Phoenix Digs First Mars Soil Sample To Analyze

An anonymous reader writes "Nearly two weeks after its historic landing, the US Mars probe Phoenix has scooped up its first sample of Martian soil and begun analyzing it for water and organic compounds. The test dig made Sunday by the Phoenix Mars Lander's 8-foot-long robotic arm uncovered bits of bright specks in the soil believed to be ice or salt. Mission controllers will send instructions to the lander to dump the sample into one of the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyzer (TEGA) ovens. The TEGA ovens, which are about an inch long and the diameter of a pencil lead, will heat up the soil samples and use a mass spectrometer to detect the gases that come off the samples, which will shed light on some of the materials in the soil, specifically those formed by the process of liquid water."

Dig it, baby!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I first read that as Phoenix really getting a kick out of the sample. Man I'm old.

I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[Majik Sheff (930627)]

Perhaps some day in my lifetime we can get some feet on mars. God only knows it won't happen in the current climate.

Re:

[mopower70 (250015)]

There's a good chance that in your lifetime the current climate will become like Mars'.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[physman_wiu (933339)]

We have the technology to get there, but not really the drive. Why spend billions of dollars to get there to just find out that there is nothing there? That would be a big slap in the face to the space program. Sure I want to get there as much as the next guy, but from a politicians point of view there is no real need. Right now there are more important things to take care of (like teaching common sense in Washington.)
The only reason why we are pushing to go back to the moon is the Chinese. Same reason as we made it there last time. Just a different country.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[Lumpy (12016)]

We have the technology to get there, but not really the drive. Why spend billions of dollars to get there to just find out that there is nothing there? That would be a big slap in the face to the space program.

Yup you're right. The Apollo missions were a HUGE FAILURE and a giant slap in the face to NASA. Everyone was pissed that we did not find anything on the moon.

Sarcasm aside, Going to mars now is as difficult as it was to go to the moon in the 60's. Cripe we went from "whats a rocket?" to "I can see my house from here" to "hey the moon really isn't made of cheese! it tastes like dirt!" in an incredibly short time with NASA back then. we need to take the same "steps" like that to gear up to a mars mission.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[rbanffy (584143)]

"Sarcasm aside, Going to mars now is as difficult as it was to go to the moon in the 60's"

I think it's much, much harder. In the 60s we had, basically, to build reliable rockets and spacecrafts for a week-long trip. In order to go to Mars, we need to build spaceships that go farther, faster and last longer. A LEM would not be able to get back to space if it stayed on the Moon for more than a month. We have never landed anything bigger than my desk in anything remotely like Mars. Those are really messy problems.

We could, probably, do it. But let's not say it'e easy. It's damn hard.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[quanticle (843097)]

Going to the moon was extremely difficult too. Remember, before the creation of NASA, the US had never launched anything into space, nor had we ever attempted to attain escape velocity. To go from zero, as it were, to craft capable of taking humans safely to orbital, and then escape velocity was a huge achievement.

By comparison, much of the prototype work for the Mars trip has already been done. We already know how to get to escape velocity, we've worked out the orbital mechanics, and we even know the basics of landing. Hell, the Viking landers figured all that out in the '70s. The big obstacle now is to make a life-support system capable of sustaining human life for the three month voyage. True, its no easy task, but I don't think it's more difficult than building a space program from scratch.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[kannibal_klown (531544)]

What's the big deal? Our space program doesn't really get much in terms of funding, especially compared to other Government programs. There's a lot of pork to cut from our budget, and if politicians start focusing on something that's a small part of a federal budget then I think they should first focus on the big blunders that got some of them rich (like the "Bridge to Nowhere").

In any case, Politicians should not be dictating what we peruse with science. They are not qualified and would let personal beliefs and "the bottom line" cloud their judgement.

As far as Science is concerned, learning that something is not there is just as important as learning as something is there. We learn something, maybe it has little value or maybe a lot. But we learn something that may be important down the line.

Not everything has to be quantified in terms of "what do we get out of it." And nothing should be quantified in terms of "what do we (the politicians) get out of it."

