Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt 120
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."
Recent activity.... (Score:5, Funny)
That's only about 15 iterations "emerge kde" on my gentoo laptop
Re:Recent activity.... (Score:5, Funny)
No they are cannon shots from Mars... (Score:1)
No one has realized this, but the human race has been watched by closely with envious eyes by Martians.
They are the ones who mysteriously clean the Rovers....although iam befuddled why.
They are vanguard of an invading army....
Just in time for Steven Spielberg's movie opening...Boy what a chance for him!!!
Re:Okay... (Score:2)
No.
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Interesting)
Primarily because with the exeption of Earth, there is very little geological activity in the solar system. Mercury, Venus, Pluto and most of the solid moons in the solar system were found to be totally geoloically inactive.
The major exeptions to this are Io [nasa.gov] and Europa [nasa.gov]. The major difference here is that the geological activity on these moons is thought to be the result of their proximity to Jupiter and Neptune respectively with the resulting gravitiational "squeeze" the cause.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Okay... (Score:2)
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
Re:Okay... (Score:2)
Re:Okay... (Score:2)
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Okay... (Score:2)
And that's only if NASA select the mission.
Re:Okay... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who *are* interested, this can have any of several significance. According to an installment of NOVA on PBS called "Origions", a popular theory of planatary evolution holds that a hot molten interior in an inner planet such as Earth is responsible for creating the planetary magnetic field that shields the planet from the abrasive effects of the solar wind. Without this magnetic shield, the sun's radiation strips away the planet's atmosphere and other volatile compounds such as water. It was thought that Mars, being smaller than Earth, had a core that cooled and solidified more quickly and lost it's magnetic field early in it's life. With not magnetic field to shield it's surface, the atmosphere thinned and water became scarce.
If Mars happens to be more geologically active than we once thought, another theory will be needed to account for the signs of a wetter martian past. Quite possibly, we need to reevaulate the level of protection offered by the molten core of our own Earth against the erosive effects of the solar wind.
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
Because if this means that we might have Martians visiting Earth or colonies on Mars soon, it would matter to me or I might find that interesting. I don't care much about chemistry, but I find it interesting that two deadly chemicals combine to form salt.
Mars exchanging magnetic poles? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Okay... (Score:1)
According to an installment of NOVA on PBS called "Origions",
I hope this is your spelling, not theirs, though it might explain the errors.
Without this magnetic shield, the sun's radiation strips away the planet's atmosphere and other volatile compounds such as water
No. The problem here is not solar wind, but solar radiation, which is currently deflected by the Earths magnetic field. Radiation hurts.
The atmosphere will not magically disappear, though it may change radically. The atmosp
Re:Actually the gandparent is correct (Re:Okay...) (Score:1)
Molten core (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Molten core (Score:5, Informative)
Take a Look [aig.asn.au]
Re:Molten core (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
Re:Molten core (Score:1)
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)
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...)?
Re:Molten core (Score:2)
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
Re:Molten core (Score:1)
Re:Molten core (Score:1)
Houston - this water is too hot, we're coming back~
Houston to mars - have you tried cooling it?~
Mars here - oh yeah...~
Re:Magnetic field (Score:1)
The core does not have convection patterns which happen to generate a dynamo? The core is not surrounded by molten material and there are no convection flows? The mantle is mostly silicon and is not magnetohydrodynamically active? We happened to get there while the dynamo is fluctuating and there is no field, just as seems to happen sometimes on Earth? There are actually seventeen molten spots but we haven't detected that and don't know what
Re:Molten core (Score:2, Insightful)
For the core to be molten there is a non-linear temperature and pressure dependance. On Earth, the inner core
But... (Score:4, Informative)
Mars does have a molten core, according to JPL [aig.asn.au]. Strikingly similar to both earth, and venus. Interesting stuff, none the less.
Re:But... (Score:1)
Don't you mean in a geological sense?
(astronomical) is to (distance/size) as (geological) is to (time)
Real reasons (Score:4, Funny)
2.Didn't you folks play Doom3? Hello Hellgate.
Re:Real reasons (Score:1)
Hmm interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Hmm interesting (Score:1)
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)
Re:Hmm interesting (Score:2)
Because accepting one has been wrong means admitting one has been something of an ass.
This is generally OK for most people
If, however, you insist on an ever more unlikely scenerio (like, say, a belief in a bearded pedop
Re:Hmm interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm interesting (Score:2)
Life on Mars? (Score:2)
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
babys bottoms (Score:2, Funny)
My babies bottom is typically surfaced in an unidentifiable brown pitted substance, and is far from smooth.
Re:babys bottoms (Score:1)
Re:babys bottoms (Score:2)
"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
Re:babys bottoms (Score:2)
Re:babys bottoms (Score:2)
mars is not dead (Score:3, Funny)
Re:mars is not dead (Score:1)
Re: Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt (Score:2, Redundant)
Usually that's something the parents discover...
Flat top volcanos. (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone have a clue?
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:2)
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:1)
Or, for those folks on the west coast, there are the Columbia River Flood Basalts: http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/no rth_america/crb.html [nodak.edu]
Volcano World [nodak.edu] is an interesting site full of volcanic goodness.
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Flat top volcanos. (Score:2)
http://www.esa.int/export/mex_mm/images/x_o
stoned spirit (Score:4, Interesting)
OR
is the spirit just stuck [exploratorium.edu]?
OR
Has there been to much to drink [exploratorium.edu]?
Oh shit... (Score:4, Funny)
Here's the real Mars news... (Score:2)
(don't bother submitting it as a story, I already tried.)
Re:Here's the real Mars news... (Score:2)
Even more than ice, it really looks like a lake in the bottom right of the photo.
Thanks for sharing.
Re:Here's the real Mars news... (Score:2)
Re:Here's the real Mars news... (Score:2)
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
Re:Here's the real Mars news... (Score:1)
Re:Here's the real Mars news... (Score:2)
There are plenty more examples where that came from.
But, on the up side, the NASA guys usually never make mistakes.
Re:Here's the real Mars news... (Score:1)
I'll give you the metric error, but it should almost be expected for there to be problems every time something goes up or down.
No. (Score:2)
Just how big do you think the rovers are? That was taken by Opportunity.
It's not ice and it's not water. (Score:2)
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
Re:It's not ice and it's not water. (Score:1)
Re:It's not ice and it's not water. (Score:1)
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)
so beware when u play doom3 !
Re:doom3 ! (Score:1)
The problem - they can't see where they are going whilst holding the spectrometer.
Re:doom3 ! (Score:1)
Back in the 80s..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mars/Mars'/Martian (Score:2)
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.
No, no no (Score:1)
Somebody has opened up a gateway to hell (which for those who dont know, makes it kind of toasty)
Slashdot users mentioned in the article... (Score:1)
Sorry, fellow geeks, no action for us anytime soon.
Welcome (Score:1)
Re:Gerhard Neukum ? (Score:1, Funny)