Phoenix science results, Beginning with December 2008 AGU meeting |
Phoenix science results, Beginning with December 2008 AGU meeting |
Dec 15 2008, 09:22 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
I figured it was time for a new thread, since we finally seem to be getting some science results out of Phoenix. The press release should be out shortly.
First numerical result I've heard was given by Peter Smith at today's press briefing at AGU: TEGA found that the soil is composed of 5% calcium carbonate, which is a significant result. Hopefully more will hit the Web soon -- post here when the links go up! --Emily -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Dec 16 2008, 11:15 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I think it's consistent. They saw vapour, they saw films, but they didn't see liquid - I think is the main story.
Doug |
|
|
Dec 17 2008, 11:49 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 5-January 07 From: Manchester England Member No.: 1563 |
I think it's consistent. They saw vapour, they saw films, but they didn't see liquid - I think is the main story. Doug I'm going to be hopelessly pedantic here Doug: the report describes that QUOTE "A film of water molecules accumulates on the surfaces of mineral particles. It's not enough right now to transform the chemistry, but the measurements are providing verification that these molecular films are occurring when you would expect them to, and this gives us more confidence in predicting the way they would behave in other parts of the obliquity cycles." However the preliminary results, described in this article were that: QUOTE "There are no indications of thin films of moisture, and this is puzzling.....the probe can detect films of water barely more than one molecule thick." If the films were around the one molecule thick mark, or the electrical characteristics of the soil were different than expected, or any one of a zillion things, I totally get that the readings might have needed carefully examining before the evidence was apparent. I'm just wondering how exactly they got from 'the soil is puzzlingly free of water', to 'the soil has some thin films of water molecules'. Sorry for the pedantry, I'm just being greedy for details really..... -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th April 2024 - 08:25 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |