It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Ice' found underneath Mars lander

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

'Ice' found underneath Mars lander


www.sciencedaily.com

The image received Friday night from the spacecraft's Robotic Arm Camera shows patches of smooth and level surfaces beneath the thrusters.
ScienceDaily (Jun. 1, 2008) — A view of the ground underneath NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander adds to evidence that descent thrusters dispersed overlying soil and exposed a harder substrate that may be ice.

"This suggests we have an ice table under a thin layer of loose soil," said the lead scientist for the Robotic Arm Camera, Horst Uwe Keller of Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany.

"We were expecting to find ice within two to six inches of the surface," said Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, principal in
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
COOL!!!

We have ice at the poles... evidence of flowing water at some point in the past and ice just below the service...

...OK where are the little green men?

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Why did they not just land on the north pole where there is this big target of White stuff that can not be missed rather than leaving it to chance?
Sounds a bit silly to me and they are milking the budget for more flights.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Of course this smooth layer below the overlying soil could turn out to be solid rock instead of ice...

Can you imagine thier distress if once they start to dig they find that they are on a large rock and cannot dig?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Yeah, no kidding.. they'll wish they sprung the extra $38.99 for a set of lawnmower wheels and an electric motor then.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Yes they find more rock and decide to do a 3rd mission now because they fogot to go for that white area that a telescope from earth can see and they could not land on it. Okay another few million to do a new mission then.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
SIGH!!!


They know that there is ice at the poles... they are looking for it elsewhere and are trying to determine how widespread it is in order to get some idea of how much water is on the planet.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I find the toilet not working at the space station more interesting.
Would you not think that a place to piss and crap while living above earth for weeks at a time would be on the top of the list while building the space station. I think those egg-heads at NASA need to re-think who they hire to do these things.

But, really I was jazzed when I heard about the Ice below the lander. I have been trying to follow this as much as possible, but now only on-line. As the media has basically left the New Mars Lander in the back-ground and is covering the toilet andcrappy bathroom conditions on the International space station. Why not just tie a portapotty toilet (like those at construction sites) to the space station?? It makes sense to me. I mean you could make it out-side the space station and inside artificial gravity and go do your business! And I'm not a rocket surgeon or anything ..But if I were aboard the space station I'd welcome a portapotty instead of what those nerds at NASA hooked up inside that don't work worth a crap.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by RUFFREADY]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


This is the title of the article you cite:


"Camera On Arm Looks Beneath NASA Mars Lander"

www.sciencedaily.com...


The first paragraph states:


A view of the ground underneath NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander adds to evidence that descent thrusters dispersed overlying soil and exposed a harder substrate that may be ice. [emphasis mine]


What then justifies this title?


Originally posted by grover

'Ice' found underneath Mars lander




What justifies this statement?


Originally posted by grover


COOL!!!

We have ice at the poles... evidence of flowing water at some point in the past and ice just below the service...

...OK where are the little green men?

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


The article goes on to say:


"The thrusters have excavated two to six inches and, sure enough, we see something that looks like ice. It's not impossible that it's something else, but our leading interpretation is ice."


There is not one statement in the article that states conclusively that ice has been found on Mars.


[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by grover
 


This is the title of the article you cite:


"Camera On Arm Looks Beneath NASA Mars Lander"

www.sciencedaily.com...


The first paragraph states:


A view of the ground underneath NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander adds to evidence that descent thrusters dispersed overlying soil and exposed a harder substrate that may be ice. [emphasis mine]


What then justifies this title?


Originally posted by grover

'Ice' found underneath Mars lander




What justifies this statement?


Originally posted by grover


COOL!!!

We have ice at the poles... evidence of flowing water at some point in the past and ice just below the service...

...OK where are the little green men?

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]




GOD I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE DONT READ


If you *read* the entire article you will find this...



"This suggests we have an ice table under a thin layer of loose soil," said the lead scientist for the Robotic Arm Camera, Horst Uwe Keller of Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany.
"We were expecting to find ice within two to six inches of the surface," said Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, principal investigator for Phoenix. "The thrusters have excavated two to six inches and, sure enough, we see something that looks like ice. It's not impossible that it's something else, but our leading interpretation is ice."



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
You know, I'm all for space exploration, etc...

But to be honest, this whole mission seems completely ludicrous.

$420 million is it to find out if there's ice on Mars?

Why exactly is it worth $420 million to know this information? Couldn't we have built some schools or sent some kids to college or fixed some bridges or SOMETHING that might be needed HERE?