Re:

[physman_wiu (933339)]

Of course our space program doesn't get much funding. And I agree that our politicians shouldn't be the ones who pick where the fundings go. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. The Human race by nature is not patient. The average person likes to see the immediate benefits with anything they do (whether it be starting a business, learning a language, or going to Mars.) The average person also doesn't understand the benefits that we get from the space program. They are not aware of the important role th

Re:

[utopianfiat (774016)]

Terraforming, brah. Terraforming.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[rbanffy (584143)]

"We have the technology to get there"

Erm... No.

We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.

Even if we ignored that, we still need to build a spaceship that can carry astronauts to Mars and back, and that is not a trivial task. It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.

There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.

After the landing, we will also have to shield astronauts from cosmic radiation, since Mars have no magnetic field to speak of. They will have to be protected on the ground for the duration of the stay.

As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.

After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth. They may carry additional Mars-made fuel in the lift-off vehicle if the weight budget allows and maybe use its engine to assist the return craft own engines.

As much as I would like to see it done next year, I know there is a lot of homework to be done before we can take someone to Mars and back.

It's hugely complicated.

Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.

Re:

[physman_wiu (933339)]

"We have the technology to get there" Erm... No.

We do indeed have the technology. We know what we need to do and have the skills to be able to get us up and running. But yes, a lot of homework needs to be done, even a little research (like on how to properly shield astronauts from long term radiation effects.) I didn't mean to imply that we didn't. If a billions were pumped into the space program things would take off surprisingly fast. Say within a few years at least.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[quanticle (843097)]

We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.

That's a fair point, and one that I don't think that people emphasize enough. The difficulty of designing a life-support system for long term spaceflight is not to be underestimated.

It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.

Why would the spaceship require an especially large engine? In space you don't have nearly the same amount of friction and drag that you do on Earth. Even relatively small rockets can be effective once you're outside the atmosphere.

There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.

Who says we have to deliver it all in one giant load? It'd be much more effective to launch all of the supplies ahead of the astronauts and make sure that everything had landed properly before sending humans on their way.

As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.

Why does the orbiter have to be "reusable"? I mean, look at the Apollo missions - the lunar lander had a single-use return to Earth module. Shouldn't we use a beefed up variant of that design?

After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth.

Assuming that you've got the life support requirements worked out (which you've had to do in order to make the trip out to Mars), this procedure is virtually identical to the procedure that the Apollo astronauts had to do in order to return to Earth. The LEM had to dock with the command module for the return trip. This is the same thing, only you're docking with something like the ISS, rather than the Apollo command module.

It's hugely complicated.

That it is, but you're forgetting that a lot of it has already been done

Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.

How will living on the moon help us with going to Mars, pray tell? The moon is still inside the Earth's magnetic field, so it won't help us with the most pressing issue - designing a craft to carry humans through interplanetary space. And, as for the other problems, they were already all solved during the '60s. Why do we need to solve them again?

Re:

[CowboyNealOption (1262194)]

Why spend billions of dollars to get there to just find out that there is nothing there?

But then WE will be there. I looked at the cost of the recent mars lander; we are throwing away more than one lander every two days in Iraq.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[jamesh (87723)]

Perhaps some day in my lifetime we can get some feet on mars

A foot we can probably manage now. A whole astronaut is probably even possible with current technology, maybe we could even get one there alive!

Getting the astronaut home again though is the real problem...

Re:

[maxume (22995)]

Getting the astronaut home is only a problem if you promise him that you are going to try.

I wouldn't do it, but I'm pretty sure that you could get someone willing to take a one way trip in exchange for their place in history.

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

And piss off the Martians? No thanks.

Re:

[rbanffy (584143)]

"God only knows it won't happen in the current climate."

I must correct you.

Everybody knows a manned Mars landing is ludicrous in the current geo-political climate.

Let's keep omnipotent, all-knowing, invisible super-beings out of this. ;-)

A shame that the first attempt was a flop!

[BigBadBus (653823)]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7442233.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:A shame that the first attempt was a flop!

