Slashdot Mirror


Strange Globs Could Signal Water On Mars

Joshua.Niland writes "Strange globs seen on the landing strut of the Phoenix Mars lander could be the first proof that modern Mars hosts liquid water. Images from the robotic craft show what appear to be liquid droplets growing, merging, and dripping on the lander's leg over the course of a Martian month. Just when is NASA going to fix that leaking roof on the backlot?"

186 comments

  1. No, it proves there is water vapor by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Informative

    That condensed on the metal parts of the rover. Assuming of course that those globs are water and not Martian spit or something else.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Assuming of course that those globs are water and not Martian spit or something else.

      Maybe a Martian dog walked by, took a whiff of the lander, and promptly took a piss on it?

      Now that would be a headline for the press, "Traces of dogs found on Mars."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And what is condensed water vapor? I thought so.

    3. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by tcolberg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Would this "dog" be green and have a broom on his head?

    4. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

      And what is condensed water vapor? I thought so.

      Melted ice?

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    5. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      That condensed on the metal parts of the rover. Assuming of course that those globs are water and not Martian spit or something else.

      As frigid as Mars is, it would have sublimated onto the rover, not condensed.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    6. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As frigid as Mars is, it would have sublimated onto the rover, not condensed.

      God, I'm an idiot... it would have accumulated by DEPOSITION, not sublimation.

      Still, the point is still there. It would have changed from vapor to solid without a liquid phase. The perchlorates that would keep it liquid wouldn't be in the vapor, and thus it would depose, not condense.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    7. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Hey, Ferro, you been drooling in the landing bay again?

    8. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That condensed on the metal parts of the rover

      Not to denigrate the achievements of the Phoenix lander, but this is exactly why the people who advocate robotic planetary missions over manned ones are wrong.

      We didn't detect this water using Phoenix's million-dollar spectrometer designed to detect hydroxy compounds, or whatever. We detected it by adding a $20 digital camera that happened to be capable of pointing at some metal struts.

      If you want to discover new stuff, you want to leave room for serendipity. Unfortunately, because Phoenix is a purpose-designed robotic platform, we can't ask any more questions about what the condensing substance is, or what else is in it. No matter how advanced they become, we can only tease ourselves with robots. To really check the place out, we have to go in person.

    9. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      First, we have to determine 1) if it is worth spending so much money and, likely, lives to go visit. And for that you can send a robot and 2) where to go when you send a human, and for that you can send a robot.

      Yes, we will have send a person, but it makes sense to send a robot first, and send an orbiter to map the crap out of it. I'm as impatient as anyone, but a robot first makes more sense.

      Now that we have decided that it's pretty interesting and have some data about what is where, _now_ is the time that we should be figuring out where to send the person and start doing it.

      I just don't see robot versus human exploration as an either-or proposition.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    10. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if we had dumped all our eggs into the manned mission basket, we probably would be sitting here right now arguing over which multi-billion dollar system would best shield astronauts from cosmic radiation instead of arguing over the output of that $20 camera. I'll take the latter.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    11. Re:No, it proves there is water vapor by Darth+Eggbert · · Score: 1

      First, we have to determine 1) if it is worth spending so much money and, likely, [B]lives [/b] to go visit. And for that you can send a robot and

      Many people will volenteer their lives for the chance at going to Mars, please let them worry about the worth of them. I personally would take a 50-50 chance to be the first to stand on another planet. Others might not reqire odds that high.

      --
      Fear the power of NTie!
  2. Next mission... by Goffee71 · · Score: 1

    to Mars, sponsored by Perrier or Evian. Now that'll be an expensive drink when its shipped back!

    --
    If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    1. Re:Next mission... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because of discoveries on Mars a few years ago, I registered the domain name martiansprings.com.

      I get these late night brilliant ideas that go nowhere. I was picturing bottled water sold as a souvenir gimmick in science museum gift shops.

      Some say I'm bipolar.

      --
      This space available.
    2. Re:Next mission... by glittalogik · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some say I'm bipolar...

      ...and that there's a portrait of your left foot in the Louvre basement.

      The only thing we know is: you're called The Stig.

    3. Re:Next mission... by clambake · · Score: 1

      If other people say you are bipolar, you should get yourself checked out. Not knowing, or not being able to believe that you are bipolar is sort of a classic symptom of the disease... Trust me.

    4. Re:Next mission... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm certainly not bipolar. And neither am I.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    5. Re:Next mission... by spud603 · · Score: 1

      I think you're referring to Dissociative Identity Disorder, not Bipolar Disorder.

    6. Re:Next mission... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      Oh, I been checked out. Some of the "some" who said it were those checking me out. Others were less certain. It IS certain that I have PTSD. Whether or not that explains everything or I am bipolar, or my head injury causes some problems... well, it's all a bit of a jumble and since I'm not going on meds, it sort if doesn't matter which causes what, treatments the same anyway.

      --
      This space available.
    7. Re:Next mission... by NeoTron · · Score: 1

      Pedant. All 10 of you.

    8. Re:Next mission... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Too true

    9. Re:Next mission... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Thats total BS...

  3. Duh... by db32 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought we already had the signals with the sublimation we caught on camera. Then some more potential evidence with the snow. I think we should be reaching the point where we can start talking about this stuff as possible evidence rather than saying "signal" like we are surprised.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Duh... by david.given · · Score: 1

      I thought we already had the signals with the sublimation we caught on camera. Then some more potential evidence with the snow. I think we should be reaching the point where we can start talking about this stuff as possible evidence rather than saying "signal" like we are surprised.

      Well, there's a big difference between solid water and liquid water. Solid water exists at a vast range of temperatures and pressures, and sublimation can occur at a vast range of temperatures and pressures; liquid water, even liquid water loaded down with salts as in this hypothetical Martian mud, can only exist at a much, much smaller ranger of temperatures and pressures. So sighting stuff that looks like it's a liquid is significantly more interesting than seeing chunks of ice.

      For example: consider that all our various Mars probes have landed at really dull, really inhospitable bits of Mars, because those are the only bits it's safe to land on. If we can see liquid water here, then there'll almost certainly be more of it elsewhere in more benign bits of the planet --- deep gorges near the equator, for example. And given that planets are very very big, there'll probably be an awful lot more of it, which makes it a possible candidate for a habitat for Martian life.

    2. Re:Duh... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Oh I certainly understand that, and liquid water on Mars would indeed be an interesting discovery. But the title is all about water on Mars like that wasn't already a pretty strong possibility. Also, ultimately this is thought to be water vapor interacting yada yada yada. So water vapor is still impressive, but it isn't exactly lakes and rivers on Mars or even puddles really.

      I will also point out that the possible candidate for a habitat for Earth based life is probably on more minds than Martian life. Maybe I am just a cynic but I suspect that detecting Martian life will result in at the very least "back up" plans for how to eradicate it to avoid exposure.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's no such thing as solid water. Once the substance known as "water" forms a solid, it's referred to as "ice".

  4. Caught in the act! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the Terminator reforming so he can wipe the solar arrays clean.

  5. Maybe it peed itself by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Does the vehicle itself contain any liquids which could behave in this fashion?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Maybe it peed itself by imboboage0 · · Score: 1

      My car does the same thing, but with oil. I was thinking that maybe because this water is 'created' from nothing and my car's situation is close, maybe I'm driving a perpetual oil machine?

      This could be profitable...

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    2. Re:Maybe it peed itself by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My car does the same thing, but with oil. I was thinking that maybe because this water is 'created' from nothing and my car's situation is close, maybe I'm driving a perpetual oil machine?

      Your driveway would already have been carpet-bombed had that been the case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Better get on it.... by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 1
    --

    ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
  7. Do I have this right? by chopper749 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We sent a robot to look for water on Mars. It lands in an icy puddle, and gets covered in mud and tiny droplets (that behave just like water). But we can't tell if it's water or not. Your tax dollars at work!

    1. Re:Do I have this right? by zymano · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly. It's just stupid. I am assuming the batteries are down or the machine is broken but i doubt it.

      It's just a big fuck up.

      These rovers are stupid. We should have sent a cheaper drilling machine instead.

    2. Re:Do I have this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This way, NASA can ask for more money to send more rovers to see if the first rovers are wet. Then, and only then, will NASA say for sure that there might be more funding needed for more experiments to look for water.

    3. Re:Do I have this right? by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rovers are a "stupid" "big fuck up"?
      Now I've heard it all.

    4. Re:Do I have this right? by DamienRBlack · · Score: 1

      We sent a robot to look for water on Mars. It lands in an icy puddle, and gets covered in mud and tiny droplets (that behave just like water). But we can't tell if it's water or not. Your tax dollars at work!

      This is why sending manned missions is so important. I know a lot of people think that manned missions are a waste of resources -- but probes have a limited function and cannot react in ways they weren't initially designed for.

      A human can wipe a solar panel or go check on the dripping liquids. A human can fix things, change things, build things and so on. Maybe one day we'll have a probe/robot sophisticated enough to be some fraction as useful as a human, but in the meantime, man is our best probe.

    5. Re:Do I have this right? by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's just stupid. I am assuming the batteries are down or the machine is broken but i doubt it.

      It's just a big fuck up.

      These rovers are stupid. We should have sent a cheaper drilling machine instead.

      Well now. you're not even an A.C. this I would have expected from an A.C. sadly sir, you are not. you're trying to sound intelligent. which.....well.....you aren't. go back to smoking pot or heroin.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
    6. Re:Do I have this right? by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      A mathematician friend of mine was telling me about a fellow in the 19th century who was interested in large prime numbers. What were they good for, people would ask, and the answer was: nothing. Not in his lifetime did they prove useful, but he studied them because he was curious.

      So if you know anything about large prime numbers, you know the moral of this story. If not, let's put it like this: a dollar spent today uncovering a mysterious substance on a piece of instrumentation tens of millions of miles away may return the cornerstone of a culture tomorrow.

      Frankly, I think finding out about our universe is one of the highest of aims whether we get a dollar return or not, but what do I know -- I'm only human.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
  8. Science has a high burden of proof. by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh the precious tax dollars!
    You do realize that scientists have a higher burden of proof, right? They aren't going to say it's water until they analyze it and can confirm with certainty what it is.
    Damn right it's my tax dollars at work, and millions of us approve of it.

    1. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damn right it's my tax dollars at work, and millions of us approve of it.

      Well ... those of us who understand the logic behind science and the scientific method most certainly do. I'm just not sure how many of us fit that description, anymore.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is, those of us that approve are rather silent.

      Just at work, a highly educated person was complaining how a "third world" country was "wasting" money on space exploration rather than feeding and sheltering the poor.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    3. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by chopper749 · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying it's funny that they had no way to detect water ON THE LANDER. It looks like the thing is dripping wet. Maybe they didn't expect to actually land IN water, but couldn't they have come up with a way to detect if the lander was dripping with some sort of liquid! Seems like there should have been some sort of simple test to see if it was liquid. They could have vibrated the thing to see if the drops wiggle.

    4. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you're so clever, why don't you work for NASA? It really pisses me off when people spout-off about "why didn't they think of ..." because everything is clear with the benefit of hindsight.

      Please realise that actually _doing_ the job is a lot harder than bitching about it on Slashdot (which is why the font kerning on Ubuntu still sucks).

    5. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Finish your train of thought so you can actually make a point.

      So... you disagree with him? People should starve?

    6. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Funny

      You both.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    7. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by chopper749 · · Score: 1

      I was offer a position with the Astronaut core in 1999. The pay was laughable, and the odds of getting a ride were 1:40 at the time, which dropped of majorly after Colombia. I'm very happy that I didn't go work for NASA. So now I have a job designing fire fighting equipment, designing sensor systems to deactivating airbags when children are in the front seat, and new medical products that are going to change the way back surgery is performed and reducing the operation time from hours to less then 30 minutes and will allow the patient to walk out of the hospital. Or I could go look for water on mars. But I have NOTHING to do the font kerning on Ubuntu.

    8. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that you wouldn't have done very well in the astronaut corps, regardless of how far the odds dropped off after the loss of the Columbia.

      A solid understanding of the English language, including knowledge of spelling and grammar, is required to be an astronaut.

    9. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Just+because+I'm+an · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on how you frame your purpose. It's a bit like giving a man trout as opposed to teaching him to fish. Also why can't they feed the poor *and* do space exploration.

      Personally I think space exploration is very important. Eventually we're going to have to get off this rock to survive. Whether by resource depletion, disease, catastrophic event (something big crashes into Earth, supervolcanoes go apeshit or sun going supernova) something's going to make our time here limited and the sooner we find viable ways of travelling, finding other hospitable planets (or moons) sustaining ourselves and all the other things we haven't figured out yet the better. Yes some of what we do could probably be done better, or more efficiently, but we've got to keep trying. I'm also not a fan of just letting the USA and Russia play this game. I think India the ESA and China all have a valid reason to play the game too. I'm not sure which 3rd world country was being referred to but all the involved nations so far have poor hungry people they could be helping out.

      Just because they have a space program doesn't mean they can't do that too.

    10. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by citizenr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that scientists have a higher burden of proof, right? They aren't going to say it's water until they analyze it and can confirm with certainty what it is.

      You missed the point completelly. Why exactly did they send that probe there in the first place? to use it as a remote camera, or maybe to analyze some shit? Probe lands in the puddle, gets covered in droplets, thers some frost like growth .. and ALL this multi milion dollar probe can do is take pictures? ...

