Did the Phoenix lander spot liquid water on Mars?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A team of researchers analyzing images and data gathered by the now-defunct Phoenix spacecraft believes that the lander spotted liquid water on Mars—and that such liquid may be common on the Red Planet. But even within the Phoenix science team, not everyone is convinced.

In a study (pdf) set to be presented next week at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in the Woodlands, Tex., Nilton Renno, a professor of atmospheric, oceanic and space sciences at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and his co-authors say that drops of saline appeared where the lander disturbed the Red Planet's surface. Renno is a co-investigator on the Phoenix mission's science team.

The researchers present photographs (right; click to enlarge) showing mysterious shifting blobs on the surface of the lander (highlighted in green), which they believe are drops of brine that splashed up during landing and remained in liquid form. Perchlorate salts, which Phoenix discovered in the Martian soil, could lower the freezing point of the liquid and allow it to persist at the frigid temperatures found on the Red Planet.

But another Phoenix co-investigator, physicist Michael Hecht of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., is dubious. "I am not skeptical about the possibility of liquid water existing on Mars in general," he says. "The only area in which Nilton Renno and I disagree is whether there is liquid water in these droplets on the lander struts." Hecht is the lead scientist for Phoenix's MECA experiment, which turned up the Martian perchlorates this past summer.

The physical evidence for liquid consists of "grainy photographs blown up from the corner of another photograph, and that's part of the issue," Hecht says. "The quality of the evidence is somewhat weak." And the behavior of the blobs, he says, is not consistent with that of perchlorate brines.

Hecht believes that frost is a more likely explanation for the blobs than liquid water. "To me, that's the obvious conclusion, and to say that they're liquid is the extraordinary conclusion," he says. "Generally we pick the ordinary unless there's a compelling reason to accept the extraordinary. And I don't see that compelling reason."

Photo credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Max Planck Institute

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe