Liquid water has been discovered on Mars.

Now liquid water is almost confirmed on Mars, in the form of water drops, on a leg of the Mars Phoenix Lander. Some drops moved down and coalesced with some other drops to form some larger drops.

Therefore, the ice does not only sublimate or evaporate but it also melts; then where is the very low temperatures that they deemed and the low atmospheric pressure that they asserted!?

See the details here:
astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8019

(“Salty, liquid water has been detected on a leg of the Mars Phoenix Lander and therefore could be present at other locations on the planet, according to analysis by a group of mission scientists led by a University of Michigan professor. This is the first time liquid water has been detected and photographed outside Earth.

"A large number of independent physical and thermo dynamical evidence shows that saline water may actually be common on Mars," said Nilton Renno, a professor at the University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, and a co-investigator on the Phoenix mission.

"Liquid water is an essential ingredient for life. This discovery has important implications to many areas of planetary exploration, including the habitability of Mars."

Previously, scientists believed that water existed on Mars only as ice or water vapor because of the planet's low temperature and atmospheric pressure. They thought that ice in the Red Planet's current climate could sublimate, or vaporize, but they didn't think it could melt.

This analysis shows how that assumption may be incorrect. Temperature fluctuation in the arctic region of Mars where Phoenix landed and salts in the soil could create pockets of water too salty to freeze in the climate of the landing site, Renno said.

Photos of one of the lander's legs show droplets that grew during the polar summer. Based on the temperature of the leg and the presence of large amounts of "perchlorate" salts detected in the soil, scientists believe the droplets were most likely salty liquid water and mud that splashed on the spacecraft when it touched down. The lander was guided down by rockets whose exhaust melted the top layer of ice below a thin sheet of soil.

Some of the mud droplets that splashed on the lander's leg appear to have grown by absorbing water from the atmosphere, Renno said. Images suggest that some of the droplets darkened, then moved and merged - physical evidence that they were liquid.

The wet chemistry lab on Phoenix found evidence of perchlorate salts, which likely include magnesium and calcium perchlorate hydrates. These compounds have freezing temperatures of about -90° Fahrenheit (-68° Celsius) and -105° Fahrenheit (-76° Celsius), respectively. The temperature at the landing site ranged from approximately -5° Fahrenheit (-21° Celsius) to -140° Fahrenheit (-96° Celsius), with a median temperature around -75° Fahrenheit (-59° Celsius). Temperatures at the landing site were warmer than this during the first months of the mission.

Thermodynamic calculations offer additional evidence that salty liquid water can exist where Phoenix landed and elsewhere on Mars. The calculations also predict a droplet growth rate that is consistent with what was observed. And they show that it is impossible for ice to sublimate from the cold ground just under the strut of the lander's leg and be deposited on a warmer strut, a hypothesis that has been suggested.

Certain bacteria on Earth can exist in extremely salty and cold conditions.

"This discovery is the result of the talent and dedication of the entire Phoenix team and NASA, whose strategy for Mars exploration and the Phoenix mission is 'follow the water,'" Renno said.”)

I here remember some members here who mocked and even transgressed in words, when we said to them of the possibility of the existence of water and life on Mars, and they said this is not scientific, and they even ridiculed the interpreter (who did not graduate at any school) that he was ignorant, because he said (about 60 years ago) that there is life on Mars and some of the planets with the exception may be of Mercury and Venus.

universeandquran.t35.com/#The_planets_Are_Inhabited_

universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_2.htm#The_Journey_to_Mars_Is_Successful_

universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_2.htm#An_Anticipated_Meeting_

Last edited by eanassir; Mar 20th, 2009 at 06:21 AM..

If this so-called "liquid water" had been found anywhere but on the legs of the lander, it might have some significance, but the proximity of the rocket nozzles that blasted the ice near the surface during the landing, and added their own chemicals to the mix, make any liquid water announcement suspect. My opinion is that they haven't yet found uncontaminated liquid water on the surface of Mars, and they probably won't in the near future.

This is the first step where you #juan agree at least that in the far future (at least not the near future) as have you said!

[And I don’t think you will ever admit this cited at our website ( universeandquran.t35.com ) in spite of all that might be discovered; i.e. you will not admit that we said this and you contradicted it.]

To me, I think there is ample amount of sweet water and there is life on Mars, and this recent discovery is one of the successive steps towards this result.

If the temperature is so cold at the site of the Lander, and there have been some drops formed in this way, why wouldn’t such drops freeze quickly in such freezing circumstances? But on the contrary, the drops merged into larger drops.

Why the drops became larger by absorbing more humidity from the air, then they moved downwards? Because the drops in such conditions should evaporate (when the ice does allegedly sublimate!)

Therefore, when these drops became larger by absorbing some humidity from the atmosphere, it could be possible that such drops were formed not by the splash, but essentially from the humidity of the atmosphere itself (as is it the condiition here on Earth, when a cold metal will have some drops formed on it directly from the atmosphere humidity.)

Moreover, why is the ice restricted to the two poles (like that on Earth), and on the tops of some high mountains (like the situation of the Earth mountains)?

If it is very cold, then the entire planet should freeze, like some of the remote planets of our solar system.

universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_2.htm#The_Journey_to_Mars_Is_Successful_

Last edited by eanassir; Mar 20th, 2009 at 12:55 PM..

Water =/= Life.

Ceres also has water, alot of it, no life.

Even liquid water =/= life.

Who said no life on Ceres?

There may be some bacteria, fungus and simple plant like algae and simple animals like worms;

but of course there will be no man on Ceres, and man and complicated life forms need more requirements; it is very small (relatively as small as Texas).

universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_2.htm#Asteroids

Zzarchov, for once I agree with eanassir. Life cannot be ruled out on Ceres. There is liquid water. Sure, the temperature on the surface is very low, too low to sustain life as we know it. However, in volcanic regions, where there are active volcanoes, temperature may easily be 25 to 30 C.

Indeed, that was a huge big surprise on Io a few years ago. On Io (I think it was Io), they found live volcanoes. But whereas temperature of live volcanoes on earth may be a few hundred degrees C, on Io they had a temperature of 25 to 30 degrees C.

So it is quite possible that in or around volcanic regions, temperature may be sufficiently high for life to evolve. There are of course, carbon containing materials in sufficient quantities on most heavy planet moons (the bigger moons anyway) in the form of methane, ethane etc. So all the ingredients may be present for evolution of life.

Life on Ceres certainly cannot be ruled out. We just don’t know.

I agree with Juan.

Anything on the lander is rife with foreign contamination.
Massive temperature changes upon landing.
Perchlorate salts sounds like solid booster material to me.
Anywhere but on the lander and I could see the debate.
Trex

I should clarify SJP,

No life as eanassir considers it, no trees or people or birds, as eanassir believes life on mars.

If there is life 3km deep on earth there is life on or just below surface of Mars. No doubt about it. It obvious there will be life throught the Universe and probably the next one over too.

Juan. The rover doesn't have boosters. It landed inside ballons of nitrogen which came out of a red hot shield that landed thousands of km away. Perchlorate is found in your basement and without peroxide isn't part of a fuel.

Did I say there may be trees, people or birds on Ceres?
universeandquran.t35.com/#[_The_Mistake_of_Astronomers_about_the_Asteroids_1]
universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_2.htm#MistakeAboutAsteroids2

On Mars the thing is different: it is a large planet; its atmosphere is clear with clouds drifted by the wind; there is water on it; its core is still hot; and it has its day and year and seasons...etc.
universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_2.htm#The_Journey_to_Mars_Is_Successful_

Last edited by eanassir; Mar 20th, 2009 at 11:55 PM..

Perchlorate certainly is part of a fuel without peroxide.
Both perchlorate and peroxide are oxidizers.
Solid fuels do not require compounds combining oxidizers with oxidizers.
If the perchlorate compounds are isolated from the lander fine.
If they are directly on the lander I would have thought they could be a possible contaminant originating from boosters, explosive bolts, squibs or separating charges.
I am not saying that they are, simply that the origin must be pristine.

Trex

Water needs to be oxygenated to sustain life. Although there are bacteria that breath iron and give off O2 but don't necessarily oxygenate H2O. The abundance of sublithic bacteria is mind boggling no matter how deep we dig or how extreme the conditions.

Life came to earth through panspermia. There is no doubt about it.

The Deinococcus radiodurans can survive a nuke.

Tardigrades can take pretty much whatever you toss at them and have been around for a long long time and would have no troubles catching a ride on a piece of rock liberated from a planet after a major impact ejection.

