Scientists believe Mars lander exposed ice crumbs

By JOHN ANTCZAK , Associated Press Writer, Space & Earth science / Space Exploration

This color image released by NASA and acquired by NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander's Surface Stereo Imager on Friday, June 13, 2008, shows one trench informally called "Dodo-Goldilocks" after two digs on June 12, by Phoenix's Robotic Arm. Shallow trenches excavated by the lander's backhoe-like robotic arm have turned up specks and at times even stripes of mysterious white material mixed in with the clumpy, reddish dirt. (AP Photo/NASA/JPL/CalTech)

(AP) -- Scientists believe NASA's Phoenix Mars lander exposed bits of ice while recently digging a trench in the soil of the Martian arctic, the mission's principal investigator said Thursday.

Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .

ť Next Article in Space & Earth science - Space Exploration: Chemical clues point to dusty origin for Earth-like planets

would you recommend this story?

User Rating

4.4 out of 5 after 23 total votes

not at all
1
2
3
4
5
highly

Leave a Comment or

Flag

Posted by GoodElf 06/20/08 01:46

Rank: 4/5 after 5 votes

He he he... the ice vaporizes... what is it they were expecting in the low atmospheric pressure on Mars? How can you heat ice and not have it evaporate completely at that pressure?

Flag

Posted by Wasabi 06/20/08 03:58

Rank: 4/5 after 4 votes

They also need to load some of the "white stuff" into the analyzer directly and test it right away as just testing surface regolith probably won't show much in the way of water vapor as it would have sublimed away already.

Flag

Posted by SmartK8 06/20/08 04:08

Rank: 4/5 after 5 votes

"These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it's ice,"

Sure.. I'd dare to say mathematicaly precise evidence. It simply cannot be something else it's just clear.

This is my definition of perfect evidence:

A thing or process long expected by all the humans, seen in real-time happenning by all of them and also recorded by every detection device on the planet. That's PERFECT evidence for me.

Flag

Posted by vlam67 06/20/08 06:47

Rank: 4.2/5 after 5 votes

On a pragmatic note, I don't care what scientists "believe". I'll wait until they "confirmed" the stuff one way or another. Belief is .00065765 cent a hundred tons, if you get my drift.

Flag

Posted by Mercury_01 06/20/08 11:00

Rank: 5/5 after 4 votes

it could still be co2 ice. too bad it probably wont fit in the oven.

Flag

Posted by MKS 06/20/08 11:18

Rank: 4.2/5 after 5 votes

or it could be something new we don't know... it's Mars...things could be different there....

calling it "perfect evidence" for water-ice is being scientifically very narrow minded...

we need not call anything vaporizable and white in color , ice just because we r looking for it.... do justice to the brand of NASA.....

Flag

Posted by superhuman 06/20/08 13:05

Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote

Thats good news Pier but the fact that it can vaporise is certainly not a perfect evidence although it sure rises hopes.

The "America's best and brightest" need to find a way to put that white stuff into the oven!

Maybe it would be a good idea to work on shorter time delay instead of sending orders and waiting a whole day for the results to arrive. It might be necesary to act fast to prevent the supposed ice from evaporating before it gets a chance to be analized.

Finally I vote for digging next to the place where the white stuff was uncovered for the first time? There should hopefully be more there.

Flag

Posted by snwboardn 06/23/08 08:39

Rank: 5/5 after 2 votes

it could still be co2 ice. too bad it probably wont fit in the oven.

I am pretty sure it is not cold enough for CO2 to be in a frozen state under the soil.

Flag

Posted by DoctorKnowledge 06/28/08 04:15

Not rated yet.

The article is not defending NASA's science procedures, it's summarizing the results. NASA already had some understanding of what might be there. This isn't some crackpot professor claiming he's found cold fusion, it's the results of decades of research, dumbed down.

The question is, is it dumb enough for the benefit of PhysOrg readers?