Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space News

Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt 120

Posted by samzenpus from the send-joe dept.
Q3vi1 writes "Space. com reports, Images from a European space probe reveal recent glacial deposits and lava flows on Mars that suggest the red planet is more active than many scientists had thought."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt More

Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

Comments Filter:

  • Recent activity.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:35AM (#11166422) Homepage Journal
    Volcanic eruptions have happened in the last 4 million years....

    That's only about 15 iterations "emerge kde" on my gentoo laptop :)

  • Molten core (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:40AM (#11166432)
    If it's as recent as 4 million years that would put to bed the dead Mars theory. The idea that Mars lacks a molten core. If there was magma that recently there would still be a molten core. It would take hundreds of millions if not billions of years to go from volcanic to a cold core. There would almost have to be liquid underground water. Good news for life and also water for explorers.

    • Re:Molten core (Score:5, Informative)

      by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:46AM (#11166451)
      Mars does have a molten core.

      Take a Look [aig.asn.au]

      • Re:Molten core (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cluckshot ( 658931 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @09:42AM (#11167260)

        I really appreciate a poster who does what the parent of this post does. He is trying to get to the facts.

        Now as to one curious set of facts... planet formation. Mars and Earth being slightly different in size illustrate a curious reality. Bodies significantly smaller than earth in our solar system are actually evaporating into space. That is they are by the gas laws (which also apply to liquids and solids) are losing mass into space. Bodies the sized of earth or larger are acquiring mass from space.

        If we are to logically follow the accreation of a planetoid into a planet it never makes it because the planetoid evaporates. This also applies to stars and more profoundly so. If a star acquires gas from the region around it to the point where the nuclear fire erupts, it blows itself out as fast as it lights.

        These paradoxes have not been answered to by modern science types. Obviously there are processes at work which are not explained. The planet question says that in many cases the planets were formed as whole bodies at one time and ejected from stellar explosion as shrapnel. This also conforms to the warm core issues as well because a small planetoid forming by accreation would not generate a hot core or it would evaporate.

        I just point out the paradoxes. Anyone with reasonable suggestions is invited to chime right in.

        • Re:Molten core (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rob Carr ( 780861 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @10:58AM (#11167838) Homepage Journal
          These paradoxes have not been answered to by modern science types.

          Actually, they have.

          The first is a simple application of the continuity equation. Mass in minus mass out equals the mass retained. During planet formation, the amount lost by "evaporation" (material outgassing into space - mass out) would be a function of temperature. If there's more material available to accrete to the planet (i.e. mass in), the net change in mass can be positive for any size planet (mass accumulated). The trick is to have enough material available in the first place. There's some fascinating astronomical pictures available of the debris fields surrounding some new stars. (Of course, I can't find them in a prefunctory search on Google - anyone help me on this? I'm too busy to scan something in from a back issue of SciAm, post it to the web, and then finish this post.)

          Given the temperatures involved in stellar processes, planets cannot form. Even if you had some bizarre process where they could form, the planets would be destroyed during the stellar explosion. The results would be the same that are actually seen as the result of stellar explosions: dust.

          The question of the formation of a hot core in planetary bodies has been addressed elsewhere.

          Claiming that a planet might form inside a star and be ejected is simply not a viable theory, especially since there are far better theories already available.

          My reasonable suggestion would be to take some basic astronomy courses to learn more about some really interesting stuff!

        • Re:Molten core (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "That is they are by the gas laws (which also apply to liquids and solids)"

          The gas laws certainly don't apply to liquids and solids. If I double the pressure (taking atmospheric pressure into account) of a drop of water, its absolute temperature doesn't double. I can't calculate the work required to compress water using the gas laws (instead I must use the bulk modulus). If I put a blowtorch on a piece of steel its volume doesn't double (or its pressure change). Etc.

          There are some fundamental assumpti
        • First of all, volatiles like helium, water, CO2, and nitrogen make up less than 0.1% of the mass of Earth or Venus. Furthermore, Most of the hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen on earth is bound up in non-volatile compounds like silicates and nitrates. Even the loss of all the volatiles would not have interfered with early accretion of planets.

          Also, the effect is negligible on less volatile chemicals since they have negligible vapor pressure. A piece of iron or silica could survive for trillions of years in

    • Re:Molten core (Score:3, Interesting)

      by helioquake ( 841463 )
      Mars probably has a molten core (see Science article from 2003). But then it begs me another question: where has its magnetic field go?

