthermore, even when water freezes, there's still water vapor. Really, if you think about it, you can't have the physical states without multiple molecules. Liquids and solids require certain arrangements of multiple molecules. In either case, individual molecules can escape, thus sublimating. The energy from the sun was enough to cause these molecules to escape, even though the ambient temperature was below the melting point of water.

      Really, the best way to think about the melting point and the boiling point is that the melting point is the lowest temperature at which liquid will exist, and the boiling point is the highest temperature at which liquid will exist. Gas can exist at all temperatures because gas is nothing more than molecules that have broken off from the liquid or solid.

      Eventually, if you raise the temperature enough, no liquid or solid can form. Likewise, if you lower the temperature enough, eventually, no molecule can escape. This is why metal doesn't generally sublimate. The amount of energy needed is not provided by the temperatures commonly found on earth (metal can sublimate in other conditions).

    3. Re:Um ...Dumb Question. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      If you had paid attention in chemistry class you would know.

  22. disappointed by uxbn_kuribo · · Score: 1

    At first I thought it said "ITALIAN ICE ON MARS." :( I wanted to know what flavor. :(

    --
    No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
    1. Re:disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemon. Otherwise it would be pink or purple.

  23. ice on Mars is nothing new by speedtux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finding water was one of the key goals of the Phoenix mission.

    That is a bizarre statement. Large quantities of ice have been observed in numerous ways already. Even the Viking lander observed water frost directly in the 1970's:

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

    http://www.solarviews.com/cap/mars/frost.htm

    That frost sublimated just like this ice did.

    Here are other observations:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28may_marsice.htm

    Here you can see a frozen crater lake:

    http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/210-010705-1343-6-co-01-CraterIce_H.jpg

    http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html

    Not only is that ice, it may actually be an outflow.

    What makes the results from Phoenix exciting is that the actual experiments that Phoenix is supposed to perform depend on having landed on ice. But finding ice somewhere on Mars is not a surprise.

    1. Re:ice on Mars is nothing new by TennilleGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, water ice on Mars is nothing new. That's why they went there. They could not have another failed mission, could they? Before Phoenix there was Opportunity. Why? The NASA-funded mineralogical neophytes spent our money looking for liquid water where they saw widespread hematite...coarse grained grey hematite. Fe2O3...no water in its structure! On Earth, in the banded iron formations that are BILLIONS of years old, that is a metamorphic mineral. It did not form in liquid water! Its PRECURSOR minerals (goethite; ferrihydrite; lepidocrocite) did form in water. Using hematite as a "beacon" for liquid water would be like using anthracite coal as a beacon for a coal swamp or a piece of chinaware as a beacon for a kaolin mine. Now we have a mission that is the equivalent of finding sand in the Sahara Desert? They KNEW that there was water ice there...for years. Big deal? Unbelievable spin! If they actually find anything relevant to life on Mars one needs to inquire... Why didn't they go there in the first place? Why did they waste our money landing in a billion year old metamorphic landscape? Even the face-saving hematite "blueberries" are a joke when placed into context with the remote data used to select that landing site...platy coarse-grained hematite.

    2. Re:ice on Mars is nothing new by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      There's also the small matter that you can actually SEE ice just by looking at the damn thing through a telescope. The giant white spots at the poles are a bit of a giveaway. I can't understand for the life of me the significance of this news as presented in the headlines for the past week.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  24. Um...Question? by PitDoggie · · Score: 1

    According to Wiki... Sublimation of an element or compound is a transition from the solid to gas phase with no intermediate liquid stage. if it is -70f on Mars and according to my little pea brain ice freezes at 32f. How did the sublimation happen?

    --
    What time is it again?
    1. Re:Um...Question? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      And here I thought the explanation of what sublimation was in the summary was superfluous.
      Please see the phase diagram for H20. Martian atmospheric pressure is extremely low.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:Um...Question? by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1, Redundant

      the very same way that ice cubes sublimate in your freezer, even though your freezer temperature is below 32 degrees.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    3. Re:Um...Question? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      First of all, no solid is entirely solid. At the atomic level there are always some particles moving around (a very thin layer of "liquid" molecules with a few gassy ones on top). So a bit of sublimation will probably always happen. Some "air" moving around will help.

      But beside that, it's probably the light not heating up everything at the same pace.

    4. Re:Um...Question? by Gori · · Score: 1

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

      When the pressure is low, solid water will not go through liquid phase when the temperature increases. Basic thermodynamics...

      See this : http://www.cbu.edu/~mcondren/water-phase-diagram.jpg

      Choose a sufficiently low pressure, and draw a horizontal line (increase in temperature) from solid to gas...

      --
      Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
  25. Hundreds of millions spent and...? by ThreeGigs · · Score: 1, Troll

    So, we spend a few hundred million to land something on Mars, a major part of whose mission was to confirm or debunk the existence of water there, and after 24 days all we can say is "Look, it's sublimated so it's probably water!"? I'm hearing jokes about Americans forgetting to include some simple 'test for water' equipment in their 325 million 'let's see if there's water on Mars' probe.

    So, is anyone else thinking 'wtf?' like me? Why are we reduced to using pictures to try and determine if the stuff is water? Where the hell are the results of the conclusive tests so we don't have to use words like 'probably', 'most likely', and 'it shure looks like watuh, don' it?'.

    Come on, NASA, you're making yourselves look incompetent.

    1. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on, NASA, you're making yourselves look incompetent.

      How much water have you found on Mars?

      Uh-huh. I thought so...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They haven't run the tests yet. This is just something they noticed when they landed.

      We send this probe up there with all this fancy testing equipment, only to land in the friggin' stuff we're trying to find. It's actually pretty funny...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by speedtux · · Score: 1

      We send this probe up there with all this fancy testing equipment, only to land in the friggin' stuff we're trying to find. It's actually pretty funny...

      We didn't land on Mars to find ice, we landed on Mars to examine the ice that we already knew was there.

    4. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are only showing what the media and public can deal with... pictures. There is a mass spectrometer among other instruments but who wants to hear about that?

    5. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How much water have you found on Mars?
      Yeah, but he never claimed to be competent, either, so it's OK.

    6. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by Dr.+Donuts · · Score: 1

      He's found the same amount, for $300 million less. :)

    7. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on there manic business jockey! In science, even if you know something to be true, you use words like that. Its part of the lingo. Only in business (where you can never ever be wrong) would you say something with that level of certainty. Example (a real one too): "The Titanic is an unsinkable ship!" In science they would say "based on current material and engineering design standards, its highly improbable that the Titanic will sink". In the business world: "The Titanic is absolutely unsinkable!" See where the differences are? Having a undergrad degree in a science, and working in the business world, I'm constantly bombarded by 'assertiveness police' insisting that I be more direct and absolute. In science I was taught expressly not to do that, and use the cultivated language I do. But the business jockeys will have none of it! Absolute certainty is what they want, even if there is no basis for it. As a result, "The Titanic is an Unsinkable Ship!!!"

    8. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They *did* run the tests. On June 11th Phoenix successfully filled oven #4 and no water was found.

      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 4 hours, 27 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

    9. Re:Hundreds of millions spent and...? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Come on, NASA, you're making yourselves look incompetent.
      You know, because landing a robot on another planet is easy. Every other space agency in the world has a 100% success rate when dealing with Mars, right?
      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  26. Life on Mars by fyoder · · Score: 1

    The ice could be disappearing due to sublimation. Or it could be being consumed by a life form delighted to find a precious resource totally exposed and there for the taking.

    Perhaps next mission they should take along some sugar. Put it out and see if it 'sublimates' as well.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
    1. Re:Life on Mars by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps next mission they should take along some sugar. Put it out and see if it 'sublimates' as well.

      Memo to all Enforcers:
      By order of the Council of Elders, anyone caught consuming the sweet, sweet bait near the robotic invader from the blue planet is to have his gelsacs summarily pierced.
      Signed,
      K'Breel
      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
    2. Re:Life on Mars by HitekHobo · · Score: 3, Funny

      A similar experiment was recently conducted to determine the existence of life in Congress. A large pile of money was left sitting out which sublimated while votes accreted; thereby proving the existence of life in Congress. It is still up for debate how long before intelligent life is found in Congress.

  27. Sweeet by EdIII · · Score: 1

    Anybody else see Dan Quayle running around with his chest puffed up saying, "I Told You So".

    Good for him :)

  28. All that means... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...is that I get a chance to dupe my bad joke about it being German-speaking Martians with their sun-loungers.

    --
    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)
  29. Biker Mice on Mars? (n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  30. Ice on Mars by russoc4 · · Score: 1

    How is this news? Haven't we known that the polar ice caps are frozen water?

  31. How come the water is so white/clean? by viking80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, I think the best evidence so far that this is water is not this picture, but the fact that the Mars Orbiter's spectrometer determined that that is was a lot of hydrogen in the ground near the poles.

    That some white stuff vanishes is poor evidence. They need to get the white stuff in an oven and test it.

    Let's assume it is water.
    What really puzzles me is how clean the water is. It is covered with what would make a dirty mud if it ever melted together. Also on earth, you never have clean water if you have flash floods like what you see as a result of a volcanic eruption or meteroid impact. You only have clean water/ice in snow and still lakes/oceans.
    This implies:
    1. The ice has not melted after the dust blew over it.(A long time)
    2. It used to be a lake/ocean or snow

    So the purity of the ice might be a bigger discovery than the fact that it is ice there.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Also keep in mind that for a body of salty water, when it first freezes, that part is pure water. The contaminants usually concentrate in the part that freezes last.

    2. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAChemist, but I think it's probable that the deposition of water vapor (desublimation) directly into ice is the reason it appears white and "pure."

      The dirty water (frozen or not) you're thinking of is the result of a liquid solution mixing and dissolving various impurities. As has already been amply discussed in this forum, this martian ice never experiences a liquid state. The water ice sublimates directly into gas as it heats up, the same way water vapors can deposit (or desublimate) directly into solid ice. Other Martian probes have already detected ice frost on the surface, so it's reasonable to believe that given the proper conditions, water ice can build up as naturally as it breaks down.

    3. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by carnus · · Score: 1

      With the exotic conditions of Mars, the pore pressure of the soil may act differently. The "surface tension" of the water flows may be great enough to deny intrusion of foreign soil particles. The adhesion properties of fine soils such as clays may be reduced under low pressure, low temperature and low gravity environments.

    4. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by vrdlbrnft · · Score: 1

      That ice ist not at all clean. Clean water ice is transparent and colorless. White ice has at least gas bubbles in it (center of ice cubes) or is sintered from crystals (glacier). In both cases you won't see the sand because the ice is not transparent.

      Crystallization leads to clean substances. It is used in chemistry for this purpose. Remember the layer of ice on muddy puddles in winter; it's always clean.

    5. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What really puzzles me is how clean the water is. It is covered with what would make a dirty mud if it ever melted together. Also on earth, you never have clean water if you have flash floods like what you see as a result of a volcanic eruption or meteroid impact. You only have clean water/ice in snow and still lakes/oceans."

      Firstly, we don't really know how "clean" it is. It could have plenty of dissolved salts in it, for example. This will be determined as the experiments proceed.

      Secondly, if you examine ordinary permafrost on Earth, it is quite common for the subsurface ice to segregate into fairly pure ice structures. As the ice crystals grow in the ground they can displace the surrounding sediment and remain relatively pure. This is known as "massive ice" versus the "interstitial ice" that occurs between sediment grains (both commonly occur together in permafrost areas). Refer to these pictures of permafrost exposed in Tuktoyaktuk for some examples of massive ice in the ground.

    6. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      am I incorrect to assume that due to the conditions that leads the ice to sublimate, it is never in liquid form, and thus never has the chance to mix with other material?

    7. Re:How come the water is so white/clean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be off the mark, but I think it is the temperature. The temperature is so low that it is not possible to have flowing water. The water there probably condensed where it was found. If that is the case, it wasn't ever liquid to dissolve anything. Moreover, even if it was liquid and muddy at some time, constant sublimation-desublimation process would purify it.

  32. Re:What about the pressure? - Other way around by mkiwi · · Score: 1

    You are correct, except that we know the pressure on the surface of Mars is lower because of the thin atmosphere. Jupiter or Venus are better candidates for what you are describing.

  33. I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pretty much anything can sublimate under the proper conditions. But when you say "a white solid that sublimates at -70 degrees F and martian surface pressure and is found in macroscopic quantities naturally" you narrow down the field quite a bit. In this case, to exactly one reasonable possibility.

    Yep, Vodka.

    1. Re:I know by wellingj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Vodka is just sitting around mars on the ground? Where do we buy the tickets...

    2. Re:I know by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Nevermind - damn robot drank it with the camera off. Sublimate my ass.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:I know by flewp · · Score: 1

      They sent Bender to Mars?!

      If that's the case, don't you mean, "sublimate my shiny metal ass!" ?

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    4. Re:I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the Russians were there first, and left their crap everywhere.

    5. Re:I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, Vodka.

      The Russians are going to win this space race.
    6. Re:I know by SCDavis · · Score: 1

      So now we have a drunk rover roving around on mars? Think he'll be a happy drunk or a depressed drunk...? how would you feel 30 million miles from home?

    7. Re:I know by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, the Russians have designed, built and flown, the first manned mission to Mars in an astonishing 3 days. The leader of the mission says, "We hope to be there by happy hour!"

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    8. Re:I know by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      Looks like the Russians beat us again...

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
  34. Science is ladyboy. by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    Science is a hard mistress; she demands proof before making such claims. I prefer to think of her as a harsh mistress rather than a hard mistress, thanks.
    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  35. phase diagram by daemonburrito · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here

    How to read them

    I feel that a great disservice was done to a lot of us early on with a simplistic view of the usual three phases of matter.

    And yes, you're right. That is part of the explanation.

  36. Error: Celebrity Arrested Drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure you intended something like "Alleged Celebrity Arrested Drunk"

    There, I fixed it for you.

  37. Four days apart by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So these two frames were taken four days apart while the sublimation was taking place. My question would be - where are the rest of the frames? Does this lander really only "look around" every few days?

    It would be nice to see it at even a 1-day resolution and get a 4-frame animation of the process. Those lumps should be seen to get smaller and vanish.

    Not that I'm complaining, this is still very cool (no pun intended).

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Four days apart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megatron was in the other frames.

  38. Insulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By 'landing site' do they also mean what is under the surface?

    Is it not possible that the soil would insulate the ice below it and allow for the temperature difference necessary for dry ice?

  39. Standards.... by jonfr · · Score: 5, Informative

    U.S needs to upgrade it's standards. A good start would to move from Fahrenheit to Celsius. After that you can move over to the metric system.

    -70 F is -56 C
    -109 F is -78 C

    Conversion done with Google.

    1. Re:Standards.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You have two grammatical errors in your first sentence. But thanks for the lecture on standards.

    2. Re:Standards.... by jonfr · · Score: 1

      Learn Icelandic and then we can call it even.

    3. Re:Standards.... by AlpineR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh pshaw. The advantage of Imperial units over Metric is that the size of the units is a better match for our everyday experiences.

      A foot is about the length of my foot. A pound is a filling dinner. And a pint is a refreshing amount of beverage.

      -70 F is like room temperature but cold and -109 F is like too damn hot but too damn cold instead. In America, we don't have to use Google to figure out whether to wear a jacket to work.

    4. Re:Standards.... by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fahrenheit is better than Celsius for delineating temperature. Celsius may be more standardized, but putting only 100 degrees between freezing cold and boiling hot makes for a pretty shitty scale for humans (unless you want to get into decimal points).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Standards.... by jonfr · · Score: 1

      Fahrenheit is not better, it puts freezing point of water at 32 F. But in Celsius that number is at 0 C, after that we can start to count in minus numbers. Also in C the boiling point of water on earth is 100 C.

      Boiling point of water in Mars is -56C or around that temp. In the Fahrenheit there isn't a system that estimates the boiling point of water given it's atmospheric pressure.

      You know this because you are used to it.

      Reading material.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

      U.S also uses 120V, but that uses more wires then 230V.

    6. Re:Standards.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to shut the fuck up. Thanks.

    7. Re:Standards.... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      We happen to like our Fahrenheit temperature units, thanks anyway though

  40. I still think it's CO2 by ookabooka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...how do we know the white substance is not frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of frozen water? Answer: Phoenix's landing site is too warm for dry ice. The average daily temperature is about -70 F while dry ice requires temperatures lower than about -109 F."
    Yeah, except one thing that wasn't addressed was the pressure of the dirt on top of the so-called "water". As we all know from elementary chemistry, increased pressure raises the temperature that CO2 can remain solid. Once the dirt was removed, the pressure was reduced (temperature remaining in the same range as before) and the CO2 started to sublimmate.
    Furthermore, there is essentially no water vapor in the atmosphere on Mars, so how would water have gotten there in the first place? Atmospheric CO2 can condense when conditions are right. Atmospheric water can't condense if it doesn't exist.

    There's some bait, lets see if anyone will bite :-D
    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    1. Re:I still think it's CO2 by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 1

      Can't resist; the nerd bait is to strong. I doubt that the added weight of a few cm of dirt caused enough of a pressure difference that the CO2 would sublimate where it wouldn't before.

    2. Re:I still think it's CO2 by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      to elaborate, after consulting a very small and badly draw pressure temperature phase diagram, it seems about 4 or 5 bar of pressure is needed for CO2 to be solid at 216.5 K. given 1 bar is 100 kPa and the atmospheric pressure on mars is about 0.6-1 kPa, then the remaining 99 kPa would need to be exerted by the dust on top, so, each square metre of dirt on top, (with a depth of about 8cm gives 8 litres) would exert ~99000 newtons, so with weight on mars being 0.107 times earth, then the mass of dirt would need to be 925 233.645 kg.

      So on Earth, that would be about 1000 yank tons for 8 litres of dust. So even considering the roughness of my calculations, the soil simply could not weigh enough to keep CO2 solid, even if dry dust somehow managed to be airtight.

  41. Old news, ice was discovered on Mars 3 years ago by Kevin143 · · Score: 1
  42. They are going at this the wrong way by n9hmg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I read that after several days they'd finally finished shaking a sample down into the oven, I though "well, I guess they're not looking for light organics suspended in water". I'd think they'd grab a chunk and get it in the oven quickly to detect all the organic chemicals, including the water-soluble light ones.

  43. Rita? by mblumber · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thought that they opened a Rita's Water Ice on Mars? They seem to be opening them all over the place of late.

    --
    Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.
  44. not necessarily amazing by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    there's a number of geological processes that can concentrate water like this

    in areas on earth where a lot of freezing and thawing occurs on earth, rocks get concentrated neatly in rings according to size, as if someone sorted them

    i'm not saying this process is anything like why the ice is so pure on mars, what i am saying is that there are plenty of natural processes out there that concentrate materials in orders that, contraintuitively, seem like it took intelligent concentration, but are in fact totally natural

    i won't even begin to speculate what processes on mars could do this, but i wouldn't be surprised if someone more knowledgeable than me could describe such a natural mechanism for ice purification on mars

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. Seems to me... by nexuspal · · Score: 2, Informative

    That a lot of the people here see dry ice, white and solid like the stuff found on mars, and the fact that dry ice subliminates in our atmosphere, and come up with the idea that the white stuff must be solid CO2 and not water. Of course this is completely fallacious logic, as the pressure and temp in the area make it physicaly impossible for CO2 to be a solid (if temp/pressure data is correct)....

    --
    I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
  46. !Neat by Cattus+Curiosus · · Score: 1

    I believe you misplaced your exclamation point.

    --
    Snowclone is the new clich
  47. Don't get your hopes up by The+Temp · · Score: 0, Troll

    The picture they show of this at NASA.gov shows what would be frozen liquid water but we know that it wouldn't have been deposited there as a liquid unless it came from a different planet and was deposited there by a landing craft after the trench was dug. H2O wouldn't desublimate in a form that the sheet ice in that trench takes. Even if you feel that a water desublimate on Mars could take the appearance of frozen liquid sheet ice on Earth, you'd have to believe that the robotic scoop perfectly dug the trench to clear all the dirt off the thin fragile sheet of ice without breaking it, or if it was thicker before the dig, shaved it down to a perfect millimeter thick sheet of ice. If the liquid wasn't deposited there intentionally, it was deposited there accidentally by leakage of some sort of liquid from the craft.

    1. Re:Don't get your hopes up by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1
      The picture they show of this at NASA.gov shows what would be frozen liquid water but we know that it wouldn't have been deposited there as a liquid unless it came from a different planet and was deposited there by a landing craft after the trench was dug. And you know this...how? And I suppose you have perfect evidence that water doesn't exist locked in the subsurface soil of Mars because...?

