Probable Water Ice Sighted On Mars 393
CraftyJack writes "Bright white chunks in the trenches dug by the Phoenix Lander have disappeared, leading Peter Smith & co. to believe that the chunks were ice that has since sublimated."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Probable Water Ice Sighted On Mars
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.
The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So what if there was. There's not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to burn it. About the only thing it would be good for is lubricating the odd rover wheel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the above is meant as a (seriously overused) joke, but it did get me thinking. If there was previously liquid water on Mars, and carbon-based life developed roughly along the same lines as on Earth, and internal geothermal processes are similar, than it's conceivable that there is oil, too. Although that's an awful lot of "if's". Also, if we were capable of getting oil off Mars economically, we also wouldn't need oil for energy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Well now we understand why he announced the pre-emptive strike:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4551-bush-to-announce-manned-mission-to-mars.html [newscientist.com]
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
There's no such word as democratyatize. It's democratalyze. Sheesh.
Don't be ridiculous. (Score:4, Funny)
Democratyatize is a perfectly cromulent word.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're both words. (Score:4, Funny)
Both are listed in the dictionary.
Re:The real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
If everytime we talk about Mars or Titan we must make jokes about oil and America we might as well pick the one jokes which were proven to be funny.
"If that was oil the US would plan a manned mission for next year. They'd send the marines claiming that the Martians were hiding weapons of mass destruction." [slashdot.org]
"Well clearly we now need to spread Freedom and Democracy to the poor oppressed [Martians], who will welcome us with roses and be able to finance their own reconstruction." [slashdot.org]
"By an amazing coincidence, [Mars] doesn't actually have democracy over there... Yet." [slashdot.org]
You're welcome.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Fighting in the dance hall.
Oh man!
Look at those cavemen go.
It's the freakiest show.
Take a look at the lawman
Beating up the wrong guy.
Oh man!
Wonder if he'll ever know
He's in the best selling show.
Is there ice on Mars?
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
But, I'm probably wasting my time arguing logical, on-topic points with an obvious liberal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Our culture of freedom is superior to the bacterial culture, therefore we must liberate them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you fail it. Heinlein figured out how to move things from luna to terra cheaply a long time ago, if Platinum was just lying about on the moon, we would catapult it to earth with little cost. Moving oil on the other hand might be a more dangerous endeavor.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you rather have land on top of you at re-entry velocities? 1000 tons of oil, or 1000 tons of Platinum ?
While moving stuff from Luna with a mass driver might be cost effective, Mars is a lot more delta V (in orbit) and theres also twice the gravity.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Like this one [wikipedia.org]?
You probably want something steeper, though.
I'll refrain from making a reference to the relative spatial positions of you and the joke. ;)
But escape velocity isn't really a velocity, as your trajectory is irrelevant. (Assuming it's, you know, above the horizon...) As long as you're traveling above a given speed, you'll escape the gravity well whether you're pointed straight up or towards the horizon.
The reason we launch rockets vertically is to minimize the time spent in dense atmosphere. You get a lot of drag at low altitudes here on Earth, so it's better to climb quickly and get to where the air is thin as soon as possible.
Mars is another story: Air pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is only ~0.003 that of Earth sea level. Launching a payload at a shallow angle through that would be no huge waste of energy.
On the moon (or anywhere that lacks an atmosphere), you could lay the mass driver right down on the surface and it wouldn't make any difference.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The real question is... (Score:4, Funny)
*CRASH* (That was the sound of all the world's high altitude aircraft falling from the sky from the accumulation of ice the ceased to sublimate from the wings).
WOW! (Score:3, Funny)
We'd better throw out those phase change diagrams in the schools' books and remove the triple point of water, someone on /. has confirmed ...
IT'S ALL A LIE! Water can't sublimate.
Of course, since the triple point of water is 6.1 millibars @ 0.0098 C, and the average atmospheric pressure of Mars is 6 millibars, it can't possibly ever have favorable conditions for the sublimation of ... err ... uh, I mean, ummm ... ... ....
err
Uh
All your vapor belong to US!
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it does and can, at low atmospheric pressures (such as there is on Mars).
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
1. Fill ice cube tray with water (liquid, H2O water) and put it in freezer.
2. Go back in a day and mark the level of the ice in the tray.
3. Return later (preferably at least a week) and marvel at how the ice is below the level marked.
4. ???
5. Profit.
The ice was in the freezer the whole time, so it didn't melt (assuming the freezer was set correctly and continuously powered). Therefore, the solid water lost must have changed to water vapor.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
H2O ice does sublimate. Here's an easy way to prove it.
There is absolutely no need to prove that.
Just pull up a phase diagram of water (google is your friend), look at the lower-left
corner (i.e. low pressure and low temperature), and what do you see ?
A line where the solid phase borders on the vapor phase.
And what's a phase transition from solid phase to vapor phase called ?
Bingo. Sublimation.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's the scientific way. Don't prove it for yourself, take someone else's word for it.
preach that sophist love, brother! (Score:5, Funny)
There is absolutely no need to prove that the Earth is the center of the universe, orbited by the other celestial bodies.
Just pull up a Ptolemaic diagram (google is your friend), look at the center (i.e. within the orbits of the planets), and what do you see?
A circle which is, in fact, the Earth.
And what does the fact that the Sun and all other celestial bodies have concentric orbits around the Earth prove?
Bingo. Geocentrism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you'd like, I could draw you a diagram that says that at certain pressures ice instantly turns to chocolate milk. Do you want me to do that? It'll change everything you thought you knew about the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But in order to know if that phase diagram is correct, it must first be proved by someone. :P
And then there's always that certain kind of people who can believe what someone else has proved.
You know, the kind that says "It hasn't been 100% proved that smoking causes cancer, I've never seen smoking cause cancer. Look. I just smoked a cigarette. No cancer."
And the "That proves nothing, it might have been god who did it" crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in order to know if that phase diagram is correct, it must first be proved by someone.
Yes. Better yet, under stringent laboratory conditions. Which means a much more controlled environment than the inside of your freezer (e.g. in an environment that contains _only_ water. Water vapor behaves somewhat different from an ideal gas, which means that your results may deviate as soon as you have other gases in the environment). If you do the freezer/ice cube tray experiment, how do you make sure that there i
Re:The real question is... (Score:4, Informative)
And I feel the need to mention that Mars is not Standard Temperature and Pressure. The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1/100 that of Earth, I honestly don't know if that's reason enough for why H2O may experience sublimation like that, but I'm too tired right now to look it up and/or crunch some numbers and see if it does or not.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Informative)
rj
Re:Oil, Water, Life on Mars? So what?! (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the swearing, my point is that if it is used as commonly as in your original thread, it really does water down. I got absolutely nothing against colorful language. My point is if you put in too much color, the whole thing becomes a gaudy mess rather than a well accentuated splash here and there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact you think space exploration is a waste of time is your opinion, the way you state that opinion is 95% pure troll/flamebait. The unwashed masses of slashdotter do not have a personal grudge against you, you seem incapable of communicating contrary ideas without spewing bile at the same time.
Also your original post is flat out wrong...
"All the bad things about climate change, economic collapse
Was there ever doubt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Was there ever doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it's confirmation that the white stuff at the poles really is ice (and not some unknown martian substance that just looks like ice).
Second it means that the lander is digging in the right places to find all of the interesting stuff that goes along with water. It's tremendously interesting to discover whether there's carbon-based fragments in the water (suggesting life did or could exist) and to figure out what else is in the water.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"First, it's confirmation that the white stuff at the poles really is ice (and not some unknown martian substance that just looks like ice)."
Or perhaps it is just weird martian substance that still looks like ice, even close up?
Re:Was there ever doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, it does sound like you are trolling. But I'll bite.