      If the dynamo theory is accurate, there could be a sign of the magnetic field. Has Mars Global Surveyer mapped it out yet (I'll google after this post...)?
    • If it's as recent as 4 million years that would put to bed the dead Mars theory. The idea that Mars lacks a molten core. If there was magma that recently there would still be a molten core.

      All that recent vulcanism demonstrates that there is magma with in the crust or upper mantle. It does not tell you what might be going on elsewhere on the planet.

      It would take hundreds of millions if not billions of years to go from volcanic to a cold core.

      It would be perfectly possible for a volcanically planet to
      • High pressure high temperature water might not make a good source of drinking water for us, but some bacteria thrive on it on earth.
      • If you have water under preasure at a temperature higher 90 celsius it will not make a good source drinking water.

        Houston - this water is too hot, we're coming back~

        Houston to mars - have you tried cooling it?~

        Mars here - oh yeah...~

    • Re:Molten core (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Aglassis ( 10161 )
      You said "If it's as recent as 4 million years that would put to bed the dead Mars theory. The idea that Mars lacks a molten core. If there was magma that recently there would still be a molten core. It would take hundreds of millions if not billions of years to go from volcanic to a cold core. There would almost have to be liquid underground water. Good news for life and also water for explorers."

      For the core to be molten there is a non-linear temperature and pressure dependance. On Earth, the inner core

  • But... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:43AM (#11166444)
    Well, we have only been closely looking at mars for (in an astronomical sense) a fraction of a second. Just because there hasn't been any evidence of eruption yet doesn't really mean anything.

    Mars does have a molten core, according to JPL [aig.asn.au]. Strikingly similar to both earth, and venus. Interesting stuff, none the less.
    • Well, we have only been closely looking at mars for (in an astronomical sense) a fraction of a second. Just because there hasn't been any evidence of eruption yet doesn't really mean anything.

      Don't you mean in a geological sense?

      (astronomical) is to (distance/size) as (geological) is to (time)

  • Real reasons (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:47AM (#11166457)
    1.The Great Machine has awakened and is starting the terraforming process.

    2.Didn't you folks play Doom3? Hello Hellgate.
    • Didn't you folks play Doom3? Hello Hellgate. Better send that memo to Andrzej Bartkowiak because he apparently thinks it's a mutated-super-virus!!

  • Hmm interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Agret ( 752467 )
    If volcanoes supposably created our atmosphere does that mean that if we leave Mars alone for a few million years it will produce it's own life? (Non-bacterial)

    • Re:Hmm interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rufferto ( 324612 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @05:03AM (#11166497)

      Mars isn't as massive as Earth. Hence a weaker gravitational field. More of what the volcanoes spew out would escape into space under Martian as opposed to Terran gravity. You still might have a thick enough atmosphere to support something though.

    • Re:Hmm interesting (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Clearly you haven't been reading your creationist study books. Only God can create life.
      • And is He setting off some volcanoes in order to actually result in that life any different?

        Your "creationism is incompatible with evolutionism" argument is weak old man.

        Okay, enough religion. It just grinds with me when people say things like that (and as AC no less!)

        • Re:Hmm interesting (Score:1, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          It was probably posted AC because discussions with creationists tend to be so tedious. Why can't they just accept that they are wrong?
          • It was probably posted AC because discussions with creationists tend to be so tedious. Why can't they just accept that they are wrong?

            Because accepting one has been wrong means admitting one has been something of an ass.

            This is generally OK for most people ... if you reach a wrong conclusiong because your missing some facts or make a mistake in reasoning, its not a big deal to admit your failing and move on.

            If, however, you insist on an ever more unlikely scenerio (like, say, a belief in a bearded pedop

            • Re:Hmm interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TheGavster ( 774657 )
              I see creationism as a way of just not bothering to figure out the past. We don't have a good idea of what happened more than a few thousand years ago. Solution? The world simply didn't exist. Where did the universe come from? God made it. Even if they acknowledge something like the Big Bang, there's still an orign for that initial mass, once again the notion of a God relieves them of a need to learn more.
    • If volcanoes supposably created our atmosphere does that mean that if we leave Mars alone for a few million years it will produce it's own life? (Non-bacterial)

      Your Martian life experience is a tad low. Traces of what might have been Mars bacteria have been found in a rock from Mars.

      Actually, the methane on Mars is being interpreted as being the waste product of bacteria which may be eating a food source.

      If that is the case, we are quite lucky to have gotten to Mars right now. The bacteria will die w

  • "Regions that are smooth as a baby's bottom must have been "resurfaced" recently, in geologist's parlance."

