Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Active volcanoes...on Mars?
Random Chaos
Actually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
in Zocalo v2.0
Article here: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19421-2004Dec22.html?ABTest=blurb_A[/url]
(user and pass: [url]www.bugmenot.org[/url] )
First couple of paragraphs:
[QUOTE]Photos Show Mars May Have Active Volcanoes
By MATT CRENSON
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 22, 2004; 1:11 PM
Photographs taken by a spacecraft orbiting Mars indicate that active volcanoes may still exist on the red planet, further eroding its image as a dead world and offering prime sites to prospect for signs of Martian life.
Images from the European Space Agency's Mars Express Orbiter indicate geologically recent volcanic activity in the summit craters of five Martian volcanoes, with some areas showing activity as recently as 4 million years ago. Though long in human terms, 4 million years amounts to the most recent 1 percent of Martian history - a strong suggestion that the planet retains a capacity for volcanic activity. [/QUOTE]
....Subliminal purple mind control.....
Speaking of Volcanoes, how is it in Oregon now with the lava dome and rumblings out there?
(user and pass: [url]www.bugmenot.org[/url] )
First couple of paragraphs:
[QUOTE]Photos Show Mars May Have Active Volcanoes
By MATT CRENSON
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 22, 2004; 1:11 PM
Photographs taken by a spacecraft orbiting Mars indicate that active volcanoes may still exist on the red planet, further eroding its image as a dead world and offering prime sites to prospect for signs of Martian life.
Images from the European Space Agency's Mars Express Orbiter indicate geologically recent volcanic activity in the summit craters of five Martian volcanoes, with some areas showing activity as recently as 4 million years ago. Though long in human terms, 4 million years amounts to the most recent 1 percent of Martian history - a strong suggestion that the planet retains a capacity for volcanic activity. [/QUOTE]
....Subliminal purple mind control.....
Speaking of Volcanoes, how is it in Oregon now with the lava dome and rumblings out there?
Comments
:shadow1:
If there was enough liquid water on the surface of Mars at one point to have created the shallow ocean that many suspect accounts for the smooth areas of mars, where is the water now?
The South Pole has a two layer ice composite. One of H2O and one of CO2. But is not enough to have been the complete source of that ocean.
Did it evaporate over billions/millions years, or is it locked in the rock and dust just under the surface, or both?
I notice that many of the volcanic areas as well as crater impact sites have Mud Flow characteristics when the temperature was high enough for a brief moment to flash melt any ice in the surrounding areas.
If the case is that it's locked up just under the surface of the planet, then why isn't the great canyon flooded or glaciated?
Any links or theories out there?
On a side note, I find it interesting that the Water ice froze first, and is underneath the Carbon Dioxide ice.
Kinda indicates how things went down at the end of the golden era for Mars.
:)
[B]oh i dunno, probably wouldnt make that much difference. tho there might be some locations where you could harness geothermal power (or whatever u want to call it...mars-o-thermal?:p ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Arethermal. All Mars related geo- things are are- things, such as areology and areographic.
On earth the Ozone layer was thick enough to contain the water vapor and thus this process didn't take place. On Venus the Ozone layer was enough thinner due to the lower gravity for this to occur. I am not sure whether this is what happened on Mars, but since Mars has a lower gravity then even Venus it would make sense.
--RC The subliminal purple strikes again! Muhahahahahaha!
[B]Here's a question (or maybe a multiple question)...
If there was enough liquid water on the surface of Mars at one point to have created the shallow ocean that many suspect accounts for the smooth areas of mars, where is the water now?
The South Pole has a two layer ice composite. One of H2O and one of CO2. But is not enough to have been the complete source of that ocean.
Did it evaporate over billions/millions years, or is it locked in the rock and dust just under the surface, or both?
I notice that many of the volcanic areas as well as crater impact sites have Mud Flow characteristics when the temperature was high enough for a brief moment to flash melt any ice in the surrounding areas.
If the case is that it's locked up just under the surface of the planet, then why isn't the great canyon flooded or glaciated?
Any links or theories out there?
On a side note, I find it interesting that the Water ice froze first, and is underneath the Carbon Dioxide ice.
Kinda indicates how things went down at the end of the golden era for Mars.
:) [/B][/QUOTE]
Jack, if I'm not mistaken, Mars is cold enough for water to submlimate, meaning it goes from a solid to gas state without becoming liquid. If this is the case, then over the timescales mentioned, most of the surface ice would sublimate into the atmosphere and collect at the poles.
Looking at the Mars Rover pictures, I'm not sure that at least some of the water isn't still at the surface, just highly distributed among the very fine surface solids. A salt-ice-dust mix would allow for the "mud" looking formations in some of the tire tracks.
Too lazy tonight to look up references. Sorry.