First off, you are aware that one of the best ways to improve your national engineering cadre (and thus, your economy, standard of living, etc.) is to attempt things that are at the border of your capabilities, or even just a tad beyond, aren't you? Even if the only thing out there was a big brass ring that was way far away, it would pay to push your limits by constantly trying to grab it faster, or cheaper, or whatever.
Second, you realize I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports and junk food that are even less useful. Our entire space program from 1958 to today cost less than our current misadventures in the middle east.
Third, did you ever stop to think about where the vast majority of the available resources are? From energy to precious metals to useful chemical to just plain space the overwhelming majority of the resources we know about are out in space.
Given all that, it hardly seems sensible to deride the space program as useless.
--MarkusQ
Re:Was there ever doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether parent is a troll or not, the question raised deserves some kind of answer.
Getting into space is not the long term goal.
The long term goal is to get back into The Garden. The way to do that is to move all the factories (and most of the engineers) into space. This is all spelled out in the Ecological Manifesto. Which you can find written in the reflection of the clouds on any stillwater lake where you've got solitude surrounded by a few acres of wilderness.
Re:Was there ever doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
If there is water, that means there is oxygen.
If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was there ever doubt? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure the poster (and anyone else who would be browsing slashdot) knew that; the quote is from Dan Quayle, he's the one who needs help.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen first. That takes energy. Since the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide you might as well plan to split it into carbon and oxygen.
I'm pretty sure the poster (and anyone else who would be browsing slashdot) knew that; the quote is from Dan Quayle, he's the one who needs help.
Ah right thanks. I am not up to date on Dan Quayle quotes.
;)
I am surprised we didn't see him running for President this year
Rubbish. (Score:5, Funny)
Couple more things... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, forget the martian lander and the blackjack!
pictures don't lie? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dry ice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here ya go (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dry ice? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, we know. (Score:5, Funny)
Insert K'breel reference here (Score:2)
This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality is that manned spaceflight is not *economical* for scientific research at this point. We should be working on getting our launch costs down so that we could actually send people to do things, build factories in space, and start getting some real benefit out of space.
Re:This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:5, Interesting)
And there is always C & D. C: Robot lander lands on Mars and completes mission. D: Philip Fry completes mission, but the return module will not leave Mars. Will we ever try that again?
I'm a big fan of robots to do stuff like this.
Re:This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:5, Funny)
I agree though; this robot isn't as good as a human, but the folks at NASA are pretty bright. It's speculation now but after a few more tests they'll have the data they need for a solid conclusion. It's still very early in the lander's mission on Mars. We need to have a little patience.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant: Robots are great to do dangerous jobs instead of people
Re:This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:5, Interesting)
Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it.
Find a couple astronaut capable people who have recently been diagnosed with cancer. Couple years to live, don't bring them back.
A little cold hearted to design, but I'd guarantee you would have no lack of volunteers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of people who would volunteer for such suicide mission even if they were NOT terminally ill.
Really, if you can have people whose JOB is to murder other people and public is totally confortable with it (hint: its Soldier), volunteers for suicide missions should not concern public at all.
Cultural taboo to overcome is "suicide", not "kill".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At some point the public, law, and morality has to accept that adult humans can and should be able to make choices that are irrevocable.
Besides, considering the trip length to Mars, anybody with 2 years to live wouldn't make it back. Even if there was a way back.
BTW: Don't delude yourself that this won't happen. NASA won't do it, sure. The Chinese will.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you refering to the Philip J. Fry from universe A or universe 1?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is always C & D. C: Robot lander lands on Mars and completes mission. D: Philip Fry completes mission, but the return module will not leave Mars. Will we ever try that again?
While I agree with the main sentiment of your post - that robots are better to send in the short term than people - I'd like to think that even if the first manned Mars mission met with disaster, there'd still be brave people queuing up to try again a second time.
See: Apollo 1 [nasa.gov].
Re:This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:5, Insightful)
Manned space flight is afraid of a few deaths? What evidence do you have?