      Gosh, I'm sorry, you must be right. It's all a massive conspiracy set up by NASA. They carted half a liter of water millions of kilometers from Earth so they could stage this whole thing. They're just covering up evidence of alien visitation. Or it's the military-industrial complex. Or it's a vast right-wing conspiracy. Or all of the above. Black helicopters are on their way to your house now to black bag you for knowing too much. Enjoy your brief stay in a secret CIA prison.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    2. Re:Don't get your hopes up by The+Temp · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you go back and read it, you'll see that I'm referring to the picture at nasa.gov. The color picture to be precise. There might be naturally occurring water ice on Mars but this ain't it. If we accept the color picture put out by NASA as a realistic rendering of the sample, this particular sample would have the characteristics of a flash frozen liquid spill that occurred after the trench was dug.

    3. Re:Don't get your hopes up by ledow · · Score: 1

      First images from a lander millions of miles away with INACCURATE colour (NASA colour images are almost always "false-colour" because it's incredibly difficult to do accurate colour reproduction and also the press like the Mars soil to look a bit red - I'm not joking here), of a planet under (to normal humans) extremes of temperature and pressure, which has taken real scientists (you know, those blokes that put the lander up there in the first place) DAYS to decide if what they were even seeing before COULD be ice... and you take one look and say "Nah, it's not." - with precisely zero experience of low-pressure, distant planets and their atmospheres, chemical makeup and physical appearances of "common" substances under those characteristics. Weird stuff happens under "unusual" conditions like that, we know because we can simulate it on Earth.

      The more likely scenario is that the scoop isn't all that powerful that it can "dig" through solid ice to make shavings. Get a toy motor-controlled Tonka crane (an good approximation of the power of the landers arms but still strong enough to do the job, i.e. shift soil) and try to scrape a bloke of ice with it under motor-control. It's REALLY not easy, you won't get shavings, you won't get anything (besides the fact that "shavings" would sublimate or not exist in such conditions anyway) - and that's "ordinary" frozen ice at "normal" pressures and temperatures (this stuff is sub-sub-zero under incredibly low pressure - it's like taking an industrial cryogenic plant and sticking it into the upper atmosphere). If the scoop can't dig through the ice, what it does is scrape the debris off the top of it. This would clear the top of the ice block of soil, thus allowing you to see it. It will take a few moments (I don't know how long because I haven't done the maths, but neither have you so it hardly matters) and a lot of energy for it to do ANYTHING but when it does it'll *probably* go from solid to gas with no liquid in between. Something you don't see in your bathtub or freezer every day.

      However, there may well be a layer of "haze" or "mist" if you like directly over the ice (think dry ice here on Earth under normal Earth pressures for an *example* of the sort of thing). It also looks to me (pure speculation) that the lower soil actually has solid ice as part of it's makeup (look at the animated GIF), so it's probably combined ice/soil. The scoop has dug through to that and that's what you see sublimating, looking a little like "wet soil" for an instant (like when you spray a compressed-air-can onto soil here on Earth - you get a "wet patch" which is really the liquid/gaseous air at a low temperature, but which very quickly turns into a gas that's able to float off into the air).

      Basically - you're applying FAR TOO MUCH of what you see in your kitchen to conditions that are NOWHERE NEAR those you expect to find in your average IKEA product. Even the people who put the lander up there could only guess what to expect and they were the ones spending millions of dollars trying to get up there and double-check.

  48. They have a gas analyser, but... by bornwaysouth · · Score: 1

    According to my local newspaper, Phoenix has 8 tiny little ovens to cook the stuff and analyse it. "Due to a software glitch, that could have to wait as long as two weeks." Currently, the score is therefore Eyeball 1, On-board Intelligence 0.

    But this is mere hearsay. because the same report said: "Water is also a key element of Nasa's long range dreams to send humans to the planet because it not only would be necessary to sustain the first generation of pioneers but would be a source of fuel." Oh, Oh. I don't mind them calling water an element, as that is just an ambiguity of language. I don't mind the 'first generation' implying the next have evolved to not need water. But water as a source of fuel? Even if they did have tokamak fusion reactors that worked, they have to be light enough to send to Mars. Arrgh.

    So RUMOUR has it that the software nerds screwed up. The good news is that scientists will get the blame. Doesn't matter if you are a NASA engineer or mbafailu (MBA from an ivy league university), everyone quotable is a scientist. That way, it's deniable. Because the fundamental theorem of science states that its not science unless it is falsifiable. (Political theory and science theory tend to meld at the high energies that run countries.)

    1. Re:They have a gas analyser, but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But water as a source of fuel? Even if they did have tokamak fusion reactors that worked, they have to be light enough to send to Mars. Arrgh.

      Think in terms of setting up solar-powered cracking units to break out H and O2. Then you use fuel cells or combust it in other ways. Mr. Fusion is not needed.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:They have a gas analyser, but... by bornwaysouth · · Score: 1

      Good point. I was a chemist once upon a time. The H2 and O2 are excellent 'reagents'. As H2 leaks like crazy, I'd store energy other ways, in spite of knowing it was a very clean, non-toxic high energy store. A gas store means explosive potential. I do like my chemicals though, so thank you. Not so much 'fuel' as feed-stock. That makes excellent sense.

    3. Re:They have a gas analyser, but... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Why do people continue to say that water is a source of fuel? Water is NOT fuel. Water is burned/oxidized hydrogen.