[SpinyNorman (33776)]

Yeah - hardly "news" when it's:

a) days old
b) superceded by failure - aka wrong

Who'd thunk that at -80C - -30C stuff would clump together when there's moisture present?

Re:A shame that the first attempt was a flop!

[SiliconEntity (448450)]

They made it so they can shake the screen and hopefully get some material through. They just haven't shaken it yet, everything is done slowly and carefully and checked many times before they take the next step.

As for the ice, the digger has a sort of drill on it that is supposed to grind up the ice into fine shavings, and then those shavings are what will be picked up and dumped in. So when they are ready for ice, that should be in small pieces that can get through the screen. They have a bunch of ovens so even if this one stays clogged they can still use some of the others for the ice samples, which is more important.

If they can't get any dirt into the oven, they might be able to use the ice drill on the dirt to get some finer pieces if they want to try again on that.

Re:

[MrMr (219533)]

The sieve was probably not tested at martian gravity or they would have fitted one of these:
http://www.navco.org/ [navco.org]

Re:

[confused one (671304)]

Actually the platform does have one of these in miniature. It didn't work.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. It's more up to date. The first digging happened several days ago (or sols ago, Mars time), they dumped the sample onto the open doors to the furnace/analyzer and ...

Nothing Happened

More specifically, the instrument did not detect any of the particles that should have passed through an infrared beam inside that is set up for detection of the sample. So, they figure that nothing went through the 1mm screen, and they are working on what went wrong.

Even that news is days old (Friday). As of

Hope it finds Oil...

[lobiusmoop (305328)]

'cause then an American manned mission to Mars would be guaranteed!

/ducks.

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

You just gave me a great idea for a made-for-Scifi movie! Someone get me Caspar Van Dien and Eric Roberts on the phone!

Re:

[4D6963 (933028)]

'cause then an American manned mission to Mars would be guaranteed!

On Soviet Mars, worn out jokes don't laugh at you.

Mod OP down.

[goodmanj (234846)]

*Sigh*. If you're going to use Slashdot to pimp your pointless tech blog, please at least make sure your information is up-to-date.

Latest news: dirt seems to be stuck, possibly too cakey to enter test chamber. Engineers are working on a solution.

Now where's *my* ten million site visits?

Re:Mod OP down.

[CraftyJack (1031736)]

Better yet, skip the tech blogs and go to the source: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/ [arizona.edu] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/main.php [nasa.gov]

Re:

[Goffee71 (628501)]

I hope these aren't the same engineers that designed an oven the diam. of a pencil lead.
What the heck were they thinking? Now they need to send up a three year old, the only system known to man that can get mud into any hole that small.

Remember guys, dust and ice = mud

Re:

[(arg!)Styopa (232550)]

That was my first question when I heard how tiny the 'ovens' are...to get the soil into an oven aperture of 2mm is a non-trivial task, and already makes significant assumptions about the viscosity and granularity of the soil. I don't get that. I am not a space scientist, but mentally grabbing a small shovelful of soil from a number of different soils here on earth (let's even limit ourselves to the most dessicated soils) and trying to dump them into a hole the size of a pen-ink tube and successfully GET s

A Better Update...

[Tablizer (95088)]

Rather than complain about stale stories, link to newer ones. You may even get modpoints for it. Anyhow, here's the best update I've found so far:

http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001501 [planetary.org]

They are having problems getting the soil to go through the screen. Although one of the pod doors (insert HAL jokes) didn't open all the way, the soil appears to have reached the screen based on the images. They dumped an extra-large load to compensate for the jammed door. The problem is that the sensors did not detect any soil going through the screen. They are now trying to figure out if its the nature of the soil (clumpy?) or an instrument problem.

If its an instrument failure, fortunately they have 7 other "ovens" to try. Redundancy is nice.
       

dig down further

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

Those bacteria in greenland were what, 2 miles into the ice? They're gonna need a longer digging arm.

Re:dig down further

[by Anonymous Coward]

Those bacteria in greenland were what, 2 miles into the ice? They're gonna need a longer digging arm.

There are bacteria on the top too. You just didn't hear about it, because it's obvious there are bacteria on the top. Finding them deep in the ice was news.

