[Balto_Boy]

Indications are that 3 different instruments have detected the signs.

Do these instruments use different methods or the same, and do any of them test actual samples?

That's a pretty good start at making an estimate in my opinion.

I would agree, except the findings are being reported along side a call to go to Mars. Not that I'm opposed to exploration, but let's do it for the right reasons, IE. to see what's there, not to pour money into trying to prove the theory of life on Mars.

[demlosers]

Not that I'm opposed to exploration, but let's do it for the right reasons, IE. to see what's there, not to pour money into trying to prove the theory of life on Mars.

A complete geological and astro-biological survey of the planet would be a good start. From there, we should be able to determine the economic payback for our investment. Economics is what will push space exploration as opposed to just scientific endeavor.

[callisto]

Odyssey is orbit around Mars so none of the samples could come from direct sampling. The 3 instruments are:

THEMIS: The Thermal Emission Imaging System is a camera that images Mars in the visible and infrared parts of the spectrum in order to determine the distribution of minerals on the surface of Mars.

GRS: The Gamma Ray Spectrometer uses the gamma-ray part of the spectrum to look for the presence of 20 elements from the periodic table (e.g., carbon, silicon, iron, magnesium, etc.). Its neutron detectors look for water and ice in the soil by measuring neutrons.

MARIE: The Martian Radiation Experiment is designed to measure the radiation environment of Mars using an energetic particle spectrometer.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Do these instruments use different methods or the same, and do any of them test actual samples?"

Remote spectroscopy is just as valid as taking samples.

"I would agree, except the findings are being reported along side a call to go to Mars. Not that I'm opposed to exploration, but let's do it for the right reasons, IE. to see what's there, not to pour money into trying to prove the theory of life on Mars."

The major SHORT-TERM importance of the findings means that any exploration can be done far less expensively (fuel for the return trip can be generated on-site instead of having to be carried along, as well as the oxygen needed for the stay). Longer-term, the presence of water means that colonization is possible.

[callisto]

Balto_Boy: The Planetary Society conducted a survey for NASA concerning the public's priorities in space. Excerpt below:

In the two weeks that the questionnaire was posted on the Society's website, over 50,000 people weighed in with their opinions. For many of the questions, those opinions vary widely, but a few definite favorites did emerge.

"More than 90% of survey respondents ranked exploration of Mars among the top five mission priorities for NASA, thus outpacing all other Solar System mission categories" said Bruce Betts, Director of Projects at The Planetary Society

nightdriver: I believe the initial results reported from Odyssey in February cited the abundance of Hydrogen. This week should report "water ice" which implies that Oxygen should be there also underground.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

let's do it for the right reasons, IE. to see what's there

The 'right reason' is not to explore, but to colonize.