      Water can be separated, by adding in energy, into it's constituent H and O2 components. The energy can be stored in this fashion to be released again later and hopefully efficiently. Fuel cells are currently one of the most efficient ways of reclaiming this stored energy - though expensive.

      Water is no more fuel than is C02 is.

      As for tokamak reactors, I hope one day that fusion power will be feasible.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    4. Re:They have a gas analyser, but... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Pedantry aside, in the common language, fuel is the means for energy storage. Gas is ALSO, buy your reasoning, not a fuel, since it merely allows for a chemical reaction which leads to energy.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    5. Re:They have a gas analyser, but... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Omestes said:
      "fuel is the means for energy storage. "

      Precisely! FUEL is a means of energy storage. Therefore, water is not fuel. It is spent fuel. Hydrogen is the fuel that is used to store the energy. Electrolysis process takes energy in the form of electricity and uses it to separate the H2O into H2 and O2 thereby storing the energy.

      The energy is reclaimed when the Hydrogen is once again oxidized be it with an ICE or a Fuel Cell.

      Gas IS a fuel. The hydrocarbons in gas or diesel fuel were produced from cellulose and other sugars long ago. The hydrocarbons contain varying amounts of Hydrogen and Carbons (and other trace elements) which, upon exposure to O2 and a catalyst such as a spark or intense heat and pressure, can be induced to release the stored energy in the same way as pure H2. The gas produces many molecules: CO, CO2, NO2, NO3 H2O etc... All these are Oxygen compounds and formed by combustion or recombination.

      Bottom Line:
      WATER IS NOT FUEL. It is spent H2 fuel.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  49. How does the ice exist this close to the surface? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    Pardon my hideous ignorance on the subject, but I'm wondering why the ice was present in solid form in the first place if it so easily sublimated? Surely the lander didn't dig all that far into the Martian soil when it struck ice. I'm just flabbergasted that the ice could exist so close to the surface without sublimating purely from solar warming of the soil. Perhaps somebody can comment on this and clear it up.

    BTW, I'm not disputing the findings at all; the evidence is conclusive they've found water ice on Mars. I'm just curious about the processes involved that would allow the ice to exist close enough to the surface that the lander could get at it, yet far enough away from solar heating to exist at all.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  50. Water! Very, very... by MrKaos · · Score: 0

    Cool.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  51. Re:How does the ice exist this close to the surfac by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    PI'm just flabbergasted that the ice could exist so close to the surface without sublimating purely from solar warming of the soil.

    The soil on Mars is cold enough (say -50 C) to keep ice from sublimating below a certain depth. From the pictures I would say that depth is 50-100 mm.
  52. are you absolutely sure? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    You say you think it's sublimation
    Well you know
    that'd be out of this world
    What else could explain the diminution
    Well you know
    that'd be out of this world
    But when you talk about reduction
    Don't you know ice ain't the only thing
    Don't you know other substances are white [x3]

    You say you got an aqueous solution
    Well you know
    We'd all want to see the proof
    Martians might be liliputian
    Well you know
    Look for them if you can can
    But if you want money for space probes that crater
    All I can tell you is brother maybe later
    Learn how to use metrics first, alright? [x4]

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  53. Mars Has Enough Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read that Mars has enough gravity to avoid water achieving escape velocity. Mars surface gravity is nearly 40% of Earth's, so if water was escaping Mars in significant amounts, then it would also be escaping Earth in significant amounts. The loss of Martian atmosphere is supposed to mainly be attributable to solar wind (Mars has no magnetosphere) and also to perhaps some past asteroid collisions that tore away its atmosphere.

  54. Re:Wow - not by Mr.+Jackson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Scientist have believed the Martian polar cap are water ice since 2003: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-water-science-03c.html

  55. I thought they ran a oven by codepunk · · Score: 1

    I thought they ran a oven a week or so ago, why no preliminary test results shown anywhere
    yet? Disappearing ice is cool and all but I want to see some soil test results.

    --


    Got Code?
  56. Oh hey by kjzk · · Score: 0

    It seems like every week I'm reading a "new" article saying there's water on Mars, then one that says there isn't, then another that says there is.

  57. Have they found the reactor yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they found the reactor the aliens built yet? If you start it up, it heats the ice, creating oxygen that allows everyone to breath air (not just those in the domes). The telepaths know about it. If you think about it they will know! MaQuade will start it up if you let him. All he has to do is go to Recall Inc(tm) to jog his memory, and then "get his ass to mars."

  58. Personally by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would rather use the nukes to bring a few asteroids to impact mars. Some of those contain a load of ammonia. Ammonia is a great great house gas. Of course, that would disassociate over time, leaving N2 in the atmosphere.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Personally by salimma · · Score: 1

      Or we can pump Mars' atmosphere full of CFCs. Per unit weight, much more effective than ammonia, especially considering the tiny proportion of an asteroid's weight that's actually ammonia (plus, with asteroidal impacts you risk evaporating the precious water ice!)

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    2. Re:Personally by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First, there are asteroids that are pure (or near pure) ammonia. Second, the CFCs are nice, but the ammonia is cheaper and useful afterwards. In particular, the Ammonia starts off as greenhouse gas and then breaks down into pure N2, which then becomes a buffer gas. With CFCs, we would have to import or mine it. As to the water, well, you break up the asteroid just as you hit the atmosphere. Never impacts.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Personally by salimma · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, CFC has higher molecular weight (CFC-113 is 118.375 g/mol) and so would stay in the atmosphere longer. One of the reason Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2 is because anything lighter has vented off into space long ago; the RMS velocity of nitrogen and oxygen gas is higher than the escape velocity of Mars.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
  59. water ice? by ya+really · · Score: 1

    Water Ice On Mars

    But what kind of flavors does it come in?