    My babies bottom is typically surfaced in an unidentifiable brown pitted substance, and is far from smooth.
    • except for the fact that baby's poop is not usually brown and runny [yourbabytoday.com].

    • "My babies bottom is typically surfaced in an unidentifiable brown pitted substance, and is far from smooth."

      I thought they taught people to change diapers before they were allowed to take the baby home from the hospital!

      I hope this link [kidshealth.org] helps! Please, for the sake of your kid, check it out. Also, you'll find the kid doesn't smell as bad if you clean them up and change the diaper regularly.

      BTW: The part about keeping something over a boy's penis while you change the diaper? They're not kidding! The l

      • Face nothing, mine goes for distance. I learned quickly to keep him covered so I only got splashed a couple of times. The wife was a little slower on the uptake. Before she got consistant with the covering he had christened the floor, the wall, a lamp, a plant five feet away, etc. I swear his goal is to hit the ceiling.

  • mars is not dead (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ambient_Developer ( 825456 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:56AM (#11166483) Journal
    So where are the little green men?
  • <snip>...suggest the red planet is more active than many scientists had thought<snip/>

    Usually that's something the parents discover...

  • Flat top volcanos. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @05:21AM (#11166535)
    Those lava flows look quite different from ones on earth. They're flat topped, show no signs of caldera/explosion, and seem to sit largly isloated from any other feature.

    Anyone have a clue?

    • Could it be because Mars does not have floating tectonic plates as does earth? I'm no vulcanologist but I am curious.
      • All of the lines along which plates move apart on Earth are underwater; being that there isn't a goodly amount of surface water on Mars I would presume that we would be able to see the stretch lines fairly easily. The compression lines form mountain ranges; I don't know if there are any non-volcanic mountains on Mars?

    • Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by zvesda ( 91186 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @07:56AM (#11166883) Homepage
      I'll hazard a guess; if the lava on the Big Island of Hawai'i was looked at from a great height then it too would look smooth. On the other hand, lava from Etna or Mt St Helen's wouldn't. The difference is between basic (Hawai'ia) and acidic (Etna) lava, or perhaps the ammount of water (of course, these two may be highly correlated). On Mars, the lack of plate tectonics means that little surface material (inc. water) is pushed back into the mantle (c.f. Etna) and only 'pure' mantle material errupts (c.f. Hawai'i). Into a thin atmosphere, which allows dissolved gasses to leave more rapidly, the erruption would tend to be quite gentle and lower (Martian) gravity means it can spread over larger areas than on Earth.

      Result is wide smooth basalt flows.

      (but I only ever did Geology in 1st year undergrad---1A NatSci---so this might be incorrect).

      • Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        I'll hazard a guess; if the lava on the Big Island of Hawai'i was looked at from a great height then it too would look smooth.

        The reason for this being the largest island is that it is also the youngest. With new land being added by vulcanism faster than the sea errodes it away. Given time what is now called Loihi will become the largest island.

        The difference is between basic (Hawai'ia) and acidic (Etna) lava, or perhaps the ammount of water (of course, these two may be highly correlated).

        There is als

    • Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:5, Informative)

      by toxic666 ( 529648 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @08:27AM (#11166960)
      Actually, they look much like certain lava flows on earth. Here's the URL of a primer on vulcanism with some examples:

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/volc/types.html [usgs.gov]

      Mars igneous rocks are mafic -- rich in iron and magnesium, low in silica and volatiles (e.g. water). Mafic magmas are low viscosity and have a better chance of reaching the surface in a liquid state. Since they are also low in water, they don't explode.

      On earth, we also have big sheets of mafic lava flows -- the Deccan Traps in India, Watchung Mountains in New Jersey, Grand Mesa in Colorado just to name a few.
    • Actually, they look much like certain lava flows on earth. Here's the URL of a primer on vulcanism with some examples:

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/volc/types.html [usgs.gov]

      Mars igneous rocks are mafic -- rich in iron and magnesium, low in silica and volatiles (e.g. water). Mafic magmas are low viscosity and have a better chance of reaching the surface in a liquid state. Since they are also low in water, they don't explode.

      You are probably thinking of more sialic magmas on earth -- ones richer in silica and water.
    • Maybe you're only looking at the caldera's?
      I'm also not sure how interpret the pictures, but they seem to make more sense to me if the circular features shown are actually the caldera's. Maybe it's only your mind playing tricks with the way you interpret the shadows. People tend to interpret a 2D picture as if the light came from above. See if they make more sense to you after rotating 180 degrees.
    • I've found a different picture of Mont Olympus that explains what you see.
      http://www.esa.int/export/mex_mm/images/x_ol ympus. jpg

  • stoned spirit (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flibberdi ( 800264 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @05:32AM (#11166557) Journal
    The question is rather, is the spirit stoned [exploratorium.edu]?

