Shared publicly  - 
 
Correct: this was not the way to avoid overhyping. Ah, well; everyone makes mistakes.
11
1
John Beisley's profile phototim hem's profile photoRobert Le Blah's profile photoPaul Dickson's profile photo
6 comments
 
Heh. It's hard not to get overly excited by those phrases, but trying not to. I'm just going to assume that it's strong(er) evidence for liquid water in the past. Will just have to wait and see :)
 
I suppose the big news is that this is the first time that Martian soil has been chemically analysed since Viking.  It would be interesting to know whether the current soil samples help to clarify the earlier Viking results.
 
There is pretty convincing evidence already about past surface water, from the MER missions and Phoenix, so I don't think anything about water would rises to the level of "for the history books".
tim hem
+
1
2
1
 
it reminds me of the joke when Curiosity first landed - scientists confirm ...there are rocks on Mars.
Solid data on just about anything is one for the history books for the science team. 
 
I'm pretty sure they found Marvin and his minions.
 
Yeah, the phrase "for the history books" is not a good one to use if you don't want the public wildly speculating. ;)
Add a comment...