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee die during a ground test and we still landed on the moon 2 years later.
Dick Scobee, Michael Smith, Judith Resnik, Ellison Onizuka, Ronald McNair, Gregory Jarvis and Christa McAuliff died in the Challenger explosion and we were back riding the same design to orbit 2 years later.
We lost Rick Husband, William McCool, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark and Ilan Ramon in the Colombia reentry. And again, 2 years later we're back in space on the same vehicle.
Just because you're too much of a wimp to risk your life doing something amazing and unique, don't condemn the rest of us to mediocrity.
Re: (Score:2)
We should be working on getting our launch costs down so that we could actually send people to do things, build factories in space, and start getting some real benefit out of space.
Space: Because India's getting too expensive.
Re:This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is why robots aren't great for science (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine that traveling to Mars and staying there to do serious research would, without significant advances, mean a shorter lifespan and for some; a martian burial.
excess flatulence? (Score:3, Funny)
where you see a problem i see opportunity
send 10 fat guys to mars in a small capsule loaded with beans, rice, corn dogs, garlic knots, etc
when the capsule reaches mars, BOOM, a little percussion decompression, and voila: instant martian atmosphere
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's saying that manned spaceflight wouldn't be useful for science. However, it certainly isn't cost effective.
We could invest in lowering launch costs, but we could also invest in improving robotics. Based on the last few decades of experience, in which the economics of spaceflight have barely changed, while robotics capabilities have improved by many orders of magnitude, I know where I'd put my money.
In the meantime, with today's technology and today's budgets, there is not the slightest doubt that un
what they should do (Score:3, Interesting)
its pretty obvious we'll fuck this planet up sooner rather than later so its probably a good idea to spread the seeds of life somewhere else. Maybe in 100 million years new life forms will thrive on Mars.
Re:what they should do (Score:5, Funny)
But what would you call it. Something Mars. I know Red Mars, then the next book gets a slightly different name.
The only problem is that the third book would probably run out of ideas about 10% of the way through.
Maybe its not such a good idea to after all...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you have a problem with it but the Chinese and Indians wont. So much for your supreme court ruling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't know the planet is dead yet, doofus. There is still a very real possibility of extremophile microorganisms existing on mars.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When did we vote? Was I asleep?
We Blew It (Score:5, Funny)
After all this time and effort, we finally found water on Mars, and we let it get away!
Another article... (Score:5, Informative)
Another article about the same news: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/mars-phoenix-tw.html [wired.com]
There is water ice on Mars within reach of the Mars Phoenix Lander, NASA scientists announced Thursday.
Photographic evidence settles the debate over the nature of the white material seen in photographs sent back by the craft. As seen in lower left of this image, chunks of the ice sublimed (changed directly from solid to gas) over the course of four days, after the lander's digging exposed them.
"It must be ice," said the Phoenix Lander's lead investigator, Peter Smith. "These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it's ice."
The confirmation that water ice exists in the area directly surrounding the lander is big and good news for the Martian mission. NASA's stated goal for the Mars Phoenix was to find exactly this -- water ice -- and then analyze it. With the latest news, the first step is accomplished. All that's left now is to get the water into the Phoenix's instruments, a task which has occasionally proven more difficult than anticipated.
Still, this is the best opportunity that humanity has ever had to analyze extraterrestrial water in any form. That had the Phoenix Lander's persona fired up.
"Are you ready to celebrate? Well, get ready: We have ICE!!!!! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t!!! Best day ever!!" the Mars Phoenix Lander tweeted at about 5:15 pm.
Their suspicions about water ice beneath the surface of Mars confirmed, scientists and the world will have renewed interest in the outcome of the soil analyses currently being conducted by the lander.
The samples are being examined for traces of organic molecules, among other substances, but the lander does not have instruments that could directly detect life.
See the full announcement from NASA.
From global surveyer to today (Score:3, Interesting)
Still remember when global surveyer first released the picture of massive amounts of water below the surface. It was too good to be true, no-one believed it, and it got put away.
