Comments:Phoenix lander confirms presence of water ice on Mars

Absolutely amazing I must say. Water on another planet. Wow :). We are slowly finding out more about the Universe.  Knowledge is vast!
 * Cool stuff! Fephisto (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely amazing. Good job NASA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.15.202.133 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, good job is wasting public money which has been involuntarily given by the American public. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be worth it in the long run. Reyk (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

we pay taxes, and it is inevitable that some of those taxes will go towards things we'd rather they didn't. better this than an unnecessary war. -Imind (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although more tax money goes to wars and useless things. One a small fraction goes to NASA. They aren't even really part of the US government. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree with this, it's still a pretty cool development. Fephisto (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Shadown
When I look at this picture in high resolution, I notice there is a clear reddish color that follows the contour of the shadow casting into the hole. Is this an optical illusion or is it real? Can anyone explain this?—65.216.251.45 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when does the apparent disappearance of a white substance imply the evaporation of frozen water? And isn't the term "water ice" redundant or is the term more scientific?

-Sceptic —155.94.62.221 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

- The white substance could have been one of two things: water ice or salt. Water ice, when exposed to very low pressures and low temperatures, will gradually sublimate off into vapour and disappear just like in the photos. Salt doesn't do that. As for calling it water ice, there are other substances like methane that can also become liquids and solids if you cool them, so it makes sense to talk of "methane ice" and things like that. Reyk (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The exact temperatures and pressures involved rule out methane completely as it requires a much colder temperature than is currently at that site. Water is the only substance with these properties in these ranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.168.168 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just giving an example of another substance that has an ice form, not trying to say there was any of it actually on Mars. Sorry to be so unclear. Reyk (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From a linguistic point of view, the phrase "water ice" also probably sounds better than just "ice." NASA has been hoping for a long time to find water on Mars or another planet, which would indicate the presence of or capability for life. Therefore, calling the stuff "water ice" solidifies the discovery with the hope of the future discovery of life on Mars. cornman7001 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.220.118 (talk)

I still say send Bush!
NASA... your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to put a man on Mars. And that man should be George W. Bush. There still won't be any intelligent life there, but Earth will be much better off.

Oh, and if he expresses any doubts, tell him he will on arrival be appointed head of "Mars Oil". --Brian McNeil / talk 13:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From above: "Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy, however please remain on topic" --SVTCobra 23:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why send a robot probe to dig, if not to look for oil. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the current lack of evidence of life ever existing on Mars, the chance that enough organic material collected and got turned into oil is pretty slim. You'd be better off mining for something to use in a nuclear reactor. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)