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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


You should avoid large quotes and learn to be nice.

I don't have a wet blanket, only facts.

I will go elsewhere when I have chosen to do so.

Thanks.




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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.



BUT Grady the link, supplied below, was the one I got it from and used. I was not being dishonest.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

[edit on 1-6-2008 by grover]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Grady, we have mods for this, unless you've been deputized...
"Ice" was put in quotes. I understood what that meant, why the harassment?

And you know, the title of an article when crosslinked often changes.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


I am completely aware of the staff structure at ATS.

I have noted a valid point, which does not require my being deputized.

The point is germane to the content of the article and the claims made by the OP.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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.



Science never knows anything conclusively.

What stands is that the scientists are "convinced" that it is ice. They said it's not impossible that it is something else, but it is highly unlikely.

If you want to continue to be on the side of the doubters, then do so, but do it without the ruse of a self-righteous garb quoting posting rules.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
OH FOR CHRIST SAKE... what are you trying to do kill what is an interesting thread?

MODS TAKE THIS THREAD DOWN I AM SICK OF THE FRICKING NITPICKING.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Quazga
 


You should avoid large quotes and learn to be nice.

I don't have a wet blanket, only facts.

I will go elsewhere when I have chosen to do so.

Thanks.



You do have a wet blanket. It's one thing to debate the merit of the scientists claims, it's a complete other to distract the readers with bogus self-righteousness.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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.


Just me 2 cents...

I've seen titles of articles change on the same news story, something within a few minutes.

I don't think Grover's intent was to deceive anybody. Grover has been a "good citizen" here for a long time.

FYI... I own a forum and one of my biggest problems is overzealous moderators. Just sayin'....



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
So far this is the most interesting thread I've been on today


I keep looking at headline news CNN and they have not mentioned this once yet!!


They keep talking about the space station people have no where to crap. And, that tiles came off the rocket boosters durning yesterdays lift off.

So..I'm glad that this thread is here and don't give a crap what the damned title is


Okey doky




[edit on 1-6-2008 by RUFFREADY]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Perhaps then you should also become acquainted with the U2U and alert functions on the site and not disrupt the threads with your own personal pet peeves.

This is a very interesting topic and now has been derailed for over a page by your quibbles. Grover does not trick around on the forums at all, I've seen it myself.

Can we get OT, please?

Like why the big charade to find out if there's ice in one spot of Mars, when we know there are poles with ice caps and rovers that run through mud puddles.

This seems far more interesting than the semantics of headline posting.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


There you go being rude again.

My point is well taken.

The device on Mars has uncovered in the process of landing a substance that the articles that I have read "suggest" is ice at or near the polar caps.

I expect that it is ice, myself, but is it water ice or is it carbon dioxide ice?

Scientists have speculated for decades that the polar caps consist of carbon dioxide, which is quite a bit different.

So, at this point no one knows whether this ice-like substance is water, carbon dioxide or something completely different.

It is all well and good that people make the assumption that it is water ice, but even the scientists are hedging their bets until the facts are known.

Most here choose to believe that it is ice of one sort or another and accuse me of casting a wet blanket.

I choose to take the article at face value and wait until the evidence is complete, beside expecting that the post I open is appropriately rendered.


[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Quazga
 


There you go being rude again.






Oh the beauty of the Ignore Function....

Poof! No more Grady!



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga

Oh the beauty of the Ignore Function....

Poof! No more Grady!


I have that function, too, but not all here will choose to use it and many others will not have one to use.

The fact remains that my viewpoint is valid, as I have noted above.

Nonetheless, when the data is in and the media flap is over and the evaluations are done, we will really have something to discuss or not.

Remember cold fusion?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

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


That's nice, good to see you aren't a space alien bent on restraining human technological progress.


Originally posted by jamie83
But to be honest, this whole mission seems completely ludicrous.



It does indeed seem like that when you listen to what the scientists are telling you, that does indeed seem to be the case.

Not many people would be in favour of finding a dead civilisation that has languished under the mountains of mars for perhaps millions of years - sure it might revive the age of exploration, but i don't quite think that's precisely why this mission is being carried out.

Let's look at what we know;

It can be speculated on whether or not we've truly found ice or not thanks to the speculation driven by the OP's source, but let's assume we did for a second, what then?

Well, we could send more robots, although as you said that would be an extra-ordinarily costly venture while at the same time providing very little in the way of financial return - that would be what is expected... i expect.

However, i'd like to grab your attention for a moment to point something out - if we already knew there was ice at the poles, then why bother to land a rover in the middle of nowhere in order to prove to the world that there is ice outside of the polar circles?

The answer is simple;

We are being led down a series of disclosures, with the end result being a manned mission to mars - like the man said.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

So, at this point no one knows whether this ice-like substance is water, carbon dioxide or something completely different.

