NASA'S PhoenixMarsLander CheckingSoilProperties.
"June 07, 2008 The arm of NASA's PhoenixMarsLander released a
handful of clumpy Martiansoilonto a screened opening of a laboratory
instrument on the spacecraft Friday, but the instrument did not
confirm that any of the sample passed through the screen."http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/news.php

This confirms an argument I've been making for years now. That the
reason the Viking GCMS failed to detect organics in the Martiansoil
probably was due to low amounts of sample being delivered to the
instrument. The key point is the "sample full" detector for the GCMS
at BOTH Viking sites failed to give sample full indications. This is
curious because there were similar sample full detectors on the
biology experiments that did properly show full samples were
delivered. I concluded that the sample full detectors for the GCMS
were in fact operating correctly and correctly indicated that only
below registering amounts of sample were delivered.
I copied below a post to sci.astro were I discuss this argument. TheMarsPhoenix scientists have given an explanation in this case that it
might be the clumpiness of thesoilthat prevents it from passing
through the sieving grid. I considered this as the possible reason
also in the Viking case but another possibility I think should be
investigated usingMarssimulantsoilis that the extreme low humidity
ofMarscreates a great amount of static electricity that causes thesoilto stick to the sieving grid.
The most relevant passage I copied below in all caps.

==========================================> Newsgroups: sci.astro, alt.sci.planetary, rec.arts.sf.science,
sci.bio.misc
From: Robert Clark <rgcl
Date: 2000/02/25
Subject: Odds of Hazard of theMarsSample Return Mission.

From the MSNBC Space bbs,http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-
space/index.asp :

************************************************** *****
Subject: Re: Odds of Hazard (was: Re: Disagree with...
From: Robert Clark
Host: isp15a-21.pha.adelphia.net
Date: Thu Feb 24 12:38:47

I think the low odds frequently given for the
likelihood of back contamination ofMarsorganisms is due
to the assumption that the likelihood of life on the
surface ofMarsis virtually nonexistent. There are
reasons to doubt this conclusion. The Antaeus report gave
some plausible scenarios where life could still exist onMarsdespite the results of the Viking missions.
Unfortunately this is no longer available on the
Astrobiology Web site in the Planetary Protection
section,http://www2.astrobiology.com/astro/protection.html
Another paper discussing possibilities for life onMars
after Viking is by Thomas and Schimel:

D. J. Thomas and J. P. Schimel, 1991.Marsafter the
Viking missions: is life still possible? Icarus,
91:199-206,http://www.lyon.edu/webdata/users/dthomas/publications/Thomas_and_Sch...

Also discussed in the Antaeus report are some known
situations where organisms taken out of their natural
environment had flourished and out-competed the organisms
already there. Their conclusion essentially was this was
not the usual state of affairs but it was known to occur
on Earth. This was important since I had not seen this
consideration discussed in any detail in any of the other
NASA reports on possible back contamination byMars
samples. This gave some useful information to address the
claims frequently made thatMarsorganisms would be
unlikely to thrive outside their natural environment.
It has been also asserted that it is unlikely thatMars
life and Earth life would even be compatible. However,
recent research suggests that Earth andMarsas well as
the other terrestrial planets have been exchanging
material through impact ejecta throughout the life of the
solar system. Experiments suggest that some microbes
would be able to survive the trip through space encased
in the meteorites. Experiments also show that some very
hardy Earth microbes should be able to survive on the
surface ofMars. So it is likely that Earth andMarshave
exchanged some biological material. Since they have
exchanged biological material should we be concerned with
introducing new material? An analogous question to ask is
since they have exchanged biological material should we
be concerned with introducing new material with our
spacecraft we send toMars? I think most scientists would
say yes. If we arbitrarily introduced new material toMarswe could not determine the extent of naturally
occurring life we found there at some later time when
extensive, perhaps human, exploration takes place. Also,
over millennia the Earth life transferred there may have
evolved to their new environment to be as well adapted toMarsas has life that evolved there independently. In the
case of possible life already transferred to Earth fromMarsvia meteorites, it is impossible to tell how much
this life has been damaging to the life present in the
area in which it arrived. It may be that over time theMarslife and Earth life accommodated each other with
some adaptations to each. Arguing that we need not be
concerned with introducing newMarslife since it has
happened before is a little like saying since we have
introduced new life from one region on Earth to another
region without deletious effects, we need not be
concerned with introducing ANY new life from one region
to another, clearly not a legitimate argument.

Now in my opinion there are also other reasons to doubt
the prevailing opinion that the Viking missions detected
no life onMars. All three life experiments detected life
signs onMarsand two of them the Labeled Release and
Pyrolytic Release experiments also satisfied the
criterion of getting no life signs after sterilization by
heating. The third the Gas Exchange experiment is
frequently said to be incompatible with life since some
gas was still released after heating to 145 degrees C.
However, it is usually not mentioned that the amount of
gas relesed was reduced to 45% after heating and as
discussed again in the Antaeus report as many as 10%
of some organisms will survive heating even to 160
degrees C.
The primary reason for the conclusion of no life onMarswere the results of the Viking GCMS which could
detect no organics on the surface ofMars. Back in 1976
this might have seemed a reasonable conclusion to accept.
However, I believe it no longer is so. Astronomical
observations show organics to be ubiquitous in the
universe. They've been found on the Moon, comets,
meteorites, asteroids, interstellar clouds,
interplanetary dust grains that fall to Earth (and
presumably other planets), Titan, Pluto and Charon, and
the moons of Jupiter, Ganymede and Callisto. These last
two are important because it shows organics are able to
survive the intense radiation environment in the vicinity
of Jupiter. This has relevance to the situation onMars
since the UV flux onMarshad been argued to limit the
possibility of organics on the surface. However, a recent
paper by Chris Chyba in Nature has argued that radiation
itself may create organics on the Jovian moon Europa:

Jovian Radiation Could Heat Up Europan Souphttp://www.spacedaily.com/spacecast/news/life-00e.html

It is possible the same mechanism occurs onMarsto
create organics.
Since the prevalence of organics in the universe makes
it quite likely they also occur onMars, it is my opinion
that an important fact was left out of the papers
describing the results of the Viking GCMS. In the first
report from the GCMS team in Science it is mentioned that
the sample indicator didn't get a full indication for
Viking Lander 1,
"Search for organic and volatile inorganic compounds
in two surface samples from the Chryse Planitia region ofMars", Science, vol. 194, Oct. 1, 1976, p. 72-76.
This is also discussed in the online history of the
Viking missions:

ONMARS
Exploration of the Red Planet 1958-1978http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/on-mars.html

In Chapter 11 of ONMARS, in the section "Sampling
the Martian Surface", it states that the Viking 1
GCMS never got the signal that a sample was actually
delivered:

"The firstsoilsamples were acquired on sol 8, 28
July. Four samples were dug, with the first being
deposited into the biology instrument distributor
assembly, the next two into the GCMS processor, and
the fourth into the funnel of the x-ray fluorescence
spectrometer. All the commands were successfully
executed, but there was no positive indication that the
gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer processor
had been properly filled. A second acquisition attempt
still did not provide a "sample level detector `full'
indication". The sampler system, having completed its
programmed sequences in a normal manner, parked the boom
as planned. On Earth, the lander performance specialists
began to analyze the possible causes of the anomaly: (1)
insufficient sample acquired in the collector head
because the same sample collection
site had also been used for the biology sample; (2)
insufficient time allowed for the sample to pass from the
funnel through the sample grinding section and then
through the fine (300-micrometer) sieve into the metering
cavity of the instrument; (3) grinder stirring spring not
contacting the sieve; or (4) sample-level-detector
circuit faulty. Since the "level-full" detector
consisted of a very fine wire stretched across the cavity
to which the sample material was
delivered, it was also possible that it had broken when
thesoilwas dropped into the funnel."
Ch. 11-5 SCIENCE ONMARShttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/ch11-5.html

It is therefore puzzling to read in the Journal of
Geophysical Research paper on the GCMS results from
Viking Lander 2 that there was no sample full sensor:

"The are two positions to which any of the ovens
can be moved in any sequence. The load position is
directly under the sampling system, which delivers about
1-2 cm^3 of surface material that after having been
ground ...

read more »