  60. Re:Wow - not by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a fair bit of difference between believing and knowing!

  61. Ugly bags of mostly water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    war is with you. Return us to warm sand.

  62. Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. We find water, but it is never liquid: it is either solid or gas.
    2. They suppose it is not dry ice because the temperature of the site is too high for dry ice, but they forget PV=nRT and therefore T (temperature) depends on P (pressure). PRETTY LAME, it could be dry ice because we haven't been informed of the pressure of the site.

    If they are still correct despite their so many mistakes and the water can't be liquid, probably life can't survive in Mars.

  63. hurrr, i've had a dick up my ass all weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi, i'm a slashdot user/editor and it took me until Sunday evening to see this shit.

    1. Re:hurrr, i've had a dick up my ass all weekend by mqduck · · Score: 1

      sigh. for all of you who didnt get it, i was making fun of the previous poster's insinuation. i should have known better, i guess.

      --
      Property is theft.
  64. Looks like the ice was covered in dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sublimate to gas @ -70F? Very low pressure there or what?

  65. Re:How does the ice exist this close to the surfac by jamesc · · Score: 0

    .-.

    --
    "You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
  66. This is excellent news! by Starayo · · Score: 1

    But is there any word on the biker mice?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  67. Image in the post ! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Now that we learned since a few post that one can include images in the post, there are no excuses anymore to not post an image when the news is precisely about 2 frames of video.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  68. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was spontaneous crowds of tiny white martians who gathered to welcome the lander but when a dirty great shovel started destroying the landscape they sensibly fled.

  69. Trickery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just NASA who have created a small sandpit in a freezer, scooped out a couple of kilos of sand, poured in a little water, let it freeze, switch off the fridge and filmed the ice melt. If you are all falling for this rubbish then that's up to you. NASA have failed and now need to justify the billions spent by concocting this trickery.

  70. Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just NASA who have created a small sandpit in a freeze-box, scooped out a couple of kilos of sand, poured in a little water, let it freeze, switch off the fridge and filmed the ice melt. If you are all falling for this rubbish then that's up to you. NASA have failed and now need to justify the billions spent by concocting this trickery.

  71. Ai-chan, Neo-Veneziani ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shall NASA train teenage girls to become gondoliers on the terraformed Mars?

  72. Sublimation of ice in your fridge/freezer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only happens in those that do "defrosting".

    In older fridges/freezers, ice would build up and you would periodically need to defrost it by taking everything out, applying some hot water and then putting it all back in again.

  73. Water on Mars? = LIKELY EVERYWHERE THEN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water on Mars? = LIKELY EVERYWHERE THEN! it's everywhere, it's everywhere, it subliminated up my nose!

  74. No Three Mile Island Here by anorlunda · · Score: 1
    Not that it changes the conclusion, but this post claims that CO2 is solid below -109F (-78C)

    -78C is the figure for CO2 to become solid at a pressure of one standard atmosphere. At Martian pressures, the temperature would have to be even lower to keep CO2 solid.

    Interestingly, it was an identical error (failure to correct for pressure other than 1 atmosphere) that caused the NRC to falsely claim that the melted reactor at Three Mile Island was producing a large hydrogen bubble which could blow the roof off if it exploded. That error greatly amplified the fear of the public. NRC didn't acknowledge their error until long after the event.

  75. The ultimate proof of global warming by sTERNKERN · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even Martian ice is melting. We are doomed.

  76. "Sublimed" by Illbay · · Score: 1
    ...transformed from solid to gas without passing through the liquid state.


    Sounds a LOT like my finances.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  77. cherry or lemon? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


    I thought 'water ice' was found mainly in and around Philadelphia, and that in most other regions the sweet treat is called 'Italian ice'.

    Does this mean that Mars has been inhabitated by Philadelphians... or VICE VERSA?!

  78. Re:Eviscerating NASA by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    I'm glad someone else remembers this. For you whippersnappers in the audience, Nixon announced the Space Shuttle program in 1972, effectively destroying the existing Apollo/Saturn structures put in place by JFK. There was much fanfare about "re-usable" this and "return-to-earth" that, but in the end the Saturn V was replaced with a much-less-capable vehicle (Shuttle payload capacity is about 1/4 that of a Saturn V, and it's not capable of leaving LEO.) Disassembling JFK's legacy was a political priority for Nixon, and he used the Shuttle as a vehicle to do so [pun intended.] Folks at NASA who pointed out the lack of Emperor's Clothing were rapidly dismissed. Nixon did irreparable harm to NASA's culture, resulting in the risk-averse bureaucratic behemoth we have today.

  79. That's not water... by linuxpyro · · Score: 3, Funny

    After looking at that fascinating GIF from the summary, I'm not sure it is water. It just kind of disappears. It's probably some sort of highly advanced life form that can change its shape at will and lives beneath the planet's surface most of the time. It then just came up for a little Martian sunshine and, upon noticing our probe went back to tell its buddies that the Earthlings sent more crap to their planet and that they should expect an invasion soon. Unless they can prove to us they don't have any oil.