Neat huh?

Either start reading or stop posting. I didn't even mention the rover. The alleged water was on one of the legs of the lander which did use rocket motors while landing. The following is an article showing that Perchlorate is used in the Phoenix lander engines.

Bad Science with Phoenix Lander


© 2008 Ted Twietmeyer



NASA appears to be back-peddling like a crazed chimp on drugs, regarding finding the viability of life in Mars soil. First, we heard how wonderful it was that the soil is so Earth-like that Asparagus could be planted there (if enough oxygen exists) weeks ago.


Now from AP we read a different story regard perchlorate – LOS ANGELES (AP) - NASA's Phoenix spacecraft has detected the presence of a chemically reactive salt in the Martian soil, a finding that if confirmed could make it less friendly to potential life than once believed.

Scientists previously reported that the soil near Mars' north pole was similar to backyard gardens on Earth where plants such as asparagus, green beans and turnips could grow. But preliminary results from a second lab test found perchlorate, a highly oxidizing salt, that would create a harsh environment.

Are we supposed to believe that the initial test in the Phoenix Lander’s laboratory didn’t show this chemical a week ago? I don’t buy that story at all.

Granted, on Earth it can commonly occur. But is NASA is comparing Mars to Earth, something which they haven’t done in the past? Their chief scientist goes on to say:

The AP report goes on further to state:

The first test "suggested Earth-like soil. Further analysis has revealed un-Earthlike aspects of the soil chemistry," chief scientist Peter Smith of the University of Arizona in Tucson said in a statement Monday.

It's unclear how perchlorate forms on Mars or how much there is of it. NASA is investigating whether the substance could have gotten there by contamination before launch. Phoenix used another fuel, hydrazine, to power its thrusters and land on the red planet on May 25.

Phoenix detected the salt through a chemistry experiment. The lander mixed soil with water brought from Earth into a teacup-size beaker and stirred it. Two dozen sensors inside the beaker detect the soil's pH and probe for traces of mineral nutrients.

There’s that key word, “unclear.” Almost invariably whenever you see that in any news report, lies usually come after it. And note how it states that there are two dozen sensors in the beaker – all making measurements at the same time.

This is where the line must be drawn on this NASA BS announcement and here’s why:

1. The Phoenix Lander uses perchlorate which is a solid rocket fuel used in the 12 rocket engines.

2. There wasn’t any contamination. The thrusters were built and assembled at a distant location. Perchlorate rocket fuel is a solid compound, permanently fixed inside the engines. There was no way perchlorate would have contaminated anything before launch, especially given the clean room conditions. It’s quite likely that Morton Thiokol, the Utah based company that builds and re-builds all the solid rocket boosters for the Shuttle, probably made these engines for Phoenix as well.

So how could perchlorate end up in the test results? It was the result of contaminated soil. When the vehicle landed on Mars, the landing thrusters kicked up loose soil and dust all around Phoenix for a large radius around the Lander which then settled back to the surface. Along with the settling dust came expended rocket fuel residue.

We know from rover images that the surface is very dusty, and dust devils have also been photographed on the surface.

Scientists want to confirm their results because another Phoenix instrument that bakes and sniffs soil samples found no evidence of perchlorate during a run on Sunday.

Brown University geologist John Mustard, who has no role in the mission, said judgment about the soil's potential to support life should be reserved until all the data are in.

NASA should have kept their mouth shut until every possibility was ruled out.
The soil sampling bucket can only reach out about three to four feet to retrieve a soil sample and deposit into one of the on-board laboratories. Phoenix uses a scoop similar to what the Viking Lander used 32 years ago (which is still sitting elsewhere on Mars, too.)
Soil samples retrieved by Phoenix would almost certainly be contaminated by reside from the vehicle’s rocket engines.
It’s also interesting how the two rovers elsewhere on Mars haven’t also reported measuring perchlorate in their tests using the Moss-Bauer spectrometer instruments they have.
Ted Twietmeyer

Phoenix used another fuel, hydrazine, to power its thrusters and land on the red planet on May 25.

Do you have any idea how common perchlorate is and what it's properties are in relationship to water?

Whatever. It's most plausible that without human interference, the only water on Mars is in the form of FROZEN water.

Life on Mars?

Neat...

When do we get to kill it?