...
THIS PAPER DISCUSSES THE GCMS RESULTS FROM BOTH VIKING
LANDERS. THE CONCLUSION I DRAW FROM THIS PASSAGE IS THAT
IN FACT THE VIKING LANDER 2 GCMS ALSO NEVER GOT A SAMPLE
FULL INDICATION. I DISCUSSED THIS VIA EMAIL WITH TWO
RESEARCHERS WHO WORKED ON THE VIKING MISSIONS AND THEIR
VIEW WAS THAT SINCE THE GCMS DID DETECT WATER EVOLVED
DURING HEATING THIS WAS PROOF THAT A SAMPLE WAS
DELIVERED. HOWEVER, ONE DOES NOTE THE JGR PAPER ADMITS IT
CAN'T BE DETERMINED THE SIZE OF THIS SAMPLE. IN MY
OPINION IF WAS INDEED THE CASE THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER
GOT A SAMPLE FULL INDICATION AT EITHER OF THE VIKING
SITES FOR ANY OF THE SAMPLES DRAWN BY THE ROBOT ARM, THEN
THIS FACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAPERS
DESCRIBING THE GCMS RESULTS. THIS GAINS EVEN MORE
SIGNIFICANCE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SAMPLE FULL
INDICATOR FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS WAS VIRTUALLY
IDENTICAL, YET DID RECEIVE SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS. ONE
COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAMPLE
FULL INDICATORS FAILED AT BOTH VIKING SITES FOR THE GCMS
YET WORKED FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS OR ONE COULD
CONCLUDE THAT IN FACT THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS WERE IN
FACT GIVING A CORRECT READING FOR THE GCMS. IN THAT CASE
ONE WOULD BE LED TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS FOR THE GCMS AND THE
BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS. IT TURNS OUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS
THAT THE GCMS HAD A MUCH SMALLER SIEVING GRID THAN DID
THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE IT NEEDED SMALLER
SAMPLES. THE EXAMINATION OF THE VIKING SOIL LED TO NEW
(AND UNEXPECTED) INFORMATION ON THE SIZE OF SOIL
PARTICLES, THE MAGNETISM OF THE PARTICLES, THE
COHESIVENESS (STICKINESS) OF THE PARTICLES, AND, ONE
COULD CONCLUDE, THE STATIC ELECTRICITY OF THE PARTICLES
IN THE DRY MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE. IN MY OPINION, KNOWING
THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER GOT SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS
WHILE THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS DID, COULD HAVE LED TO
EXPERIMENTS TO REPRODUCE THE MARTIAN SOIL USING THE NEW
DATA RETURNED BY VIKING TO SEE IF IN SUCH CONDITIONS IT
WAS POSSIBLE THAT ONLY MINUTE SAMPLES WOULD BE DELIVERED
TO THE GCMS.
...

...
THIS PAPER DISCUSSES THE GCMS RESULTS FROM BOTH VIKING
LANDERS. THE CONCLUSION I DRAW FROM THIS PASSAGE IS THAT
IN FACT THE VIKING LANDER 2 GCMS ALSO NEVER GOT A SAMPLE
FULL INDICATION. I DISCUSSED THIS VIA EMAIL WITH TWO
RESEARCHERS WHO WORKED ON THE VIKING MISSIONS AND THEIR
VIEW WAS THAT SINCE THE GCMS DID DETECT WATER EVOLVED
DURING HEATING THIS WAS PROOF THAT A SAMPLE WAS
DELIVERED. HOWEVER, ONE DOES NOTE THE JGR PAPER ADMITS IT
CAN'T BE DETERMINED THE SIZE OF THIS SAMPLE. IN MY
OPINION IF WAS INDEED THE CASE THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER
GOT A SAMPLE FULL INDICATION AT EITHER OF THE VIKING
SITES FOR ANY OF THE SAMPLES DRAWN BY THE ROBOT ARM, THEN
THIS FACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAPERS
DESCRIBING THE GCMS RESULTS. THIS GAINS EVEN MORE
SIGNIFICANCE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SAMPLE FULL
INDICATOR FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS WAS VIRTUALLY
IDENTICAL, YET DID RECEIVE SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS. ONE
COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAMPLE
FULL INDICATORS FAILED AT BOTH VIKING SITES FOR THE GCMS
YET WORKED FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS OR ONE COULD
CONCLUDE THAT IN FACT THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS WERE IN
FACT GIVING A CORRECT READING FOR THE GCMS. IN THAT CASE
ONE WOULD BE LED TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS FOR THE GCMS AND THE
BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS. IT TURNS OUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS
THAT THE GCMS HAD A MUCH SMALLER SIEVING GRID THAN DID
THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE IT NEEDED SMALLER
SAMPLES. THE EXAMINATION OF THE VIKING SOIL LED TO NEW
(AND UNEXPECTED) INFORMATION ON THE SIZE OF SOIL
PARTICLES, THE MAGNETISM OF THE PARTICLES, THE
COHESIVENESS (STICKINESS) OF THE PARTICLES, AND, ONE
COULD CONCLUDE, THE STATIC ELECTRICITY OF THE PARTICLES
IN THE DRY MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE. IN MY OPINION, KNOWING
THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER GOT SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS
WHILE THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS DID, COULD HAVE LED TO
EXPERIMENTS TO REPRODUCE THE MARTIAN SOIL USING THE NEW
DATA RETURNED BY VIKING TO SEE IF IN SUCH CONDITIONS IT
WAS POSSIBLE THAT ONLY MINUTE SAMPLES WOULD BE DELIVERED
TO THE GCMS.
...

Here's one report on research on static electricity that might occur
in Martian soil:

======================================
Title: Electrical Properties of Martian Regolith Simulant Particles.
Authors: Calle, C. I.; Kim, H. S.
Affiliation: AA(Sweet Briar College), AB(NASA/Kennedy Space Center)
Journal: American Astronomical Society Meeting #193, #96.07
Publication Date: 12/1998
Origin: AAS
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1998: American Astronomical Society
Bibliographic Code: 1998AAS...193.9607C

Abstract
Hubble Space Telescope observations of Mars from Earth as well as
spacecraft
measurements from orbit around Mars and from the Martian surface
itself have
shown that suspended dust is a significant component of the Martian
atmosphere.
Dust clouds have been observed extending over areas as large as a few
million
square kilometers. Hubble has also photographed planet-wide dust
storms lasting
for over one month. These conditions, coupled with the absence of any
significant amounts of water in the Martian atmosphere, may create
electrostatic
potentials that could be hazardous for astronauts and equipment in
future
missions. The electrical properties of the Martian soil have been
determined
directly only by radio occultation from spacecraft in orbit about
Mars, by
earth-based radar, and by microwave radiometry. For the present work,
experiments were designed to determine the electrical properties of a
Martian
regolith simulant prepared from Andesitic rocks by NASA Johnson Space
Center
that has been shown to be a good spectral analog to the soil in the
bright
regions of Mars. The volume electrical conductivity of the simulant
was measured
to be intermediate between that of a good conductor and that of a
good
insulator. Thus, the simulant particles were expected to exhibit
fairly high
surface electrostatic charging and polarizability. Experiments to
determine
polarization and electrostatic charging of the simulant particles
under several
conditions were conducted.
=======================================

IF it is static electricity that is causing the stickiness then to
get samples to be delivered to the Mars Phoenix instruments we might
try to take the samples when the moisture in the air is highest.
The Mars MER rovers found there was frost deposited at night that
burned off in early morning. This time would likely be when the
humidity was highest at those sites.
The Mars Phoenix site is in a polar region during Martian northern
summer where the Sun is always above the horizon so strickly speaking
there won't be *night-time* frost deposition. Still there is great air
temperature variation from -30C to -80C so there will likely be a
diurnal time frame when the frost deposition is highest and also an
optimal time frame where this frost will burn off as the temperature
rises. Note also that orbital observations show that atmospheric water
vapor is highest in the Mars polar regions so such frost deposition at
the Phoenix site might be signicantly higher than for the equatorial
MER rovers.
However, it is not certain that static electricity due to low air
moisture is the problem here. Conceivably it might be the exact
opposite where residual *liquid* water in the soil contributes to the
stickiness of the soil. If this is the case then we will actually want
to take the samples when the himidity in the air is lowest. Both
scenarios should be tried.
Still another possibility is the magnetite particles that have been
seen at the other landing sites is the cause of the stickiness. If
this is the case I doubt that humidity variations will have an effect
on the stickiness. I don't have a solution in this case. Perhaps
experiments with Mars similants containing such magnetic particles
would provide a solution about how best to deliver samples to the
lander experiments.

