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?"

26 of 186 comments (clear)

  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 tcolberg · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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!

  4. 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 Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Funny

      You both.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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"...

    7. 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?
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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....
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. 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).

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.