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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Mars

Are There Active Volcanoes on Mars? (yahoo.com) 29

Mars is a dead planet — "Or is it?" asks the New York Times: Previous research has hinted at volcanic eruptions on Mars 2.5 million years ago. But a new paper suggests an eruption occurred as recently as 53,000 years ago in a region called Cerberus Fossae, which would be the youngest known volcanic eruption on Mars. That drives home the prospect that beneath its rusty surface pocked with gigantic volcanoes that have gone silent, some volcanism still erupts to the surface at rare intervals. "If this deposit is of volcanic origin then the Cerberus Fossae region may not be extinct and Mars may still be volcanically active today," scientists at the University of Arizona and Smithsonian Institution, write in their paper — which was posted online ahead of peer review and has been submitted to the journal Icarus...

If it holds up to scrutiny, the discovery would have large implications for Mars. In geological terms, 53,000 years is the blink of an eye, suggesting Mars might well still be volcanically active now. It could also have big implications for the search for life on Mars. Such volcanic activity could melt subsurface ice, providing a potential habitable environment for living things.

"To have life, you need energy, carbon, water and nutrients," said Steven Anderson, an earth sciences professor at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, who was not involved in the paper. "And a volcanic system provides all of those."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are There Active Volcanoes on Mars?

Comments Filter:
  • The Red Planet is on heat. Send the probes. Set thrusters to Launch. Penetrate the surface. No need to inseminate. It's already fucked.
  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Sunday November 22, 2020 @01:31AM (#60753070)

    Yes, ask slashdot. Why not? We have a bunch of SpaceX and NASA scientists/engineers on here after all. Many of whom got their PhD by studying their own comments.

  • How do they know that there is no volcanic activity on Mars?

    Is it just because of the surface?

    Is it because of its magnetic field (or lack thereof)?

    • The lack of a magnetic field leads more to the conclusion that the core has cooled and solidified. Solid core means no magma which means no tectonic plate movement. Now it may not have completely cooled if there is evidence of recent volcanic activity. But this is all predicated on Earth being the model of how things should work.
      • Solid core means no magma which means no tectonic plate movement. Now it may not have completely cooled if there is evidence of recent volcanic activity.

        These two claims contradict each other. One is part of the original hypothesis, but is being given weight of fact instead. But the second part refutes the first clearly and unequivocally; solid core does not tell you that tectonic plate movement has stopped and it can't do that, because there is a time term and a gap between the modes discussed. That the present tense ends up inside that gap means that the modes are not defined in a useful way. But because "everybody" has already published a bunch, they'r

    • It seems that "no volcanic activity on Mars" would be misleading. The planet has been there for roughly 4000 million years. So evidence of an eruption occurring only 2.5 million years ago, which is within the timeframe of humans having already branched off from other primates, means that eruptions are now infrequent, but still occurring.

      Is it really logical to think that the eruption 2.5 million years ago was the last one that will ever occur, just a blink ago in comparison to the 4000 million years the pla

      • WHere would the energy for tectonic plate movement come from? It's a smaller planet, with a smaller core for radioactive elements to generate heat and no significant moon to provide crust flexing. and far less solar energy and no oceans to preserve surface heat and help keep the crust more supple. None of those may be sufficient to prevent volcanos, but with all those factors in play, I'd expect few if any sources of volcanic eruptions rather than, say, internal circulation of any internal magma.

        • The planet is cooling off, sure. But seeing that there has been activity recently, as in the last 0.06% (2.5/4000) of the planet's existence, it is unlikely that was the absolute final never-going-to-happen-again event.

        • WHere would the energy for tectonic plate movement come from?

          Oh for fuck's sake, he's just saying you left out the time term.

          Include the time term, which diminishes the energy available for tectonic movement, and you'll still have an energy term even long after there are no noticeable Marsquakes. You don't have to hunt for the energy anywhere, you just have to include the most obvious terms and them keep using them.

    • How do they know that there is no volcanic activity on Mars?

      They don't know that.

      They already had evidence of fairly recent volcanic activity, that on Earth would make a volcano "possibly active" and require geologic study before declaring it dead. The new evidence is of activity that is contemporary, and would mean the volcano is clearly not dead.

      But because the experts have all published already in the past, and they were mostly wrong, instead of "the new information is ____" we get, "the old information might begin to be called into question, but we promise we ha

      • Got a strop on, dude?

        but we promise we had good reasons to believe it."

        Nobody needs to promise anything. If it was published (which is pretty unlikely), it had names attached and will still be available somewhere, along with the reasons.

        You're confusing "popular science" journalism with the actual science. Remember that reading "popular science" type journalism is a waste of time. Just go direct ot the papers, and cut out an avoidable layer of misunderstanding between you and the evidence.

  • A new David Bowie song!

  • With lava you can do more!

  • There might be a meteor defense system inside Mons Olympus.

    Watch out for the Pak protectors, though.

    Human explorers: "Hello, we come in peace, welcome to our solar system!"

    Pak: "You smell wrong"

    0.5 seconds later, the humans are red mist.

  • This means that the planet core is too viscous - if not solified - to flow. Without core flow there is no mantle/crust movements, and so there are neither earthquakes nor volcanoes. The "volcano" shown in the picture could be also the effect of a big meteor impact - near impossible to discriminate without taking rock samples or measurements other than optical recognition. Actually, TFA says If this deposit is of volcanic origin...
  • As always it's against the law.

  • So, while " 53,000 years is the blink of an eye", it is long enough (beyond 10,000) not to be considered active. Keep looking and sending out new reports to keep your research grant funding....yawn.

    http://volcano.oregonstate.edu... [oregonstate.edu]

    • The first words of your link: "Those definitions are not set in stone, and they mean different things to different people and to different volcanoes."

      So no, that definition has no bearing at all on the use of the words when studying this particular volcano on another planet.

  • "To have life as we know it, you need energy, carbon, water and nutrients,"

    • This is how people who understand the words read your comment:

      "To have life as we know it, you need nutrients, nutrients, nutrients, and nutrients."

      I suspect life that is not as we know it will also need nutrients, nutrients, nutrients, and nutrients.

  • Even with the most recent volcanism 2M5 years ago, it's still active as far as I'm concerned. The last volcanism around here was 50Myr ago, and I'm pretty sure that the country isn't dead yet. Quiet, yes, but not dead.

    If the most recent volcanism was 50kyr ago, that'd be active enough to put on my "visit before it gets blown away" list. Same as Rome (which last got wiped over by an eruption about 14kyr ago, but less urgent than Naples (and it's suburbs of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Phlegrean Fields) whic

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...