Bob Clark

NASA'S Phoenix Mars Lander Checking Soil Properties.
"June 07, 2008 The arm of NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander released a
handful of clumpy Martian soil onto a screened opening of a laboratory
instrument on the spacecraft Friday, but the instrument did not
confirm that any of the sample passed through the screen."
[snip]
Bob Clark

On Jun 8, 4:14 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:





...
THIS PAPER DISCUSSES THE GCMS RESULTS FROM BOTH VIKING
LANDERS. THE CONCLUSION I DRAW FROM THIS PASSAGE IS THAT
IN FACT THE VIKING LANDER 2 GCMS ALSO NEVER GOT A SAMPLE
FULL INDICATION. I DISCUSSED THIS VIA EMAIL WITH TWO
RESEARCHERS WHO WORKED ON THE VIKING MISSIONS AND THEIR
VIEW WAS THAT SINCE THE GCMS DID DETECT WATER EVOLVED
DURING HEATING THIS WAS PROOF THAT A SAMPLE WAS
DELIVERED. HOWEVER, ONE DOES NOTE THE JGR PAPER ADMITS IT
CAN'T BE DETERMINED THE SIZE OF THIS SAMPLE. IN MY
OPINION IF WAS INDEED THE CASE THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER
GOT A SAMPLE FULL INDICATION AT EITHER OF THE VIKING
SITES FOR ANY OF THE SAMPLES DRAWN BY THE ROBOT ARM, THEN
THIS FACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAPERS
DESCRIBING THE GCMS RESULTS. THIS GAINS EVEN MORE
SIGNIFICANCE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SAMPLE FULL
INDICATOR FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS WAS VIRTUALLY
IDENTICAL, YET DID RECEIVE SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS. ONE
COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAMPLE
FULL INDICATORS FAILED AT BOTH VIKING SITES FOR THE GCMS
YET WORKED FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS OR ONE COULD
CONCLUDE THAT IN FACT THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS WERE IN
FACT GIVING A CORRECT READING FOR THE GCMS. IN THAT CASE
ONE WOULD BE LED TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS FOR THE GCMS AND THE
BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS. IT TURNS OUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS
THAT THE GCMS HAD A MUCH SMALLER SIEVING GRID THAN DID
THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE IT NEEDED SMALLER
SAMPLES. THE EXAMINATION OF THE VIKING SOIL LED TO NEW
(AND UNEXPECTED) INFORMATION ON THE SIZE OF SOIL
PARTICLES, THE MAGNETISM OF THE PARTICLES, THE
COHESIVENESS (STICKINESS) OF THE PARTICLES, AND, ONE
COULD CONCLUDE, THE STATIC ELECTRICITY OF THE PARTICLES
IN THE DRY MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE. IN MY OPINION, KNOWING
THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER GOT SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS
WHILE THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS DID, COULD HAVE LED TO
EXPERIMENTS TO REPRODUCE THE MARTIAN SOIL USING THE NEW
DATA RETURNED BY VIKING TO SEE IF IN SUCH CONDITIONS IT
WAS POSSIBLE THAT ONLY MINUTE SAMPLES WOULD BE DELIVERED
TO THE GCMS.
...

 Here's one report on research on static electricity that might occur
in Martian soil:

=====================================> > Title: Electrical Properties of Martian Regolith Simulant Particles.
Authors: Calle, C. I.; Kim, H. S.
Affiliation: AA(Sweet Briar College), AB(NASA/Kennedy Space Center)
Journal: American Astronomical Society Meeting #193, #96.07
Publication Date: 12/1998
Origin: AAS
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1998: American Astronomical Society
Bibliographic Code: 1998AAS...193.9607C