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    11. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why it should be.

    12. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Narishma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, there will always be starving people, so if you wait until everyone isn't starving before doing anything, you'll end up doing nothing.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    13. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Damn right it's my tax dollars at work, and millions of us approve of it.

      I agree except with the "at work" part. Scientific exploration on Mars is just an expensive hobby right now. For example, if there had been 5 Phoenix landers instead of one (five landers incidentally would have cost less than five times the cost of one Phoenix lander), we'd be able to compare the legs of the working vehicles. By launching one, they eliminated an important part of scientific observation, namely being able to repeat an observation. As it is, I don't see how this discovery will be "confirmed" over any reasonable length of time. It may well be decades before anything concrete can be said.

      As I see it, there are three ways they could make those tax dollars work for Mars exploration: 1) faster probe development and larger batch sizes when a probe is developed and built, 2) sample return, 2018 is the scheduled date for the first sample return mission, and 3) a long term manned presence on Mars. Some of these options will drive up costs a bit. But if you're interested in your tax dollars "working"...

    14. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if you had any knowledge of the rover mission you'd know that it was a geological mission, and the rover has many instruments for analyzing minerals in rocks.
      It didn't have something to test for water on itself because when the mission was designed no one thought there might actually be liquid water splashing on the thing. It's easy to sit in your armchair and criticize something with 20/20 hindsight.

    15. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Yes. Some people will starve. Some people will be unemployed. In every country. In every century.

      It would be nice to minimize this, but what is the proper way to do so?

      In one asian country, the president or prime minister (can't remember which) decided to place a TV satelite into orbit instead of using the money to feed the people. The side effect was that the people in rural villages were able to get educational TV shows for the first time ever.

      Or to put it more simply, "Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll land upon the stars."

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    16. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Relax. I agree that it only makes sense to do analysis of some kind to confirm that it is water. And no, it didn't really make sense to line the whole probe with some kind of water detector.

      However, I can still appreciate the irony in these jokes... :) I even laugh at computer jokes from time to time...

    17. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by flewp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. Some people will starve. Some people will be unemployed.

      It would be nice to minimize this, but what is the proper way to do so?

      Feed the unemployed to the starving?

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    18. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      sun going supernova

      <nitpick>Actually, as far as my limited knowledge of stellar chemistry goes, the sun isn't quite big enough to do that. It can go red giant, which is already enough to toast us. That's still a couple billion years away, though.</nitpick>

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    19. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative

      It can go red giant, which is already enough to toast us.

      Actually, Earth is toast much earlier than that. As the sun ages, its luminosity increases, and in only about a billion years, there will be no liquid water on Earths surface due to the increased temperature, even though the sun will live for another couple of billion years before becoming a red giant.

    20. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Because most of their work is PR?

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    21. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Convector · · Score: 1

      At first, I misread you subject line as "Slashdot has a high burden of proof." ...

      Time to be having more coffee

    22. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      For example, if there had been 5 Phoenix landers instead of one (five landers incidentally would have cost less than five times the cost of one Phoenix lander), we'd be able to compare the legs of the working vehicles.

      I've read through this sentence 5 times and I still don't see how your math works. 5 times anything costing X will equal 5X in any math book that I saw (mumble) decades ago. What am I missing?

    23. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      In every country there's always going to be a starving part of the population. It's called anorexia.

    24. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by JasonKChapman · · Score: 1

      You're missing two things. Neither is guaranteed, but both are likely. One is that the economy of scale often kicks in very early on at the prototyping level. The error part of trial-and-error gets spread more thinly. The other is that part of the 1X cost includes R&D. Again, that cost gets spread more thinly at 5X.

      --
      Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
    25. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      For example, if there had been 5 Phoenix landers instead of one (five landers incidentally would have cost less than five times the cost of one Phoenix lander), we'd be able to compare the legs of the working vehicles.

      You're assuming that any two were within traveling distance of each other after after flying for months and landing via superball.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    26. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Phoenix landers don't travel. The idea is that the five landers would be in different environments (let's presume all polar environments though). So if something that looks like dew is collecting on one lander, there'd be a good chance that it'd form on one or more of the others. But due to their separate environments, there would be differences in the timing and amount (in addition to more raw data) that could help decide these questions. I think a poorly understood (at least by the public) part of the Mars Expedition Rovers (and of the original Viking probes) was that they were on Mars at the same time so you could compare observations in two different locations, but made at the same time with near identical equipment.

    27. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Jason Chapman in the other reply pretty much nailed it. R&D for five nearly identical probes isn't much more expensive than R&D for one. Historically, R&D has been significant compared to the cost of building the first probe. For example, the cost of building and launching the second Mars Exploration Rover (MER) was about half the cost of building (including R&D) the first. Also as Jason said, there tends to be economies of scale which reduce the cost of additional probes. For example, there is an engineering rule of thumb called the "learning curve effect" (which I gather predates the use of "learning curve" in user interface design). The idea is that with a doubling of the amount of a particular activity, the average cost of performing that activity drops by some amount (commonly 10-15%). There are other effects which can drive up costs. For example, in order to launch 5 probes to Mars around the same time using current technology, they need to all be launched in a few month long window of time that happens once every two years.

      There can be other factors as well. For the MER craft, there were two costs which would be resistant to scaling. First, there were two spare Delta II rockets that Boeing offered at reduced price to the mission. They would likely offer more Delta IIs at a much higher price since these would need to be manufactured. Second, the MER craft exploited an unusually low delta v transfer orbit between Earth and Mars. I'm not sure just how rare it is, but I gather there's no more than a few similar opportunities this century. All additional MER craft would have to be launched in this particular launch window.

      Improved propulsion design (eg, nuclear powered electric propulsion) can reduce or eliminate some of these bottlenecks, but it still remains that a vigorous program of unmanned (or manned) space exploration can saturate near future space launch capabilities. This might provide a significant obstruction to my economies of scale argument.

    28. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Now there's a modest proposal that I can support.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    29. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Some people will starve. Some people will be unemployed.

      It would be nice to minimize this, but what is the proper way to do so?

      Feed the unemployed to the starving?

      A modest proposal, but I like it.

    30. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

      Yeahhh that's the ticke... crap, wait.. who eats who?

      --
      simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
    31. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You both.

      That's the most terrifying thing I've ever read on Slashdot.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    32. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wasnt it "analyzed" why send a device to "analyze" something if it cant "analyze".

      WTFP of spending millions of dollars on something if it aint going to work?

    33. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      OK, I see what you were trying to say. I would contend that the actual cost would have been, at best, more like 1 * Pheonix + (4 * 0.2 Phoenix). You're still dealing with bleeding edge technology operating under the most severe conditions imaginable. This is not easy stuff we're talking about doing here, after all.