As I recall, Mars does not have a magnetic field (or has a so-weak-as-to-be-pointless one). As a result, it has no real protection from the solar wind. Lack of protection leads to atmospheric gases being stripped away by the wind (probably the lighter ones first, I would guess). If the water were in gaseous form, it could also get stripped away. If it had split, as RC suggests, that would make the process even easier.
What Biggles says makes sense. If there are still active volcanos Mars will have a molten core. Wonder how much Iron is in that core...and whether there is even a weak magnetic feild from Mars.
--RC the Purple One
Would that mean that not enough of the iron on that planet is at the core, but rather distributed at the surface?
Planetary magnetic fields are created by rotating Iron Cores (or in the case of Jupiter rotating Metallic Hyrdogen cores) that are superheated and under pressure.
Also, I know that there is a majority that feels that the asteroid belt is a failed planet, but has anyone done any work on it being an actual planet at one time that was later destroyed by tidal forces of Jupiter? And how that might have impacted Mars (no pun intended) during earlier times?
[B]Isn't Mars red because of massive ferrous oxidation on the surface?
Would that mean that not enough of the iron on that planet is at the core, but rather distributed at the surface?
Planetary magnetic fields are created by rotating Iron Cores (or in the case of Jupiter rotating Metallic Hyrdogen cores) that are superheated and under pressure.
Also, I know that there is a majority that feels that the asteroid belt is a failed planet, but has anyone done any work on it being an actual planet at one time that was later destroyed by tidal forces of Jupiter? And how that might have impacted Mars (no pun intended) during earlier times? [/B][/QUOTE]
Biggles got it. Mars did have a magnetic field, but the planet was too small and it grew cold on the inside. Some suspect it may still be partly molten but not enough to where the iorn ionizes from heat and pressure. This create a charge and because the positive iorn core rotates at a different speed ta magentic field is created.
Also, form what I have read there isn't even enough mass with all the known asteriods in the solar system to make a planet the size of our moon. The current accepted model is that the belt was a ring that never accreated into one body because of Jupider.
[B]Also, I know that there is a majority that feels that the asteroid belt is a failed planet, but has anyone done any work on it being an actual planet at one time that was later destroyed by tidal forces of Jupiter? And how that might have impacted Mars (no pun intended) during earlier times? [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually they have looked into that and think it is possible that it was a planet that Jupiter ripped appart.
[B]Actually they have looked into that and think it is possible that it was a planet that Jupiter ripped appart. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. I have heard this too.
As for the Asteroid Belt not having enough mass to make up a planet let alone a small moon... Well, just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A probe sent to the belt and to bring back samples and data could answer the question of their origin.
If once a planet, there would be signs of recent (in terms of solar system history) geological morphing, rather than appearing as proto disc material.
What's the news on the probe going to Eros I think it was?
On the point that "because we can't see it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" you have to consider that astronomers can detect mass even if "unseen", so if the astronomers say there isn't enough mass in the asteroid belt for a small moon I'd believe them.
From what I've read Mars lost its atmosphere over time mostly due to its lower mass, I've also read the idea of lack of a magnetic field not helping matters. This is supposed to be one of the major reasons the water is gone, but I've read that it could also be locked in minerals, and/or a permafrost layer.
The great canyon wouldn't be flooded if most water is frozen (literally or "frozen in place" in minerals).
Water ice freezes at 0 ºC (32 ºF) but CO2 ice freezes well below water's freezing point at -78.5 ºC (-109.3 ºF, and it sublimes, liquid CO2 phases are possible only under specific high pressure conditions), so it's to be expected that water ice would be below CO2 ice.
Some corrections and comments on points expressed above (won't quote them for expediency):
It's the low pressure of Mars that would allow sublimation of water ice, not its low temperature (BTW, there's some sublimation even at normal pressure as you could notice on an ice cube left for several weeks or months in a frost free freezer, since they have a moisture removal function the ice sublimates in the dry atmosphere).
The ozone layer is only a gas layer, not some sort of "envelope" against the diffusion of other gases, so it wouldn't affect the loss of water. The barrier effect of the ozone layer on Earth is only against radiation, ultraviolet radiation specifically, O3 splits to O2 (regular oxygen) and a free radical O* (where the * would be an unpaired electron), which can later react with O2 and reform O3. It's actually quite a complicated cycle from a chemical kinetics perspective, but is a relatively stable one which undisturbed keeps an ozone layer. The problem with chlorofluorocarbons is that they also form radicals or can react with oxygen radicals and mess up the normal cycle leading to depletion of ozone.
Ozone might play a role only if it is the same UV radiation it absorbs that dissociates H2O (I'm not sure about that).
I've read somewhere that the H2 in primordial Earth would have been lost to space due to it's lightness allowing it to diffuse into outer space. However the high oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere was actually biogenic, with cyanobacteria "discovering" a way to use solar energy with photosynthesis and releasing a toxic oxydizing gas as a byproduct, there was a big extinction event related to the change from a reducing atmosphere (H2, methane, CO2, etc.) to an oxydizing one.