Abstract
Hubble Space Telescope observations of Mars from Earth as well as
spacecraft
measurements from orbit around Mars and from the Martian surface
itself have
shown that suspended dust is a significant component of the Martian
atmosphere.
Dust clouds have been observed extending over areas as large as a few
million
square kilometers. Hubble has also photographed planet-wide dust
storms lasting
for over one month. These conditions, coupled with the absence of any
significant amounts of water in the Martian atmosphere, may create
electrostatic
potentials that could be hazardous for astronauts and equipment in
future
missions. The electrical properties of the Martian soil have been
determined
directly only by radio occultation from spacecraft in orbit about
Mars, by
earth-based radar, and by microwave radiometry. For the present work,
experiments were designed to determine the electrical properties of a
Martian
regolith simulant prepared from Andesitic rocks by NASA Johnson Space
Center
that has been shown to be a good spectral analog to the soil in the
bright
regions of Mars. The volume electrical conductivity of the simulant
was measured
to be intermediate between that of a good conductor and that of a
good
insulator. Thus, the simulant particles were expected to exhibit
fairly high
surface electrostatic charging and polarizability. Experiments to
determine
polarization and electrostatic charging of the simulant particles
under several
conditions were conducted.
======================================
 IF it is static electricity that is causing the stickiness then to
get samples to be delivered to the Mars Phoenix instruments we might
try to take the samples when the moisture in the air is highest.
 The Mars MER rovers found there was frost deposited at night that
burned off in early morning. This time would likely be when the
humidity was highest at those sites.
 The Mars Phoenix site is in a polar region during Martian northern
summer where the Sun is always above the horizon so strickly speaking
there won't be *night-time* frost deposition. Still there is great air
temperature variation from -30C to -80C so there will likely be a
diurnal time frame when the frost deposition is highest and also an
optimal time frame where this frost will burn off as the temperature
rises. Note also that orbital observations show that atmospheric water
vapor is highest in the Mars polar regions so such frost deposition at
the Phoenix site might be signicantly higher than for the equatorial
MER rovers.
 However, it is not certain that static electricity due to low air
moisture is the problem here. Conceivably it might be the exact
opposite where residual *liquid*  water in the soil contributes to the
stickiness of the soil. If this is the case then we will actually want
to take the samples when the himidity in the air is lowest. Both
scenarios should be tried.
 Still another possibility is the magnetite particles that have been
seen at the other landing sites is the cause of the stickiness. If
this is the case I doubt that humidity variations will have an effect
on the stickiness. I don't have a solution in this case. Perhaps
experiments with Mars similants containing such magnetic particles
would provide a solution about how best to deliver samples to the
lander experiments.

   Bob Clark

Most any crystal dry environment should be highly charged, especially
where there's so freaking little if any h2o to behold.

Our trusty moon is charged to several teraVolts, and I tend to believe
there's a good many amps worth of load capacity that our moon could
likely sustain if it were properly rigged.

On Jun 8, 7:58 pm, BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



On Jun 8, 4:14 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

...
THIS PAPER DISCUSSES THE GCMS RESULTS FROM BOTH VIKING
LANDERS. THE CONCLUSION I DRAW FROM THIS PASSAGE IS THAT
IN FACT THE VIKING LANDER 2 GCMS ALSO NEVER GOT A SAMPLE
FULL INDICATION. I DISCUSSED THIS VIA EMAIL WITH TWO
RESEARCHERS WHO WORKED ON THE VIKING MISSIONS AND THEIR
VIEW WAS THAT SINCE THE GCMS DID DETECT WATER EVOLVED
DURING HEATING THIS WAS PROOF THAT A SAMPLE WAS
DELIVERED. HOWEVER, ONE DOES NOTE THE JGR PAPER ADMITS IT
CAN'T BE DETERMINED THE SIZE OF THIS SAMPLE. IN MY
OPINION IF WAS INDEED THE CASE THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER
GOT A SAMPLE FULL INDICATION AT EITHER OF THE VIKING
SITES FOR ANY OF THE SAMPLES DRAWN BY THE ROBOT ARM, THEN
THIS FACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE PAPERS
DESCRIBING THE GCMS RESULTS. THIS GAINS EVEN MORE
SIGNIFICANCE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SAMPLE FULL
INDICATOR FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS WAS VIRTUALLY
IDENTICAL, YET DID RECEIVE SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS. ONE
COULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS ONLY COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAMPLE
FULL INDICATORS FAILED AT BOTH VIKING SITES FOR THE GCMS
YET WORKED FOR THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS OR ONE COULD
CONCLUDE THAT IN FACT THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS WERE IN
FACT GIVING A CORRECT READING FOR THE GCMS. IN THAT CASE
ONE WOULD BE LED TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE SAMPLE FULL INDICATORS FOR THE GCMS AND THE
BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS. IT TURNS OUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS
THAT THE GCMS HAD A MUCH SMALLER SIEVING GRID THAN DID
THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE IT NEEDED SMALLER
SAMPLES. THE EXAMINATION OF THE VIKING SOIL LED TO NEW
(AND UNEXPECTED) INFORMATION ON THE SIZE OF SOIL
PARTICLES, THE MAGNETISM OF THE PARTICLES, THE
COHESIVENESS (STICKINESS) OF THE PARTICLES, AND, ONE
COULD CONCLUDE, THE STATIC ELECTRICITY OF THE PARTICLES
IN THE DRY MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE. IN MY OPINION, KNOWING
THAT THE VIKING GCMS NEVER GOT SAMPLE FULL INDICATIONS
WHILE THE BIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS DID, COULD HAVE LED TO
EXPERIMENTS TO REPRODUCE THE MARTIAN SOIL USING THE NEW
DATA RETURNED BY VIKING TO SEE IF IN SUCH CONDITIONS IT
WAS POSSIBLE THAT ONLY MINUTE SAMPLES WOULD BE DELIVERED
TO THE GCMS.
...

Here's one report on research on static electricity that might occur
in Martian soil:

======================================
Title: Electrical Properties of Martian Regolith Simulant Particles.
Authors: Calle, C. I.; Kim, H. S.
Affiliation: AA(Sweet Briar College), AB(NASA/Kennedy Space Center)
Journal: American Astronomical Society Meeting #193, #96.07
Publication Date: 12/1998
Origin: AAS
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1998: American Astronomical Society
Bibliographic Code: 1998AAS...193.9607C

Abstract
Hubble Space Telescope observations of Mars from Earth as well as
spacecraft
measurements from orbit around Mars and from the Martian surface
itself have
shown that suspended dust is a significant component of the Martian
atmosphere.
Dust clouds have been observed extending over areas as large as a few
million
square kilometers. Hubble has also photographed planet-wide dust
storms lasting
for over one month. These conditions, coupled with the absence of any
significant amounts of water in the Martian atmosphere, may create
electrostatic
potentials that could be hazardous for astronauts and equipment in
future
missions. The electrical properties of the Martian soil have been
determined
directly only by radio occultation from spacecraft in orbit about
Mars, by
earth-based radar, and by microwave radiometry. For the present work,
experiments were designed to determine the electrical properties of a
Martian
regolith simulant prepared from Andesitic rocks by NASA Johnson Space
Center
that has been shown to be a good spectral analog to the soil in the
bright
regions of Mars. The volume electrical conductivity of the simulant
was measured
to be intermediate between that of a good conductor and that of a
good
insulator. Thus, the simulant particles were expected to exhibit
fairly high
surface electrostatic charging and polarizability. Experiments to
determine
polarization and electrostatic charging of the simulant particles
under several
conditions were conducted.
=======================================

IF it is static electricity that is causing the stickiness then to
get samples to be delivered to the Mars Phoenix instruments we might
try to take the samples when the moisture in the air is highest.
The Mars MER rovers found there was frost deposited at night that
burned off in early morning. This time would likely be when the
humidity was highest at those sites.
The Mars Phoenix site is in a polar region during Martian northern
summer where the Sun is always above the horizon so strickly speaking
there won't be *night-time* frost deposition. Still there is great air
temperature variation from -30C to -80C so there will likely be a
diurnal time frame when the frost deposition is highest and also an
optimal time frame where this frost will burn off as the temperature
rises. Note also that orbital observations show that atmospheric water
vapor is highest in the Mars polar regions so such frost deposition at
the Phoenix site might be signicantly higher than for the equatorial
MER rovers.
However, it is not certain that static electricity due to low air
moisture is the problem here. Conceivably it might be the exact
opposite where residual *liquid* water in the soil contributes to the
stickiness of the soil. If this is the case then we will actually want
to take the samples when the himidity in the air is lowest. Both
scenarios should be tried.
Still another possibility is the magnetite particles that have been
seen at the other landing sites is the cause of the stickiness. If
this is the case I doubt that humidity variations will have an effect
on the stickiness. I don't have a solution in this case. Perhaps
experiments with Mars similants containing such magnetic particles
would provide a solution about how best to deliver samples to the
lander experiments.

Bob Clark

Most any crystal dry environment should be highly charged, especially
where there's so freaking little if any h2o to behold.

Our trusty moon is charged to several teraVolts, and I tend to believe
there's a good many amps worth of load capacity that our moon could
likely sustain if it were properly rigged.

1. The ovens they are trying to deliver material to are miniscule -
the
entrances are only 1 mm across. Making the mesh any larger would
allow chunks through which could block the entrance entirely.

2. The grid is equipped with a vibrator to help shake the fine
material
through. They are working on finding the best frequency to use.

3. There are a lot of options - this is just the first of 8 ovens they
can
use - they'll try dribbling just a little soil on the next one,
instead of
dumping on it. Also on the table is using the back of the scoop to
crush some of the soil before delivering it. Or even using the scoop
to pat the soil on top of the grid.

Before you go off half-cocked, listen to this afternoon's press
conference:http://cboh.org/~jmk/nasatelecon060908.mp3

pt

On Jun 11, 3:13 pm, cryptoguy <treifam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Today's press conference reports that using the vibrator did in fact
work,
and they now have a full sample in the first oven.

So stop worrying.

pt

Here's the NASA press release announcing it:

NASA's Phoenix Lander has an Oven Full of Martian Soil.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080611.html

Here's a Space.com article discussing it in more detail:

Mars Soil Sample Finally Delivered to Phoenix Instrument.
By Andrea Thompson
Senior Writer
posted: 11 June 2008
03:21 pm EThttp://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080611-phoenix-mission-update.html

There is a link to the audio teleconference on Wednesday, June 11th
on the NASA press release page that discussed the successful filling
of the TEGA instrument.
It is mentioned during the teleconference that the soil showed very
fine imprints from the underside of the scoop. They suggested the soil
was like a very fine powder, like flour. But what was confusing was
that if fine powder why did it not fall through the sieving grid. And
why did it stick to the smooth surfaces of the lander?
Later it's mentioned that their experiments with different soil
analogues still haven't duplicated the stickiness as seen at the
Phoenix site. There was "something missing", they said.
That the soil sample was able to pass through the sieve after being
exposed in the Sun on top of the lander for some time led to the
suggestion that water/ice in the sample evaporated/sublimated off.
The temperature and pressure conditions there are within the range of
liquid water brines at least temporarily. Maybe the difficulty in
modeling this problem is the resistance to accepting the presence of
liquid water brines as a legitimate possibility.

If it were small amounts of liquid water even in the form of brines
then that would fit perfectly since the small clumpy particles would
be small amounts of mud.
Note also that mud would also leave fine detail of the imprints from
the scoop while at the same time being sticky, unlike the fine powder
explanation.

Bob Clark

  Here's the NASA press release announcing it:

NASA's Phoenix Lander has an Oven Full of Martian Soil.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080611.html

 Here's a Space.com article discussing it in more detail:

Mars Soil Sample Finally Delivered to Phoenix Instrument.
By Andrea Thompson
Senior Writer
posted: 11 June 2008
03:21 pm EThttp://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080611-phoenix-mission-update.html

 There is a link to the audio teleconference on Wednesday, June 11th
on the NASA press release page that discussed the successful filling
of the TEGA instrument.
 It is mentioned during the teleconference that the soil showed very
fine imprints from the underside of the scoop. They suggested the soil
was like a very fine powder, like flour. But what was confusing was
that if fine powder why did it not fall through the sieving grid. And
why did it stick to the smooth surfaces of the lander?
 Later it's mentioned that their experiments with different soil
analogues still haven't duplicated the stickiness as seen at the
Phoenix site. There was "something missing", they said.
 That the soil sample was able to pass through the sieve after being
exposed in the Sun on top of the lander for some time led to the
suggestion that water/ice in the sample evaporated/sublimated off.
The temperature and pressure conditions there are within the range of
liquid water brines at least temporarily. Maybe the difficulty in
modeling this problem is the resistance to accepting the presence of
liquid water brines as a legitimate possibility.

 If it were small amounts of liquid water even in the form of brines
then that would fit perfectly since the small clumpy particles would
be small amounts of mud.
 Note also that mud would also leave fine detail of the imprints from
the scoop while at the same time being sticky, unlike the fine powder
explanation.

     Bob Clark

Millions of electrostatic voltage charge makes all sorts of stuff
stick to itself and most anything else.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth-

 Here's a Phoenix microscope image of some soil particles:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/247286main_SoilParticles.jpg

 They most resemble particles of moist soil, flecks of mud.