    34. Re:Science has a high burden of proof. by pseudonymphetamine · · Score: 1

      Feed the unemployed to the starving(?)

      Well, that's a job right there.

  9. pressure? by Raleel · · Score: 1

    would the perchlorate they suspect in there keep it liquid at the (what I believe to be is) low atmospheric pressure on Mars? Seriously don't know :)

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:pressure? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      would the perchlorate they suspect in there keep it liquid at the (what I believe to be is) low atmospheric pressure on Mars? Seriously don't know :)

      Surface tension might be a factor as well. The forces which keep molecules stuck together on small scales can prevent water molecules from flying off.

    2. Re:pressure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, some perchlorates are hygroscopic, meaning they absorb water out of the air, just like DampRid does.

      More disturbing, is that perchlorates tend to be corrosive, since they have lots of chemically bound oxygen. This means that those lovely dewdrops forming on the rover could be quite detrimental to it's health, if indeed they do contain perchlorates.

      More interesting, is that one can liberate a good deal of oxygen gas from perchlorates when heated in a sealed crucible to it's critical temperature.

  10. Why is this news so important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    "Therefore there must have been life on mars, therefore we must have descended from alien bacteria, therefore the Bible must be wrong, therefore there must be no God, therefore religious people shouldn't lecture me about sleeping around."

    Strange globs found on Mars? - OH C'MON! No wonder such news turns on so many people.

    1. Re:Why is this news so important? by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 1

      "Therefore there must have been life on mars, therefore we must have descended from alien bacteria, therefore the Bible must be wrong, therefore there must be no God, therefore religious people shouldn't lecture me about sleeping around."

      Strange globs found on Mars? - OH C'MON! No wonder such news turns on so many people.

      Sir you disgust me.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  11. Not necessarily water... by AnonGCB · · Score: 1

    It could easily be some other liquid guys, for example, CO2 is common in the atmosphere there, and it does condense at the poles to ice, why not condense to water on the rovers?

    --
    http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    1. Re:Not necessarily water... by cammoblammo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Carbon Dioxide won't condense to water because

      1) It's not water; and
      2) if you're meaning 'liquid' CO2 doesn't appear in a liquid form at pressures below 5.1 (Earth) atmospheres of pressure. On Mars it will only appear as either gas or 'dry ice.'

      Of course, there are plenty of other liquids it could be, and that's why no-one in the know has actually identified it as water.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    2. Re:Not necessarily water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, get your chemistry right. CO2 cannot be liquid at marsian pressures. Hell, it cannot even be liquid under standard earth pressure (that's why you call frozen CO2 it *dry* ice). To liquefy CO2 you need high pressure. I mean sheeeeesh, and you want to be a nerd?!

    3. Re:Not necessarily water... by AnonGCB · · Score: 1

      I wasn't suggesting it would condense to water, but that it could be liquid CO2 as an alternative. I didn't realize though that it needed to be highly pressurized to be liquid though, thanks for correcting me.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
  12. Silly by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'd think any lander we send up there looking for water would have the ability to analyze any liquid droplets growing, merging, and dripping on the lander's leg over the course of a Martian month.

    Another example of why the "why send humans, robots can do everything just as well" idea is bogus. If that was an astronaut up there this would be resolved in a minute, not a month.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Silly by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      If that was an astronaut up there this would be resolved in a minute, not a month.

      ...Astronaut samples the water, "Hmm, tastes pretty good...gack...gack..." Cue any number of "Martian Zombie" movies... Now do you see why we just send robots? Sure their programming sometimes goes bad and they start killing us, but don't EAT OUR BRAINS!

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Silly by Morty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sending an astronaut is many times as expensive, since we need more safety, need to keep the astronaut alive during the long trip over, and need to bring the astronaut back. After all, we have already sent the lander, but are not scheduled to send people for many years. So it's probably better to send the machine and wait a month than to wait the many years before we can send a person.

      It also helps to know a lot about the environment before we risk sending an astronaut.

    3. Re:Silly by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I meant more like analyzing by other means that tasting it...

      Astronaut: "Mission Control, I see some strange liquid substance here on Mars, how should I proceed?"

      Mission Control: "Hey, why don't you just pop it in your mouth, see what it tastes like"

      Astronaut: "Mmm, yummy"

      Mission Control: "You do realize that was a joke,...... right?"

      Astronaut: "Must...kill...humans..."

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Silly by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      Sure their programming sometimes goes bad and they start killing us, but don't EAT OUR BRAINS!

      Entirely their loss, as far as I'm concerned.

      *is treated to a thoughtful lunch*

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

      If that was an astronaut up there this would be resolved in a minute, not a month.

      If that was an astronaut up there, he would have starved 19 times by now. Remember that the mission was planned for ninety days, and the robots celebrated their five-year anniversary about a month ago.

    6. Re:Silly by dramaley · · Score: 1

      Sending an astronaut is many times as expensive, since we need more safety, need to keep the astronaut alive during the long trip over, and need to bring the astronaut back.

      Why? Why not send the first astronauts on 1-way trips? Of course it would be a suicide mission, but i'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers. Rather than spend the resources to bring them back, use the same resources to send enough supplies that the astronaut is able to live on the surface of Mars for several years.

      --
      ----- "I'm still sane on three planets and two moons."
    7. Re:Silly by grumbel · · Score: 1

      If you would have send humans, they would have already left the planet years ago and never made that discovery in the first place. Oh, an of course it would have cost 1000 times as much as those rovers. Humans in space really only serves the purpose of learning how to keep humans alive in space, if you want to get actual science done, you are much better of spending that money robots.

    8. Re:Silly by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      If that was an astronaut up there this would be resolved in a minute, not a month.

      ...Astronaut samples the water, "Hmm, tastes pretty good...gack...gack..." Cue any number of "Martian Zombie" movies... Now do you see why we just send robots? Sure their programming sometimes goes bad and they start killing us, but don't EAT OUR BRAINS!

      You obviously haven't seen any Martian Zombie Robot films...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    9. Re:Silly by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Why? Why not send the first astronauts on 1-way trips? Of course it would be a suicide mission, but i'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers.

      If we could somehow convince the terrorists now in Gitmo there are Westerners there to blow up, we could solve the one-way trip-volunteer problem AND the what-to-do-with-the-detainees-when-Gitmo-closes problem in one fell swoop.

      A twofer!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Silly by maxume · · Score: 1

      There isn't really any need to bring the astronaut back. People don't like to think and talk that way, but I'll bet you a nickle that there wouldn't simply be someone willing to go, there would be a long line of people competing to go.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Silly by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't seen any Martian Zombie Robot films...

      Does Futurama count?