    OR

    is the spirit just stuck [exploratorium.edu]?

    OR

    Has there been to much to drink [exploratorium.edu]?

  • Oh shit... (Score:4, Funny)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) * <mark&seventhcycle,net> on Thursday December 23, 2004 @05:34AM (#11166562) Homepage
    There goes the planet...
  • Ice. [exploratorium.edu]

    (don't bother submitting it as a story, I already tried.)

    • Cool image.

      Even more than ice, it really looks like a lake in the bottom right of the photo.

      Thanks for sharing.
      • Not a lake by far, compare this pic to the other ones posted by the GPP, this is just a detail shot of the surface. At most it's a small puddle, as it does look like a liqiud of some kind to me, due to the fact that if you look at the puddle's right side, it seems as if the surface disappears with lessening visibility under the puddle's surface. Also the shadow overlaying part of the puddle is a lot darker than the surroundings. This is the same kind of behaviour you would expect on Earth.
        • Not a lake by far, compare this pic to the other ones posted by the GPP, as it does look like a liqiud of some kind to me,

          It depends on the scale of this image... If the little round "pebbles" are actually big boulders, then that's a decent sized pond or small lake.

          due to the fact that if you look at the puddle's right side, it seems as if the surface disappears with lessening visibility under the puddle's surface. Also the shadow overlaying part of the puddle is a lot darker than the surroundings. Thi
          • It does look startlingly like water/ice. But NASA scientists aren't stupid and have a big investment in finding water on Mars, so I'm guessing it's not. Maybe dust?
            • But NASA scientists aren't stupid ...
              Euhm, anyone remember that solardust collecting satelite that was supposed to return to Earth in once piece? Or what about that error with a NASA engineer forgetting to convert from metric to imperial or the other way round ;)
              There are plenty more examples where that came from.
              But, on the up side, the NASA guys usually never make mistakes.
          • It depends on the scale of this image... If the little round "pebbles" are actually big boulders, then that's a decent sized pond or small lake.

            Just how big do you think the rovers are? That was taken by Opportunity.
    • That was taken on the crater wall. There are other pictures that show the surrounding area and it's obvious that it's not water or ice. That one frame that you showed does look like ice/water, but when you see a wider angle shot of the area you can tell that it's not ice/water.

      The angle that the "puddle" is laying on the wall tells you that it isn't liquid, since it would run downhill.

      Here's a high res pic of an area nearby:

      http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA07083. j pg

      You can see that the "puddle
      • Those rocks in the pic you posted look pretty rectangular to an untrained eye. Almost as if they were stacked there to create a structure. Is there a geoligical explanation, or did little green men put them there?
        • Certain types of rock often fracture and wear along orthogonal lines like that. There are even weirder forms of rock in nature on this planet. Somewhere along the coast of someplace, maybe England, there are rock formations that look like hexagonal columns of varying height all fitted together like some sort of mechanically man-made sculpture.

          Here's a link [myra-simon.com]. And another link [nodak.edu]. And a third link [choisser.com]. Nature is weird. Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions about intelligent life just because you see a repeating

  • doom3 ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by phreakv6 ( 760152 ) <phreakv6@gmCOLAail.com minus caffeine> on Thursday December 23, 2004 @07:25AM (#11166805) Homepage
    Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

    so beware when u play doom3 !

  • Back in the 80s..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by commo1 ( 709770 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:10AM (#11167930)
    I distinctly remember reading in Dickinson, Sagan and Clarke books back in the 80s that Olympus was an active volcano. The "largest active volcano in the solar system".
  • Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

    I know Americans are fond of verbing nouns, but adjectiving them unnecessarily is almost as painful.

    Either "Martian Volcanoes May Still Erupt" or "Mars' Volcanoes May Still Erupt" would be correct. I know that similar practices are accepted when the normal adjective is inappropriate for some reason (thus the "England football team" rather than "English..."), but I can't see any reason to do so here.

  • youve got it all wrong.

    Somebody has opened up a gateway to hell (which for those who dont know, makes it kind of toasty)
  • He said the orbiter^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H , erm, Slashdot users might get lucky in coming years and "see some action, but the chances are slim."

    Sorry, fellow geeks, no action for us anytime soon.
  • I for one welcome our magma martian overlords

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close