[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]


I think that the people not purely in this for the scientific research are hoping for it to oxygen based at the very least.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

I think that the people not purely in this for the scientific research are hoping for it to oxygen based at the very least.


Actually, I think they're banking on water, based on this article.


Scientists overseeing the Phoenix Mars Lander said Saturday they believe the spacecraft's thrusters uncovered a large patch of ice on the Martian surface.

That bodes well for the mission's main goal of digging up ice and testing it for evidence of organic compounds that are the chemical building blocks of life.

Project scientists can't yet be completely certain but have reached a consensus that the material is ice that had been covered by just a few inches of dirt, said Peter Smith, a University of Arizona scientist who is the chief project investigator.



www.foxnews.com...


As you can see, the substance in question is clearly in view.

I don't know all the dynamics, but I can't help but wonder why the intense heat from the spacecraft's thrusters didn't melt that ice and while melted blast the water all over the place, leaving some kind of crater.

I'm not questioning the reality that there is a lander near one of the Martian poles, but that question did come to mind.

More links:

www.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
So what if it is ice? Life on Mars may have travelled there from here or visa versa from comets and meteors. I'm just wondering about some of the stories people claim about the planet warming up. If this is true and cyclical, then maybe this is why this ice is now forming at the surface.

If our planet was originally smaller and has since grown or expanded, then isn't it likely that Mars shrunk from it's original size and is now starting to expand or squeeze out what ever water is left inside? What about those thermal pics of Mars? Isn't this like freeze drying?

What's the science behind these theories? And what other gases at these temperatures can appear as water to ice and evaporate without leaving any residue? What about helium etc.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I just hope they take some porta-potties with them when they do go to Mars.

And as I believe what I have heard as far as the poles go..Mars provides a dictionary definition for the phrase 'polar differences'. A vast ice cap of water ice and snow dominates the planet's north pole. Yet around the south pole, a comparatively tiny cap appears to be composed mostly of frozen carbon dioxide, popularly known as dry ice.

source www.space.com...

ALSO, and weird skulls are found were the spirit rover landed some speculate...

source: ruffready




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Here's an argument for water ice.



These images, taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft, show a patch of water ice sitting on the floor of an unnamed crater near the Martian north pole

It cannot be frozen carbon dioxide since carbon dioxide ice had already disappeared from the north polar cap at the time the image was taken (late summer in the Martian northern hemisphere).



www.esa.int...


Frankly, I don't know what season it is on Mars, but I'm assuming that the logic applied to the above situation is currently present of Mars, if the scientists are so sure than what they see is actually water ice.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

I think that the people not purely in this for the scientific research are hoping for it to oxygen based at the very least.


Actually, I think they're banking on water, based on this article.


Scientists overseeing the Phoenix Mars Lander said Saturday they believe the spacecraft's thrusters uncovered a large patch of ice on the Martian surface.

That bodes well for the mission's main goal of digging up ice and testing it for evidence of organic compounds that are the chemical building blocks of life.

Project scientists can't yet be completely certain but have reached a consensus that the material is ice that had been covered by just a few inches of dirt, said Peter Smith, a University of Arizona scientist who is the chief project investigator.



www.foxnews.com...


As you can see, the substance in question is clearly in view.

I don't know all the dynamics, but I can't help but wonder why the intense heat from the spacecraft's thrusters didn't melt that ice and while melted blast the water all over the place, leaving some kind of crater.

I'm not questioning the reality that there is a lander near one of the Martian poles, but that question did come to mind.

More links:

www.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2008/6/1 by GradyPhilpott]


Hi Grady, if the retro rockets slowed the lander down for landing wouldn't the soil that was kicked up into the air have been more evenly scattered onto the surface?

If you will look closely the soil looks to have been swept to one side like someone took a broom to the area to expose the ice or rock and not to mention the piles of dirt to the right of the 2nd off sight photo you have presented taken by the Lander. Was this the secret Astronaut program helping to sweep the soil to one side to expose the ice?

You are right you would of figured that the rockets would of made a crater or distortion in the ice if of course this is ice and not solid rock. If it was solid rock you would of thought a burn mark would of been left on the rock. I am leaning toward it being ice that Phoenix is on top of in the Northern Plains of Mars. Rik Riley



[edit on 1-6-2008 by rikriley]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rikriley
 


Oh God no! Lear is back!

Just kidding of course
I enjoyed his sarcasm.

The lander probably came in at an angle rather than exactly perpendicular. There were also multiple thrusters pointing at slightly differing angles. I would think if the soil had been displaced equally, it would be more suspicious not less. Also soil density here on Earth is not uniform, so I'd expect the same to be true there especially if there is frozen moisture mixed in.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join