      Bender: Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    12. Re:Silly by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Why? Why not send the first astronauts on 1-way trips? Of course it would be a suicide mission, but i'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers. Rather than spend the resources to bring them back, use the same resources to send enough supplies that the astronaut is able to live on the surface of Mars for several years.

      Undoubtedly there would be plenty of volunteers from amongst the suicidal and those who are deluded as to the glory of space travel. The difficulty of course, is that the first group behaves unpredictably at the best of times, and the second group would experience a form of enlightment part way through the exercise. Then they would regret their choice to die for a cause that is essentially without meaning - they are on Mars to do a machines job. Whilst on Mars, they will be kept alive for a short time, by machines.

      This leaves us with three possible outcomes:
      1. We send a depressed perosn who thinks their life is worth nothing. Result: The public is treated to the spectacle of a person dying who, had they been given proper treatment by professionals, would have lived a long and meaningful life on earth, and who, had they been "in their right mind" would never have chosen to go.

      2. We send a person (the Idealogue), who is deluded by a fantasy of the glory of space travel and the future of human space travel. The realities overcome the delusion and the Idealogue regrets the decision. Result: The public is treated to the spectacle of a person stuck on Mars who wants to return but cannot, wants to live, but cannot.

      3. We send the Idealogue and the realities fail to overcome the delusion. Result: The public is treated to a spectacle much like videos of Palestinian suicide bombers - footage of the dying person spouting idealogies that we cannot relate to, that do not match reality as we understand it.

      Any of those outcomes would result in (understandable) outrage and most likely bring an end to the era of human space travel. A gruesome book end to Gargarins success.

    13. Re:Silly by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      I think that willingly volunteering for a suicide mission should be more than enough to disqualify you from becoming an astronaut.

    14. Re:Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not send people old enough that their natural lifespan is provided for by the supplies, then?

    15. Re:Silly by initialE · · Score: 1

      Seeing as this is a 1-way trip, sure he's spent 1 minute sampling the water, but what's he going to do with the rest of his life?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    16. Re:Silly by flewp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Alternatively, it could be the best attribute to look for - someone who is just that dedicated.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    17. Re:Silly by GayBliss · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I meant more like analyzing by other means that tasting it...

      So we really just need his arm to transfer the droplet from the leg to the testing device. We should be able to send a robot capable of that with much less cost and time. If the first 10 attempts fail, we are still ahead...

      And if takes another year or 5 years, it's not really time critical. Unless of course you have a human sitting on the planet waiting for a replacement testing device and a sandwich.

    18. Re:Silly by maxume · · Score: 1

      Because it makes you squeamish? Or do you have some other reason?

      A mission to mars will cost billions of dollars. A human life is worth far less than that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Silly by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      I'm not squeamish about it in the least, I just think it shows a massive deficit in not just their sanity but their ability to get the job done under intense isolation and stress. Not to mention anyone involved in organising something like this should be charged with 1st degree murder. Putting a price on a life is inhumane, but not as much as sending someone to their certain death. I would want a crew that fought for their lives to their last breath, not one who will willingly accept death.

    20. Re:Silly by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you eat fish? Each one of the guys who goes out into the ocean on a little boat puts a price on his life each time he does it. People who purchase cars that are not 100% safe put a price on their own lives. Society puts a price on lives when they don't fund police more. And on and on. Only when we are inescapably confronted with it do we speak against it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:Silly by sorak · · Score: 1

      You'd think any lander we send up there looking for water would have the ability to analyze any liquid droplets growing, merging, and dripping on the lander's leg over the course of a Martian month.

      Another example of why the "why send humans, robots can do everything just as well" idea is bogus. If that was an astronaut up there this would be resolved in a minute, not a month.

      I think I saw this on "CSI: Mars". They pointed a blue light at it and determined that it was 10% blood, 70% semen, and 20% water.

    22. Re:Silly by sorak · · Score: 1

      Sending an astronaut is many times as expensive, since we need more safety, need to keep the astronaut alive during the long trip over, and need to bring the astronaut back.

      You haven't read the zombie posts, have you. We can send a dead astronaut over there, and then we only have to worry about safety on the trip back.

    23. Re:Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps different people value things differently. What will you do in your entire life that will have any value at all to society? Nothing is the answer. You could have died 10 minutes ago and nothing would be different. What exactly are you going to be doing in the next N years that is so valuable, you're still going to die and leave nothing in the world to make it better.

      How about this, "What exactly would you die for and why can you value that more than other people value science?"

    24. Re:Silly by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Perhaps different people value things differently. What will you do in your entire life that will have any value at all to society? Nothing is the answer.

      Oddly you begin by making an appeal for me to respect the subjective values of others, but then presume to make judgements about the objective worth of my life.

      How about this, "What exactly would you die for and why can you value that more than other people value science?"

      Non sequitur - We aren't talking about people who value science. We are talking about people who would set aside science for to focus on sending humans to mars - a scientifically unjustifiable exercise.

  13. Exactly. by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

    That's why scientists aren't calling it water.
    I already see a few anti-science posts here, and it's astounding that these knuckle draggers don't understand that there is more than one substance this could be, and scientists won't say what it is until they can prove what it is.

    1. Re:Exactly. by timmarhy · · Score: 2

      water could very well mean life, and they fear the implications of that.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Exactly. by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      scientists won't say what it is until they can prove what it is.

      You'd think they would have included a simple test to determine if any liquid they find is water since that is one of the main reasons they are there.

      Also why is it so hard to detect life? I could get a crappy child's microscope and look at a drop of muddy water here on earth and easily find life. Why not include a simple microscope and look at a drop of the liquid?

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    3. Re:Exactly. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      tasks that are simple here on earth, are shit loads harder when your a few million miles away on another planet....

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Exactly. by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      tasks that are simple here on earth, are shit loads harder when your a few million miles away on another planet....

      I understand this but these are simple enough tests to include considering the more advanced testing they did include.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    5. Re:Exactly. by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you don't understand.

    6. Re:Exactly. by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you don't understand.

      Ok you can tell people they don't understand, congratulations. Now can you tell us why you do understand, maybe enlighten us with your superior understanding or do you just shout out insults from behind the safety of your PC like some paranoid Tourette's patient?

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    7. Re:Exactly. by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Things are a lot harder because these scientists don't have a full lab to work with. They chose which tests they would be able to run before the rovers and probes launched and chose not to include certain tests based on what they knew at the time.

  14. If there is ice there is water by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    If there is ice there is water http://wever.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/its-official-water-ice-on-mars/

    But the droplets now seen are cooler... err, they're warmer (pun originally not intended)

  15. So what? More important issue at this point ... by cwtrex · · Score: 1

    It's awesome that we keep finding evidence of water on Mars, but how are astronauts going to live there long term? Expanded space crafts? Bubbles? Underground? Or how about an even better long term solution if eventually possible: strengthen the magnetic field for mars so it can hold more of an atmosphere while molding the air to our needs.