But in Mars I assume that what happened was that after dissociation of water the hydrogen escaped and the oxygen stayed behind to oxidize the rocks.
Elemental Sulfur is a solid, not a volcanic gas, SO2 is the volcanic gas. Sulfur dioxide wouldn't precipitate to the surface by itself, it goes down when combined with water to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4). That is one of the main components of Venus atmosphere (and an acid rain problem in Earth).
Sorry if that's too much info, these kind of topics bring out the chemist/scientist side of me (and being a researcher it can take very little to bring that aspect out;) )
About the NEAR probe and Eros, I think it orbited and then (controlled) crash-landed as expected, you can find more than you ever wanted to know at Space.com
[url]http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/near_archive.html[/url]
BTW, for SF fans Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red, Green, Blue) has as part of the background information (and speculation) on the existence of water in Mars and how to terraform it.
i keep meaning to read the Mars books by K.S.R, but have never got round to it. Robert Heinlein also mentioned the 'destroyed planet' in one (or maybe more) of his novels, tho in 'Space Cadet' he attributed the destruction of the planet to its inhabitants managing to blow it up from underneath them
Another nice puzzle is Titan. Probably nothing alive (unless there exist yet unconsidered candidate compounds for carrying it)... but quite an interesting climate it seems to have.
[B]Sorry if that's too much info, these kind of topics bring out the chemist/scientist side of me (and being a researcher it can take very little to bring that aspect out;) )
[/B][/QUOTE]
No apologies at all... ;)
This is exactly why I ask(ed) those questions. Since you are new here you may not realize that every once in a while the members here stop bickering long enough to get into GOOD discussions like this. There are a LOT of us here that enjoy them...
;)
My personal science hobbies are Astronomy and Geology (Areology, etc)
Armchair by nature, but passionate about it none the less. ;)
[B]Volcanic activity is interesting news... because theoretically... it could sustain chemical reactions which life could employ to sustain itself.
Another nice puzzle is Titan. Probably nothing alive (unless there exist yet unconsidered candidate compounds for carrying it)... but quite an interesting climate it seems to have. [/B][/QUOTE]
So far my interest in Volcanics and general Geology have been from a Chemical and Dynamics point of view, but you're right...
It's obvious that it can play a LARGE part in the propagation of life, as with the mid-ATlantic rifts where life uses Chemosynthesis instead of Photosynthesis. ;)
Amazing...
It's also my understanding that earliest microbes in the oceans used CO2 rather than the Oxygen most use now...
There are still some in existence, especially in the Hot Pools of Yellowstone and the like.
I enjoyed Robinson's Mars trilogy, and hope to start Blue Mars again, soon.
[B]I enjoyed Robinson's Mars trilogy, and hope to start Blue Mars again, soon. [/B][/QUOTE]
Loved those books, never could beat Red Mars though, just great... Been playing SMAC again, just brings back awesome memories... any other good books similar to the red mars series?
Escape Velocity (in km/s) = 11.2 * sqrt(mass of body (in earth masses)/radius of body (in Earth radii))
SO EV of earth is = 11.2 * sqrt(1/1)
The average molecular speed in km/s = 0.157 * sqrt(gas temperature (in K)/molecular mass)
so room temperature O2 would be = 0.157 * srt (270/32)
If the molecular velocity exceeds escape velocity then the planet will lose atmosphear.
On another note. The inner planets most likly had atmosphears of Hydrogyn at first but lost them to solar wind. However if one were to convert O2 in earths atmosphear to CO2 and vaporize the oceans, then the atmosphear would be almost identical to the gasses given off by volcanos.
Note: Never reallized all the work in terraforming a planet now did ya? :D
:shadow1:
[B]Sorry if that's too much info, these kind of topics bring out the chemist/scientist side of me (and being a researcher it can take very little to bring that aspect out;) )[/B][/QUOTE]Like Draal said, I like it!
Function of ozone layer looks like to discussed... that it doesn't keep gasses in atmosphere but only absorbs UV radiation of sun and it's planet's mass which is decides can planet retain it's atmosphere.
And lack of magnetic field increases loss of gasses because solar wind "strikes" directly to atmosphere.
[img]http://www.solarviews.com/browse/mgs/mgstopo2.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.volcanoworld.org/vwdocs/planet_volcano/mars/Shields/size.html][img]http://www.volcanoworld.org/vwdocs/planet_volcano/mars/Shields/Comp_Sk_2.gif[/img][/url]
[url]http://www.volcanoworld.org/vwdocs/planet_volcano/mars/Overview.html[/url]
PS. NEAR Shoemaker didn't make crash landing, its descend speed was under 2 m/s.
[B]Over time, impacts could strip away much of the atmosphere. After all, we have found rocks from Mars here on Earth due to high energy meteorite impact. [/B][/QUOTE]So piece of Mars rock is part of its atmosphere...
Impacts doesn't cause loss of atmosphere, they only change composition of it.