    Well, that's what it looks like to me. Draw your own conclusions.

    --
    Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    1. Re:That's not water... by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      ugly..bags..of..mostly..water..

    2. Re:That's not water... by MrMacman2u · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mod parent +1 Insightful for the Star Trek: TNG reference!

      --
      This signature is lame.
    3. Re:That's not water... by gabec · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mod parent up +1 Obvious for explaining a star trek reference on slashdot!

  80. Water Ice on Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone open a Rita's there?

  81. Frozen Water? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    It's frozen water. ... or ice... they could just call it ice, I'm sure we could connect the dots.
  82. Napoleonic system versus octal/hexidecimal by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    It is a very illogical unit, though, it isn't even divisible by two or eight! The octal/hexadecimal system we use in America is far superior for anyone who doesn't count on their fingers. It also ties into the size of the Earth and its rotation with the nautical mile and the degree.

  83. Re:How does the ice exist this close to the surfac by Iowan41 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Where the lander is, there is a range between 32*F and 40*F where water would exist as a liquid, and evaporation would depend upon the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water (in most places it is close to saturation on Mars - very thin air doesn't hold much water.

    If that -is- water in the white bands and not hardpan and a little seasonal frost, that might explain the darker areas within the streak - some localized melting in the sun.

    It is true that the average daily high at this site at this point in time is -25*, but as anyone from northern States knows, surface temperature can be quite a bit higher than atmospheric temperature, and with the various salts we know are in the soil, the actual melting point can be below that daily average high. (Just as you have to walk through puddles to get to Stuffmart when it is that cold up here, because of all the salt they put down).

    As to the probable frost in the soil, things like insulation from the sun (though at 1 inch depth, that wouldn't be much) tending the temp towards the daily average, isolation from the air (again, not much at that depth) and the added pressure of the soil bringing up the boiling point, could all be factors.

    Personally, I don't think that they have ruled out that it -is- hardpan held together with either electrostatic force, or by a tiny amount of frost, which did then sublimate.

    They say that Phoenix can't dig into the ice layer. Say -What-? Isn't that what they sent it to do? We really need to be willing to spend an extra 10 million per launch to use heavier lifters and more robust machinery! Very cost effective compared to what it costs to lighten and miniaturize things - just ask the Russians, they know this.

  84. Hmm, what about other planets? by caywen · · Score: 1

    I'll bet if it's cold enough, we'd find water ice up Uranus. I'm just saying.

  85. Re:Eviscerating NASA by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Nobody Cares if Your Puns Were Intended
    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns

  86. did it soak in? by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    I couldn't tell from the time lapse picture. I assume there is some way to know that the scientist have that i don't. To me it looked like the white substance could just as easily be slowly liquifying and sinking down into the dirt as subliming (there appeared to be a color change around the white substance as if perhapse it was wet). ( not sure if that changes the chemical analysis or not.)

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  87. As Garrison Keilor said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The discovery of water on Mars, one of the few success stories of the Bush administration... and it happened on another world!"

  88. @ STP by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    Dry Ice requires that temperature at Standard Temperature and Pressure, in other words at Sea Level on the Earth.

    What temperature is required for Dry Ice at the temperature and pressure of Mars? I don't doubt the required temperature is different because atmospheric pressure is so much less.

  89. Slightly Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty new to anything space related, but the only pictures I've seen of this ice on Mars are in the track of the lander, or rover, or whatever it's called. So, how do we know we didn't bring the ice to Mars? Doesn't it seem like a pretty odd coincidence that we've only found ice in the track, and not anywhere else?

  90. Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA has photos of water on Mars dating back over 3 years ago here

  91. Not convinced ... by wximagery95 · · Score: 1

    Here's what I find odd, and perhaps it's my ignorance on the subject, but carbon dioxide makes up ~95% of the Martian atmosphere while water vapor only makes up 0.03%. I understand that it's too warm for dry ice to form, but is this also true if the dry ice is insulated beneath a few inches of Martian soil? The atmospheric surface pressure of Mars is about 1% that of Earth. Wouldn't the lack of atmospheric pressure reduce conduction further insulating the buried frozen substance? If the average surface temperature is -70F and dry ice stays solid at -109F, we're only talking about a delta of 39F. That doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot to insulate against. Also, why is it white? Wouldn't it be mostly translucent if it were frozen water?

    Now, I'm no NASA scientist or chemist and maybe someone here who is more knowledgeable than I could shed some light on my questions. It just seems to me that's it's more likely to be frozen carbon dioxide than frozen H2O.

  92. Total Recall was Right!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is anyone else having a total recall flashback. if we just melt all the ice we will have an atmosphere to live in! now if we can just find that alien reactor there....

  93. big deal by ncohafmuta · · Score: 0

    So we found ice..big deal. got lots of ice here. Find a 5-headed monster on mars and you'll get my attention, otherwise, move along, nuthin to see here.

  94. Internally Inconsistent by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Conversion done with Google.

    Which is why we're going to be able to stop worrying about things like different scales and different languages sooner or later.

    Too bad it wasn't -40F.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  95. Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Scientists did a diagnostic run today that melted ice to water for Phoenix's first wet chemistry experiment. The water is part of the wet chemistry laboratory and comes from Earth."

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080623.html

    I'm surprised none of you bothered to read this.