  16. Re:So what? More important issue at this point ... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    i don't think the magnetic field is the problem, mars simlpy doesn't have a great enough mass for it's gravity to hold a thick enough atmosphere?

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  17. JPL's next grant application: is it water? by GSGKT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dear ___funding agency____, Is there surface water on Mars? We need to send another mission to Mars. It should cost less than the amount of money GM asked for bailout during this funding period to study this question, and 2 five-year funding periods to really find out. Please send money. JPL/NASA

  18. Good News Everyone! by jamesmcm · · Score: 1

    This would make it much easier to set up a colony if we needed to. It'd be a bit like Dune, but at least it'd probably be possible now (although obv. oxygen and atmospheric pressure are still an issue)

  19. but the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If an astronaut wants to take a shower, he or she will be out of luck. The Martian folks that H.G. Wells wrote about, have dibs on all the hot water.

  20. Re:So what? More important issue at this point ... by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well then, we just need to increase the gravitational constant of the universe as well.

  21. Did I miss something? by nicklott · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I thought we'd already established that there was water on mars? You know, those giant ice cap things? The streams running down the slopes? Why do we have to be amazed and surprised each time we get a new picture of it?

    I'm really failing to understand the priorities when it comes to exploration of Mars. All missions are now touted as searching for either water or "life", presumably to garner a bit of publicity in order to keep their funding. We must by now be 100% confident there is H20 there now, and 99.98% certain that there is no, and never has been, life. Also if we're wrong about the 0.02% we can be 100% confident that it is at least 2 billion years since it last metabolized whatever it is that hypothetical martians metabolize and therefore will have no ascertainable impact on, well, anything. Even geological literature will be pretty much unmoved at this point.

    Anyway, the point is; can't we start doing some interesting stuff on Mars now? Send some monkeys up there or something?

    1. Re:Did I miss something? by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Funny

      please go back to watching american idol now, grown ups will keep doing the science. *pats on head*

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Did I miss something? by nicklott · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually the final year of my space science degree almost entirely revolved around martian geology and impact cratering (you wanna know how many craters per square km there are in amazonis planitia? or the southern highlands? TS, go count em yourself...)

      So anyway, bite me.

    3. Re:Did I miss something? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      sorry, your comment made it sound like you were a memeber of the american idol/ring tone generation.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Did I miss something? by nicklott · · Score: 1
      I am not. I am however frustrated by the singular lack of real progress that anyone's made in the 15 years since I was involved. Most of the Spirit/Opportunity mission seems to be mainly about confirming stuff that we were already pretty sure of, plus getting a few more pictures.

      Which is not to say driving a buggy around mars is not pretty cool, but it's not really going anywhere.

    5. Re:Did I miss something? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      While you may have some info that has not been conveyed to the general public, it seems to me that the question of whether their is life is still not really answered, and the question of whether there ever was life, certainly has not been answered. That being said, as far as I know, you are correct that we now KNOW that there is water on Mars, and only "Dinosaur bones are Satan trying to trick us." crowd would think that sending up humans, monkeys, or whatever would completely eradicate any signs of pre-human life on Mars. And, I would guess that those 'KNOW' that there has never been life there, just like they 'KNOW' that dinosaurs never existed.

      So, while I do slightly disagree with a couple of your reasoning points, I have to say that your conclusion is absolutely correct.

    6. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at the possibility of moon craters being caused by a process similar to electric arc machining? The crater featues are strikingly similiar (flat bottom, raised ridges, occasionally a mound in the middle).

      It strikes me odd that moon craters all appear to have been struck 'perpendicular' to the moons surface. Especially considering how weak the moons gravitational field is...

    7. Re:Did I miss something? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If you've got the money, honey -
      We'll spend your dime.

      Your friends at the JPL
      (PayPal donations welcome)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Did I miss something? by nicklott · · Score: 1

      Actually that was one of the things we were looking at (without the electric arcing); there ARE very few low angle impact craters. There are a range of reasons but the largest is that an impact crater looks round even for pretty low impact angles. It has to be like 75 degrees from perpendicular to show any serious deformation (IIRC). On mars you also have an atmosphere to deal with and any body coming in at that kind of angle will just skip off, so only the ones relatively close to perpendicular will get through.

    9. Re:Did I miss something? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      We must by now be 100% confident there is H20 there now, and 99.98% certain that there is no, and never has been, life.

      I thought those were more like 99% and 0%, respectively.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, the point is; can't we start doing some interesting stuff on Mars now? Send some monkeys up there or something?

      Thanks for the offer -- we will keep you in mind for our next flight.

      Sincerely,

      NASA

  22. Re:More Proof... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Saying that "martians created humans" only takes the "why do we exist?" question and changes it to "why do martians exist?".

    You didn't really answer anything, the whole "why does life exists" question still remains.

  23. Martian dog by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    It proves that a Martian dog found a leg to pee on.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Martian dog by macshit · · Score: 1

      It proves that a Martian dog found a leg to pee on.

      ... and he had been holding it in for close to five billion years! ("Any place to pee now?" "nope" "...how about now?" "nope" "oooh, a rock! roof! er, how about now?"... "nope"...)

      Guaranteed, that martian dog is now, Our Friend!

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    2. Re:Martian dog by EvilToiletPaper · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope it didn't try to hump the pathfinder too.

    3. Re:Martian dog by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope it didn't try to hump the pathfinder too.

      Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays?

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  24. Re:JPL's next grant application: is it water? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

    Dear JPL. While we are thrilled about your discovery, Mars isn't going anywhere. We are trying to save the economy and lesten the impact of this economic down turn so that we can spend even more money on you guys in the future. Spending 10 billion on machinists creates more jobs than spending 10 billion on rocket scientists. Hope you understand.

    Funding Agency.

  25. Re:More Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Replace "martians" with "God" and try again.

  26. Re:So what? More important issue at this point ... by Suicyco · · Score: 1

    Of course it does, there is ample gravity for an atmosphere. The magnetic field isn't really the issue for an atmosphere, its the shielding from solar radiation that the magnetic field helps with. Without one, life will have a hard time taking hold, and living on the surface will be problematic.

  27. Re:More Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They created themselves. Duh.

  28. Phoenix was above the triple point by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see that this is that surprising. The Phoenix landing site was low enough to have the surface pressure above the "triple point" of water, so liquid water is just a matter of having it being warm enough (or having enough salts to depress the freezing point enough).

    1. Re:Phoenix was above the triple point by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder if all the digging into the permafrost increased humidity around the lander, and caused condensation on the structure.

    2. Re:Phoenix was above the triple point by mbone · · Score: 1

      The lander did have heaters...