And $60 million went to the University of Arizona? Sounds like more corporate cronyism to me, except instead of a corporation it's academia who's getting the funding. Wonder how U. of Ariz. was selected? Couldn't have anything to do with McCain, could it?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I went with the title as I originally came across it on another feed...

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Besides if you read the whole article they state that:


we see something that looks like ice. It's not impossible that it's something else, but our leading interpretation is ice."


So I stand by both my thread title and the article in general... if they find that its a big white rock or an alien egg I will post any corrections necessary.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
You know, I'm all for space exploration, etc...

But to be honest, this whole mission seems completely ludicrous.

$420 million is it to find out if there's ice on Mars?

Why exactly is it worth $420 million to know this information? Couldn't we have built some schools or sent some kids to college or fixed some bridges or SOMETHING that might be needed HERE?

And $60 million went to the University of Arizona? Sounds like more corporate cronyism to me, except instead of a corporation it's academia who's getting the funding. Wonder how U. of Ariz. was selected? Couldn't have anything to do with McCain, could it?



What you don't realize is that the entire future of mankind depends on us actually colonizing other planets. This isn't just some science project. This is the beginnings of hope for our species.

Now to your point about the things that are required here. The money is there, it is simply being misappropriated by the elected officials who are responsible for it. That is happening at every level of government. *IF* you were to give this $420 Mil for that, approximately 2 % would actually be used properly, while the other would be used to shore up the failing budgets at the municipal, county, state, and federal levels.

Here is another stat which supports my point. In one year, the US Fed gov spends more on the Interest accrued by our national deficit, then it does on Education, Home land Security, and many other things, combined.


So if you want to talk about a waste of money, focus on the politicians. The scientists are at least trying to save humankind.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


I hate it when people don't read and understand the rules by which articles are to be submitted to this forum.

The title of the article is supposed to be the title of the thread.

To suggest something is a far cry from stating that something is conclusive. The article states that the findings suggest ice; the OP states that ice has been found.

So, Quazga, it is you who has not read properly either the rules of submission or carefully read the cited article.


Originally posted by Gools

Instructions for the Breaking News Forums

* Copy the exact headline of the story into the headline field, don't make one up or sensationalise it. Submissions with inaccurate, biased or otherwise deceptive headlines may be moved, closed or deleted. Obviously, some editorial latitude will be allowed if the original headline is too long (gets truncated) or too obscure.


[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
SIGH!!!


They know that there is ice at the poles... they are looking for it elsewhere and are trying to determine how widespread it is in order to get some idea of how much water is on the planet.


Well, you know that the rovers have run through mud puddles, don't you?





posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Yes I did actually.

Where there's mud there's a muddy rover.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


ALSO... if you check Google news and Yahoo news you will find that they used similar title as I did.


[edit on 1-6-2008 by grover]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Quazga
 


I hate it when people don't read and understand the rules by which articles are to be submitted to this forum.

The title of the article is supposed to be the title of the thread.

To suggest something is a far cry from stating that something is conclusive. The article states that the findings suggest ice; the OP states that ice has been found.

So, Quazga, it is you who has not read properly either the rules of submission or carefully read the cited article.


Originally posted by Gools

Instructions for the Breaking News Forums

* Copy the exact headline of the story into the headline field, don't make one up or sensationalise it. Submissions with inaccurate, biased or otherwise deceptive headlines may be moved, closed or deleted. Obviously, some editorial latitude will be allowed if the original headline is too long (gets truncated) or too obscure.


[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]



I know the rules, and I also know that CNN repeatedly has a different headline on the home page than is actually on the article itself.

If it is that headline which pulls you in then that is fine. I've had my titles switched before, and lobbied to have them swithced back, and they were.

If you read the article, it states that they are extremely confident that this is ICE.

Now take your wet blanket and go throw it someplace else.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I don't want to drag this out, but to put the title of one article on another article is not being honest.

I don't know what "ice" is. Either ice has been found or ice has not been found.

According to the article you cite and as both you and I have quoted, what has been found suggests ice. That does not mean that it is ice. It might turn out that it is ice, but at this point no one, not the scientists and certainly not you, know conclusively if it is ice or something completely unknown.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


...But thankfully they sent this static lander up there to look for ice... am I missing something?

What's this thing really for? Pork barrel, as a prior post suggests? Seems like a major step backward, frankly.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join