Mars Melting?

[SloWave (52801)]

Is it my imagination or is Mars melting?
If you look closely at recent pictures of the first trench it looks like the white stuff has melted. Also the sample in the scoop looks a little runny.

Re:

[Lumpy (12016)]

yes it is. the group "mars first" is scheduling a protest today about how all our recent landers and SUV sized rovers are ruining the Martian climate and creating global warming on mars.

Our thoughtless ways on mars is destroying the climate. Wont someone think of the..... the...... dust devils?

Re:

[smoker2 (750216)]

I don't care how fucking runny it is !
Have you got some ??!!

Why a lander?

[kidcharles (908072)]

Given how successful the mobile rovers have been, does anyone know about the logic of going with a stationary lander this time around?

Re:

[Overkill Nbuta (1035654)]

The main reason is while wheels are nice they take up so much weight and room on the probe that there is much much less scientific gear you can carry.

Re:

[confused one (671304)]

Cost and weight restrictions. Not to mention there's zero chance that Phoenix will survive the Martian winter.

Re:Why a lander?

[confused one (671304)]

It depends. Earth and Mars don't necessarily stay in lock step with each other. Also, a Martian year is approximately two Earth years. Mars axis tilt is similar to Earth's (25 degrees), so it has experiences seasonal temperature changes (more severe than Earth due to the lack of atmosphere which provides insulation and heat transport on Earth). The blog on the Phoenix lander web site basically comes out and says that in roughly 150 days (Martian days are nearly the same as Earth days) there will not be enough incident sunlight on the solar panels to continue operating the electronics and heaters. Phoenix will freeze to death.

Re:

[DerekLyons (302214)]

Two reasons. The first is, as the other poster said, the fairly steep mass and volume penalty paid for being mobile. The second is that there is no chance of an extended mission here - come winter, Phoenix dies. Period.

Re:Why a lander?

[compro01 (777531)]

Not quite period. While the likelihood of it surviving is very low, they have planned for that eventuality by building in a "lazarus mode" to make it try to call back if it manages to survive the winter.

Re:Why a lander?

[camperdave (969942)]

Contrary to popular opinion that there were weight/cost considerations, the reason is that a rover simply wasn't needed. As an example, if you're going to check whether a lake has fresh water or salt water, it doesn't matter where you take your sample. The water isn't going to be any different at the dock than it is in the middle of the lake, or off the far shore. Similarly, if you're going to test the composition of permafrost, you land in the middle of a permafrost field, and test. It's not going to make much of a difference if you test where you land, or test 30 metres to the left.

If the science goals called for a rover, they would have sent a rover, and the weight/cost considerations would have been modified.

Apollo Project Financial Comparison

[Suzuran (163234)]

Apollo Project, Total Cost (1962-1973, 2007 USD): $114,758,279,830.00
Total NASA Budget (1962-1973, 2007 USD): $233,725,177,610.00
City of Tokyo, Japan Gross Domestic Product 2006: $1,191,000,000,000.00
City of Chicago, Illinois Gross Domestic Product 2006: $460,000,000,000.00
Taiwan's Gross Domestic Product 2006: $346,400,000,000.00
Estimated Cost of Space Shuttle Program at Retirement: $174,000,000,000.00
State of Iowa's Gross Domestic Product 2006: $106,346,000,000.00
Microsoft Corporation Earnings for 2006: $

Re:Huhh?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked liquid water is called ice

perhaps you should check again.

Re:Huhh?

[Legion303 (97901)]

"Last I checked liquid water is called ice"

Close! Liquid water is called "water."

Re:Huhh?

[nguy (1207026)]

Last I checked liquid water is called ice

Maybe you should check again :-)

Re:

[Miladinoski (1280850)]

There are 3 types of water:

• Liquid water - water in liquid [reference.com] state .
• Solid water - ice [reference.com]
• Gaseous state - water vapor [reference.com]

Re:

[squizzar (1031726)]

Just to be awkward, I submit that ice is a verb and a noun, since one can ice a cake, things ice over and there is that song that rather confusingly suggests you should ice ice. Baby.