    3. Re:Phoenix was above the triple point by mbone · · Score: 1

      Thinking about it, if any parts of the Phoenix surface were heated above 0 C, liquid water condensation would have almost certainly formed there.

  29. Re:JPL's next grant application: is it water? by GSGKT · · Score: 1

    Dear Funding Agency: JPL has a great track record for "less money for greater success"! In addition, the initial $520M for Mars Lander projects has kept many physcists and engineers happily employed. Instead of giving $$ to further enrich Wall Street bankers, business exec, hedgefund traders, etc., this project will employ the brightest minds in this great country to achieve no other countries can in the next N years(and pile up more bull-s*&t here until the BS meter breaks).

  30. Wrong domain by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You registered the wrong domain. You should have registered martianhomeopathy.com. I just checked and it is still available, as well as the .net, .org, and .mobi variants. You see, shipping millions of gallons of water down from Mars would be prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, if you market it as 'Homeopathy', you can actually advertise that you have diluted billions of gallons of earth water with just one itty bitty tiny drop of actual Martian water. This will be seen by many of the homeopathy crowd as giving it more powerful juju than if you had shipped 100% pure Martian water.

    While I'm not saying that getting that first drop of Martian water would be cheap or easy, but it certainly would be cheaper and easier than setting up a full scale harvesting and shipping system for pure water.

    1. Re:Wrong domain by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This will be seen by many of the homeopathy crowd as giving it more powerful juju than if you had shipped 100% pure Martian water.

      Huh, I knew that homeopaths(?) think you can dilute something infinitely and it still retains the same properties. It never occurred to me that they would think it's actually better.

      Okay, so we have two varieties: One is advertised as 100% fresh Martian spring water. The other is advertised as being a incredibly dilute mixture of fresh Martian spring water.

      In both cases, it'll be water from my garden hose.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Wrong domain by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are many that believe it is better. Odd I know. The basic premise of homeopathy is not totally absurd. It is basically the idea that substances that cause similar symptoms to a disease can protect you from or cure the disease. So, immunization. As is the case with many 'alternative' ideas, there is a group that decided it was magic and have gone off on some bizarre tangent.

  31. Re:More Proof... by xOneca · · Score: 1

    Wow! They're very smart!

  32. Re:More Proof... [Robot Chicken] by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    More proof that the Martian race came to Earth thousands of years ago, interbred with humanity to create the white race, and has ever since been trying to take over the world. They will be done by 2012 when the Annunaki return.

    Alien 1: "Dammit Dammit Dammit!"
    Alien 2: "How were we going to take over the world with a white Michael Jackson anyway?"
    Alien 1: "Dammit!

  33. Re:So what? More important issue at this point ... by tcolberg · · Score: 1

    Isn't it also the case that the magnetic field helps shield atmospheres from being sandblasted by the solar wind? Isn't one of the current theories about early Martian atmosphere is that it was once thicker, but once the core cooled and the magnetic field dissipated, the atmosphere was thinned by the solar wind?

  34. nice, but not surprising by speedtux · · Score: 2, Informative

    The fact that liquid water can be stable on the surface of Mars has been known for a while. Direct observation, of course, is nice. The next question is whether there might be significant open bodies of water (brine) in some locations. Some satellite photographs could be interpreted that way.

    The existence of perchlorates adds another dimension, though, because they are such an effective anti-freeze and a potential metabolite. The perchlorates might actually be biologically generated on Mars, somewhat similar to the way organisms on Earth have generated large amounts of oxygen and changed the environment on a global scale. On Earth, reduction in CO2 levels was an important factor in making the climate more hospitable, and on Mars, generation of perchlorates may make the water more accessible.

    1. Re:nice, but not surprising by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Liquid water can be stable on Mars' atmosphere provided the water contains a LOT of perchlorate minerals in the water. That means the water with these minerals will vaporize much more slowly than just plain water, which will literally boil away at the equivalent of 90,000 feet altitude (which is pretty close to the atmospheric pressure of Mars).

    2. Re:nice, but not surprising by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Should be easy to know, if the lander had a "weather station" two of the measurements should have been atmospheric pressure and temperature. One other problem I have with the "liquid water blobs" is that the images were all taken in the shadow of the lander, which would be even colder than any measured atmospheric temperature above the lander.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    3. Re:nice, but not surprising by jipn4 · · Score: 1

      Liquid water can be stable on Mars' atmosphere provided the water contains a LOT of perchlorate minerals in the water.

      It also works for pure water, barely.

      The pressure on the surface of Mars is 600-1200 Pa (bottom of Hellas Basin). The triple point of water is at 611 Pa and 0.01C. Around the triple point, you gain about 0.02C in boiling point per Pa, so at lower elevations, you can have pure liquid water from about 0C to 10C. Surface temperature can reach 0C. So, you can barely have pure liquid water on the surface of Mars. People have actually verified this experimentally... it works.

      That has a number of implications. Thawing frost can turn liquid and wet the soil microscopically. And many kinds of salt (not just perchlorate) will have a big effect.

  35. Martian month? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that a Phobos month, or a Deimos month?

  36. Re:JPL's next grant application: is it water? by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear JPL. While we are thrilled about your discovery, Mars isn't going anywhere. We are trying to save the economy and lesten the impact of this economic down turn so that we can spend even more money on you guys in the future. Spending 10 billion on machinists creates more jobs than spending 10 billion on rocket scientists. Hope you understand.

    Funding Agency.

    Dear _Funding Agency_,

    We here at JPL understand your position. Since you feel that the space program has no benefits worth funding, we'll be sending over a large fleet of trucks to collect all your computers and other technology made possible by research connected with said space program.

    We understand your need to keep operating however, and in the spirit of mutual understanding you've shown us, we will be sending you Univac for your future computational needs. Please have a very large building with a large electrical power system and a team of vacuum-tube replacement technicians ready.

    Best of luck,

    JPL

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  37. your math is lousy by speedtux · · Score: 1

    The Phoenix lander had an arm; it could have easily touched these globules to see whether they were liquid as well. It didn't because they were discovered after mission end. The same can happen to you on a manned mission. But let's look at the costs...

    The Phoenix mission cost $386 million (development, launch, mission). That sounds like a lot until you realize that a single space shuttle launch costs $500 million. A human mission to Mars costs at least $500 billion if everything goes right. That's more than 1000 probes to Mars (and/or other planets)! And if we started mass producing space probes, the costs would go down very quickly.

    For the cost of a single attempt at a manned Mars mission, we could send hundreds of probes to every plant and many planetoids and asteroids, drilling, searching for life, etc. Those probes would send back video, use arms, drive around the surface, analyze samples, fly, drill, explore oceans and gas planets. They could be remotely operated or work autonomously, depending on the situation. Powered by RTGs, they could operate for years and be ready and even available for rent. And we can send up these probes quickly and they can yield results quickly.

