Report: Images from Mars lander show liquid water

Enlarge

Phoenix Mars lander image. Credit: NASA

(AP) -- Did NASA's Phoenix Mars lander find evidence of liquid water before it froze to death?

Some scientists think so. In a provocative new paper, 22 members of the mission argue that droplets seen on Phoenix's leg were from liquid water that splashed during landing.

Scientists propose that the perchlorate salts near the landing site acted as an antifreeze by lowering the freezing point of ice, causing it to melt into a salty liquid. When Phoenix landed in the arctic plains, some of that liquid splashed onto its leg, they said.

Scientists point to images taken by the lander that show some of the droplets merged with each other and grew in size, behavior that is consistent with liquid water, they said.

But other team members say the images are too fuzzy to support the extraordinary claim.

"It's highly unlikely that that's the explanation," said Michael Hecht of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which managed the $475 million mission. "It's just water vapor moving around. It's an ordinary, unexciting explanation."

Phoenix landed near the Martian north pole in May and spent five months digging into the soil and ice.

It confirmed the presence of ice at its landing site and became the first robotic probe to taste it by melting it. It also discovered an abundant amount of the chemical perchlorate, a highly oxidizing salt, in dirt samples.

The current Mars environment is too cold and its atmosphere too thin to support liquid water on the surface.

The new results will presented later this month at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference meeting in Houston.

---

On the Net:

Phoenix Mars: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

   

• mabarker - Jul 31, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  Why is it that darwinists insist that water = life? Have they not had organic chem & biochemistry (yes, I have)? Do they not understand the massive step/jump one must make from going from lifeless mud to organic life? Every origin-of-life experiment has ended with caustic tar on the sides of the reaction vessel. Genesis 1:1 is a better explanation.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ethelred - Aug 04, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  Why is it that darwinists insist that water = life?

  
  
  That is not in that article so a better question would be:
  
  Why did you make that claim?
  
  Now water does lead to the possibility of life but that too is not in the article.
  
  

  Have they not had organic chem & biochemistry (yes, I have)?

  
  
  Then your ignorance is not accidental it is intentional.
  
  

  Do they not understand the massive step/jump one must make from going from lifeless mud to organic life?

  
  
  All it takes is a self-reproducing molecule or a self-catalyzing molecule. These have been made and they have been rather small molecules.
  
  

  Every origin-of-life experiment has ended with caustic tar on the sides of the reaction vessel.

  
  
  False. Studies based on the early test by Miller did that. On top of which there are a lot of nasty things that contribute to life even today. NO for instance.
  
  

  Genesis 1:1 is a better explanation.

  
  
  If only wasn't so very wrong. Wrong timeframe and wrong order. It has light without a sun. Mornings and evenings and even grass without a sun. Neat trick that.
  
  It is so very wrong. AND it is contradicted by the Genesis 1:2 so even the Bible disagrees with Genesis 1:1.
  
  Why is it that you deny Genesis 1:2? What kind of a Creationist are you if you deny the Bible?
  
  No they can't both be true. However they can both be false and the physical evidence shows that they are false.
  
  Ethelred
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5