Comments on: Phoenix Lander Tries Out Soil Probe and Atomic Microscope

By: Van

Van — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:00:25 +0000

I thought an atomic force microscope needed a high vacuum? I know the atmo is thin on Mars but it ain't vacuum. I guess I have not kept up. Okies, according to the Wiki, "While an electron microscope needs an expensive vacuum environment for proper operation, most AFM modes can work perfectly well in ambient air or even a liquid environment. This makes it possible to study biological macromolecules and even living organisms. In principle, AFM can provide higher resolution than SEM. It has been shown to give true atomic resolution in ultra-high vacuum (UHV). UHV AFM is comparable in resolution to Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and Transmission Electron Microscopy."

So, it works in "air" but it cannot count individual atoms, I guess. Way cool.

By: neoguru

neoguru — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:52:43 +0000

I find it very interesting that others share my concern about the analytical data. Unless I'm mistaken, the only "evidence for water" is the observed rate of sublimation of small chunks of ice uncovered by the scraper. Since the ice cap of Mars is composed mostly of frozen CO2, sublimation of a small chunk of ice is certainly not enough evidence to conclude water ice even exists on Mars. When do we get to see the analysis?

By: James

James — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:16:26 +0000

Like discussed in previous article's comments, the Phoenix mission already has pretty conservative goals. Even at the end, what it's telling us isn't that much (especially when compared with the price of the mission). Look at the goals of the mission on the NASA website if you want further clarification on that~

However, I'm still 100% for the mission, though, because:
1) we did what we could with the resources available (I guess)
2) it was another successful Mars landing/mission, which is good support for future missions
3) we still are learning a lot about Mars..maybe the hype of the mission didn't fit in with how much it's telling us.
In any event, I do think the Phoenix is telling us what we wanted it to up to this point, so the mission has seemed pretty successful. In time we'll know everything it can tell us, so just stay patient!

By: Sonora Rev

Sonora Rev — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:00:00 +0000

To hd:
I agree. I took a look at the Phoenix lander website and virtually no technical info. So far, the perception from that this team seems to be generating is "limited information." If they are still in analysis, why not say so and provide a status? Maybe we're missing something and it's there…

By: hd

hd — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:39:05 +0000

I also am a bit disappointed about the lack of information coming from phoenix.

What about the first wet chemistry results? They could at least have posted a summary.

By: byron

byron — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:54:09 +0000

@Ralph

For some reason i thought we were astonished at how there was absolutely NO water in moon rocks.

""Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs because they are so dry," Ryder said. "They contain no molecules of water, they're not oxidized and they contain no ferric iron. They're easy to distinguish from rocks on Earth.""

Of course this finding was established 30 years later so i'd rather wait a while longer than 48 hours to hear the real truth

By: Ralph Rewes

Ralph Rewes — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:03:45 +0000

Scientists have yet to release any information about the second test from the Wet Chemistry Lab. They are still analyzing the results.

How long. It took 48 years to find out that there was water in the moon rocks!?