Now we've found massive amounts of water just below the surface, enough water to make huge amounts of rocket fuel, and it didn't even make a buried link on CNN. Where in Calif* can you find water just 2" below the surface?
Great! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Now we can send a manned mission over there and use the H2O they find for fuel for the return trip. Just drop itr right in the tank. Just like all those e-mails say I can do to run my car on water.
It must be true. The InterWeb never lies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Water Ice? (Score:3, Funny)
I think the point that everyone keeps missing (Score:4, Funny)
I think the most important thing, and it is something that everyone keeps missing, is that NASA has found a way to turn even rocket scientists into ditch diggers!
Imagine a bright young engineer studying hard on saturday nights, while all his friends are getting drunk and laid, and thinking how he'll have a successful career with NASA. And when thinking about his lucky friends he says to himself "the world needs ditchdiggers too."
And some day he gets into NASA, and his boss's first words are:
"Johnson, this ain't rocket science, Phoenix has landed and I need you do dig me a ditch..."
Ice sublimes. (Score:4, Informative)
(Okay, okay, I just looked it up: "sublimate" can also be used with ice, but "sublime" is preferred.)
They Really Really Really Found Water (Almost) (Score:5, Funny)
This time they really really really really really really found water. Just like the last time they really really really found water. But that one time they found water they really didn't. But this time they really almost definitely did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yeah!
just like Duke Nukem Forever will really really really really really really really come out this year!
In later news (Score:3, Funny)
Holding placards saying "Go home - Keep Mars for the Martians" - "You messed up Earth, Leave Mars Alone" - "There's no Oil Here - Go Home"
It appears we may not be welcome after all.
Hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus, I thought I signed onto slashdot, but after reading the comments I realize I must have clicked on Fark by mistake.
Hey Mr! I got five kids to feed. (Score:3, Funny)
Blue sky on Mars.
We're (almost) ready (marshydro.com)... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great Scott !! (Score:5, Funny)
You see, you had a splendid joke there, and then you went and spoiled it.
Any truly civilized individual knows that a Martini is made with gin, not vodka.
Sheesh, when will these damn colonials ever learn ?
Re:Great Scott !! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do I win?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Prof: Good news everyone!
Bender: Uh oh. I don't like the sound of that.
Prof: Today you'll be making a delivery to the planet Mars!
Bender: Bo-ring. Let's go get drunk!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since CO2 sublimates, and water does not. (It shouldn't even melt at these temperatures,) I assume that they mean CO2.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:co2 ice ? (Score:4, Informative)
You are correct. I had not realized just how low the air pressure was on Mars: it can be around 0.006 atm which is exactly the point where ice will sublimate.
Cool. Thanks !
Why the f*ck was I moderated troll ? I was wrong, but trolling ? Sheesh, get a life.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, we know that dry ice (frozen CO2) is on the poles. Bright white chunks that sublimate are dry ice. Ice tends to be clear and rarely sublimates. It would most likely melt first then evaporate. How about next time you see bright white chunks you analyze them. (disclaimer: I did not RTFA of course)
The air pressure is too low for ice to be liquid And the temperature is too high for CO2 to stay solid. There is a small overlap during the night where the atmosphere is cold enough for dry ice to form but the most you would get is a bit of frost.
Re: (Score:2)
Go study [wikipedia.org]. It will do you some good.
Re:Ice Alright! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not exactly scholarly (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise we know there is ice on mars, and one of the very few ways that a solid lump can disappear without trace is for it to sublimate. Other ways are for something with long limbs to have reached over and picked it up or perhaps they were iron rocks attracted by passing magnetic clouds, or perhaps a tiny blackhole opened for just long enough to remove those pebbles. However we've pretty much proved conclusively that there is no long-limbed life on Mars and every other way is vanishingly improbable so Occam's razor tells us that it is likely enough that this is ice that we can, on website designed for popular consumption, dispense with the endless qualifiers.