    The idea that anybody would want to waste money on a manned mission to Mars is extremely frustrating. The scientific output from a manned mission would be tiny compared to what we can gain with unmanned probes.

    As for the globules, we will know whether there is liquid water on Mars long before humans ever set foot on it, and at a miniscule fraction of the cost. In fact, the only way we an even have a manned mission to Mars is to gather a lot of data about the planet before going there.

  38. Yo Hooston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We gots a sit up in heah.

  39. New WOG level by iCodemonkey · · Score: 1

    no its actualy a new world of goo 2 level 2d boy is working on.

    --
    Deja Moo: The feeling you've heard this bullsh*t before.
  40. Re:More Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... why does God exist?

  41. What the? by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    If the probe can take self-pictures, wouldn't wavelength-specific pictures be easily taken with a handful of filters, and then the pictures sent back to earth for spectrochemical analysis?

    I'm tired of these "signal", "may", and "perhaps". The technology is definitely there to give a definite answer.

  42. !!ATTENTION!! Please tag story SEMEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, oh please. I would love for once to see this show up as a tag on the front page as the strange glob.

  43. Re:More Proof... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    What if it's true?

  44. Wait... liquid??? by Murpster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this is supposedly water, or some other liquid, that's forming on exposed metal on a generally windy planet, and we're seeing photos over a 36 day period. Then why is it that there are quite a few persistent blobs that stay in the same place with basically the same shape over that period, while new ones form? Have any of you ever seen water droplets on your car retain their position and shape over 36 hours, much less 36 days? Isn't Mars generally pretty windy? Shouldn't there be much more rearrangement of blobs between these photos if we were looking at something like rain or condensation? If you showed me a picture series like that and said was a picture of a plant on Earth, I'd look at the spreading blobs and immediately tell you it was showing a spreading infestation of scale bugs (or some mealybug relative perhaps). Not saying this is evidence of life on Mars, but I'm interested to hear an explanation of how exposed liquid droplets on a metal surface outdoors can be persistent for that long, while more and more of them appear as time goes on.

    1. Re:Wait... liquid??? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      That an interesting question, but what it makes me wonder is how liquid behaves in lesser gravity than earth. Could weaker gravity cause liquid to behave slightly different than it does here on earth?

    2. Re:Wait... liquid??? by Murpster · · Score: 1

      That's an idea I had too... surely someone's seen this on a space shuttle/station? There must be some data on low gravity water drops. Still would need to account for the stuff being outdoors in the wind and all without moving. Other possibility is it isn't liquid, but ice which just looks liquid. Or Mars bugs hehe.

    3. Re:Wait... liquid??? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Isn't Mars generally pretty windy?

      Yes, but with only about 1% of the density of Earth's atmosphere, the wind would be nearly imperceptible.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Wait... liquid??? by Murphy(c) · · Score: 1

      Yes, but with only about 1% of the density of Earth's atmosphere, the wind would be nearly imperceptible.

      Well I'm certainly no astrophysicist or even the armchair version. But it seems to me that wind levels on Mars can be quite energetic (relatively speaking).
      At least enough to throw up some dust and act as dust devils.

      These have also been postulated to be on of the reason why the solar panels seemed to get cleaned from time to time for no apparent reason.

      Murphy(c)

  45. Re:More Proof... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    Duh, the Venusians created the Martians.

  46. Touch your right elbow with your right hand. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    You'd think any lander we send up there looking for water would have the ability to analyze any liquid droplets growing, merging, and dripping on the lander's leg over the course of a Martian month.

    It is entirely possible that the sampling arm cannot touch the leg of the lander. The arm may have limit switches and/or physical blocks that prevent it. After all, you wouldn't want to get the sampling arm pinned in the landing struts if there is a software glitch. Besides, there may not be a tool on the sampling arm that could collect a sample, or an instrument left on the science pallet that could analyze the liquid. The TEGA only has eight sample ovens, and I'm guessing these have all been used at this point.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  47. More likely ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the globs are the remains of the last Martian crushed beneath an interplanetary SUV.

  48. Re:More Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More proof that the Martian race came to Earth thousands of years ago, interbred with humanity to create the white race, and has ever since been trying to take over the world. They will be done by 2012 when the Annunaki return.

    K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, arrives late to this thread, and frowns disapprovingly in your direction.

    When a junior reporter inquired what precisely was meant by this gesture, K'Breel explained that his "disapproving frown" was accompanied by the surgical stapling of the Anonymous Coward's gelsac to one of Opportunity's wheels in an effort to slow the invader's year-long trek "in the general direction of" the next crater.

  49. Rust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Err... How corrosion proof is the lander?

  50. Re:JPL's next grant application: is it water? by Convector · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just FYI, NASA _is_ the funding agency.

    Below is a marginal summary of the process. My colleagues will no doubt correct me where needed. For the record, IAAPS (I am a planetary scientist). It's a terrible system, but it's better than any of the alternatives.

    Congress gives NASA some amount of money each year (~0.6% of the total budget). The bulk of this goes to the shuttle and space station programs, but a significant fraction is leftover for science and mission operations. This is portioned out to the various programs (Outer Planets Research, Planetary Geology and Geophysics, Mars Fundamental Research, etc.).

    Scientists at their various institutions (including JPL) write grant proposals to one of the NASA programs to fund their research and spacecraft missions. Yes, JPL is a NASA center. Yes, this means that NASA employees still have to write to NASA asking for funding.

    Each program convenes a panel of scientists (who have not submitted proposals to that program that year) to evaluate the proposals. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, panel members recuse themselves from discussion of any proposals by members of his/her institution. The NASA program manager selects which proposals to fund based on the panel's evaluations.

  51. Dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No water, but proof that ther're dogs on Mars.

  52. Could be dangerous by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

    Dont bring it here, its the BLOB. lol

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  53. Re:More Proof... by khallow · · Score: 1

    Saying that "martians created humans" only takes the "why do we exist?" question and changes it to "why do martians exist?".

    You didn't really answer anything, the whole "why does life exists" question still remains.

    You answered the question, "Why do humans exist on Earth?" And under the hypothesized circumstances, you wouldn't answer fundamental questions by studying life derived from other life. Instead study the Martian life if you want to drill down to fundamental questions.

  54. Re:More Proof... by tmosley · · Score: 1

    Because we made Him, obviously.

  55. What paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strange globs seen on the landing strut of the Phoenix Mars lander could be the first proof that modern Mars hosts liquid water, a new paper reports.

    How about a link to the actual paper?

  56. Obligatory post-Bush-era posting: by jafac · · Score: 1

    It's not water.

    It's oil.
    Translucent, Martian oil.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  57. Re:More Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still the same problem. Where did God come from?

    Of course, goddidites use the "it's always been" cop-out, but that's hardly relevant to anyone who actually wants the answer.