Ancient Martian Atmosphere May Be Sequestered In Clay (space.com) 26
New research suggests that Mars' missing atmosphere may have been absorbed by minerals in the planet's clays, in a process similar to geological reactions on Earth. It may explain Mars' loss of its atmosphere and potential to support life, with methane possibly still present and usable as an energy source. Longtime Slashdot reader Baron_Yam writes: Conditions on early Mars were highly likely to have had CO2 carried down into the ground by water, where reactions with rock resulted in iron oxide (and Mars' rust-red surface) and released hydrogen, which in turn reacted with the water to form methane that was bound in smectite clays. It's all still there, just under the surface. The research has been published in the journal Science Advances.
But I thought it got blown away (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But I thought it got blown away (Score:4, Informative)
Mars has a cold core
Are you sure you about that?
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/... [nasa.gov]
https://www.sciencealert.com/i... [sciencealert.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I spent a while wondering how a planet could have a cold sore there.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the articles that I read about terraforming Mars indicated that even without van allen belts, it would take something like 100,000 years for the solar wind to remove the atmosphere
Perhaps grinding Phobos and Deimos to chunks and raining them down on the surface would free up a significant amount to be useful?
Alternately, one, might wonder if some past Martian lifeform had sequestered the atmosphere for their own us underground?
Stupid claim in summary (Score:5, Insightful)
with methane possibly still present and usable as an energy source
This is Mars, where do you get Oxygen to react Methane as an energy source?
And?
How much energy do you spend to extract and process the clay to extract this methane and all the process to extract an Oxydizer from a yet unknown source.
This is just to highlight this baseless stupid claim in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Mars, where do you get Oxygen to react Methane as an energy source?
Magic! Duh!
Also, please stop discouraging the Muskovites from volunteering to die in entertaining ways on that frozen, radioactive rock. I plan to make a mint on what promises to be the only worthwhile reality show, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
When you can let hydrogen react with water to form methane, anything is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
From humans, we aren't 100% efficient at breathing oxygen. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Methane, CH4, is rich in hydrogen. You could use the hydrogen without burning it in a fuel cell right?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The total chemical reaction in fuel cells is combusion, H2 + O2 -> H20. It's just conducted in an electrochemical cell rather than squirting gaseous hydrogen and oxygen at each other.
Re: (Score:2)
the southern hemisphere has an abundance of dry ice just sitting on the surface. The south cap has a permanent dry ice cover about 8 m thick. how hard would it be to round that up, use a scrubber to scrub the carbon, and then use that oxygen for the electricity? Granted something like this is about as far off as a thriving colony, but I would say that by then we could scrub the dry ice for oxygen, extract the hydrogen from the methane, and use the carbon to make nanotubes for construction. If the cell was
Re: (Score:2)
The reaction you're describing is the reaction CH4 + CO2 -> H20 + C, which is exothermic, but it's a bit of a Rube Goldberg setup I think you'd have trouble making energy positive overall.
Serious proposals (SpaceX, for example) involve getting carbon and oxygen from the CO2 floating around in the atmosphere (no need to go to the south pole) using solar or nuclear power, combining it with either hydrogen you bring with you or get from the plentiful H20 we're pretty sure is on Mars, and *making* methane to
Re: (Score:2)
Well, bring your proposed idea closer to Earth. How hard would it be to take the CO2 from a coal power plant, scrub the carbon, then burn the carbon and oxygen together to generate electricity? Everything is possible if you don't check the math.
Re: (Score:2)
carbon doesnt burn. But it does make strong construction materials. By the time someone is on mars to deal with the methane, we will be well on our way of making carbon nanotube (CNT) constructed materials. You're going to need that anyway so you dont have to bring construction materials from earth. Carbon has been a strengthening component of materials for a dozen centuries now.
Re: (Score:2)
carbon doesnt burn
Nobody's home where that came from.
Re: (Score:2)
You have an obvious point; but hear me out. If you find water it seems obvious to use solar to split it out as H2 and O2 for fuel; but H2 can be difficult to store. If you can find some nitrogen compounds, it might be better to use the H2 to make ammonia and use the O2 as an oxidizer for methane.
TFS vs TFA (Score:3)
Ah, the great editors. TFS says:
hydrogen, which in turn reacted with the water to form methane
Which makes no sense at all. TFA actually says:
hydrogen could have combined with carbon dioxide in the water to create methane
Which is an interesting hypothesis. However, this process could only "rescue" hydrogen released from groundwater (due to formation of iron oxides). Hydrogen release from water in the atmosphere (split by solar radiation) will have been lost to space. Without going into painful details, it is highly likely the the atmospheric losses dominate.
Chemistry isn't Baron Yam's strong suite (Score:4, Informative)
" released hydrogen, which in turn reacted with the water to form methane"
H2 + H2O -> CH4? Really? I don't think so mate.
Maybe next time don't try and paraphrase the science part of an article which in this case actually says:
"a slow series of reactions that slurped carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This would have then been converted into methane"
In other words (Score:3)
with methane possibly still present and usable as an energy source
One planet to drill through and extract fossil fuel out of apparently isn't enough for Big Oil.
Close but (Score:2)
Author lying in plain sight (Score:3, Insightful)
"Conditions on early Mars were highly likely to have had CO2 carried down into the ground by water, where reactions with rock resulted in iron oxide (and Mars' rust-red surface) and released hydrogen, which in turn reacted with the water to form methane that was bound in smectite clays. It's all still there, just under the surface."
The article does not support these deliberate distortions.
"...they argue that while water was present on the Red Planet, it may have trickled through certain rock types and set off a slow series of reactions that slurped carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This would have then been converted into methane, a form of carbon, and locked up in the clay surface of Mars. "
MAY HAVE. MAY HAVE. Not HIGHLY LIKELY.
WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED, not REACTED TO FORM
"Based on our findings on Earth, we show that similar processes likely operated on Mars and that copious amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide could have transformed to methane and been sequestered in clays,"
COULD HAVE
"In some ways, Mars' missing atmosphere could be hiding in plain sight."
So authors did not say "It's all still there".
Hey editors, how about NOT quoting obvious and intentional misrepresentations? Surely you can limit yourselves to merely stealing the work of other sites?
Quaid... Quaid... (Score:1)
Where's Arnold when you need him to "restart the machine?"
(Total Recall - 1990)