Slashdot Mirror


Hellish Vision of Mars Unveiled

mvladivostok writes "Yahoo has an interesting little article in which it is suggested that Mars may not have once been a warm, wet and hospitable planet that somehow lost its atmosphere; instead, it is suggested that the dead planet was occasionally bombarded by melting meteorites that carved out its distinctive craters and valleys. An interesting read."

33 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Still by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's got water, that would make future colonization that much easier/more feasible.

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:Still by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Funny

      Greenies want to keep the earth from changing.

      Would you call people who want to keep Mars from changing either Reddies or Brownies?

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    2. Re:Still by lovebyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am reading the 3rd volume of the excellent Mars trilogy of Kim Stanley Robinson: Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars. In the story, those that are for the terraforming of Mars are the Greens and those against are the Reds.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    3. Re:Still by zephc · · Score: 3, Funny

      well, since the cause of the coloring on mars is Iron Oxide, I think they should be called Rusty

      *ba dum!*

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  2. What? Not Doom 3? by dzym · · Score: 5, Funny

    At first I thought this article was about Doom 3.

  3. Life on Mars? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article:
    "Only during the brief years or decades after the impact events would Mars have been temperate, and only then might it have bloomed with life as we know it," they wrote.


    If earth is anything to go by, I thought evolution of self-reproducing organisms would require quite a few million years and a primordial soup...
    --
    Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    1. Re:Life on Mars? by foistboinder · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There may have been primitive bacteria or algae that were transported to Mars from Earth.

      True, but it's more likely to have happened the other way (assuming there was life on Mars). "interplanetary cross-pollination" from a small planet to a large planet is easier than the other way around. The escape velocity for the smaller planet is lower and the gravity well of the larger planet make it easier for the debris to "find".

    2. Re:Life on Mars? by error0x100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If earth is anything to go by

      Why do people always want to assume that Earth is 'something to go by', i.e. that Earth is probably "representative of an average planet with life"? Its the only planet with life on that we know have, making it a sample of size 1, and as such we have absolutely no clue whatsoever where it would lie on any statistical curves. Earth could just as well be a statistical outlier in most things, for all we know. Making any assumptions about other planets, based on Earth, seems like a dicy process to me. Perhaps Earth has been really slow on the evolution scale, i.e. perhaps other planets required much less time for evolution to progress. Or it could be the other way round, perhaps it was really quick. Or perhaps it was just average. Or perhaps in other parts of the universe, other factors play bigger roles, such as 'seeding' of planets. Collectively, we don't yet have enough scientific knowledge and understanding of these processes to even begin to make proper "educated guesses".

      Just because Earth is the only planet we've seen, does not mean we can make statistical assumptions about it. Nor can we extend such assumptions to other planets, such as Mars, because for all we know, Mars may also have been a statistical outlier.

  4. like earth? by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "instead, it is suggested that the dead planet was occasionally bombarded by melting meteorites that carved out its distinctive craters and valleys"

    Wait a minute, isn't that the same as earth and the rest of the planets? I mean, mercury doesn't get this kind of attention.

    1. Re:like earth? by iomud · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's battered planet syndrome.

  5. A bit contrived, perhaps? by Montreal+Geek · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is certainly not my field (more like a hobby) but it it just me or is this scenario a bit contrived?

    While it's certainly possible that Mars would have been bombarded this way, it doesn't appear likely for two reasons:

    For one, there is no evidence of any other planetary body which would have gotten a significant infusion of water this way and it seems unlikely that Mars would have been the only target.

    But the most important detail seems to be to just be a question of quantity. Regardless of maturity, in order for deep riverbeds such as appear on Mars to form you need a lot of water flowing for a fairly long time (years, not days). To get that water from impacts would mean that a LOT of such impacts need to have taken place over a (cosmologically) short period; which makes the first point above all the more noticable.

    Even if Mars did get significant amounts of water this way (or had enough of it melted out by side effects) the water wouldn't have been around long enough to make geological constructs unless there was an atmosphere allowing it to remain liquid long enough to flow around for years.

    I'm surprised someone at NASA would publish national-enquirer quality science like that. More likely, Yahoo misread the paper to extract the nice sounding bits.

    -- MG

    1. Re:A bit contrived, perhaps? by franimal · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope! One theory goes that this is the same way that Earth got its water. (Orginal water was boiled away in early hot days when there was no atmosphere). The only problem with such theories is the isotope ratios of the water found in comets versus Earth. Search around a bit, you'll find more. One Two Three

    2. Re:A bit contrived, perhaps? by ianscot · · Score: 5, Informative
      For one, there is no evidence of any other planetary body which would have gotten a significant infusion of water this way and it seems unlikely that Mars would have been the only target.

      Discover ran a story about someone who thinks Earth is still being bombarded by smaller bodies like this -- it was a couple of years ago I think. He's regarded as a flake, but he's at least on the edges of the real scientific community.

      Regardless of maturity, in order for deep riverbeds such as appear on Mars to form you need a lot of water flowing for a fairly long time (years, not days).

      Ever hear of the Lake Missoula ice-age floods? Water from a penned-in glacial lake burst through ice dams several times, ripping up the northwestern US in colossal floods. The entire surface of eastern Washington state was formed through quite sudden flooding:

      "In about two days the water of Glacial Lake Missoula emptied through the breached dam. The amount of escaping water was equal to ten times the discharge of all the Earth's rivers today." Water several hundred feet deep flooded the region and ripped up hundreds of feet of soil and rock, carrying it inside the torrent of water westward toward the sea. The flood cut channels and carved islands, leaving behind the scarred landscape now called the Channeled Scabland.

      Imagine ripples like in a streambed, only on the scale of hillsides. It doesn't necessarily take years.

      Not that I'm buying this idea, but it's not as outrageous as all that.

      --
      "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    3. Re:A bit contrived, perhaps? by GooberToo · · Score: 3

      Yes, but notice that we have an atmosphere which allows water to remain wet. So while I presume that this is somewhat plausible, the explanation does seem fairly improbable.

      Consider for a momment that ice did impact and formed a large crator. Is it now hot enough to melt? I thought it was more likely that it would of turned to a vapor (atmosphere required again right?). Even if it does melt into water, where is it going to go? It's in a crator. It's got no where to run off too. Even if it did, it would be a race for it to run off versus the cooling action of space. Skip ahead a little bit. Now, we should see a crator with vast amounts of ice. Even it hadn't frozen completely at the time, surely the top would freeze quickly enough (like a frozen lake) to prevent it from running off somewhere.

      After it's all said and done, I can't believe that such a thing was very probable. As such, seems much more likely that Mars had an atmosphere with rivers and some event happened which destroyed it (huge chunk of ice anyone? ;).

  6. 3.85 billion years ago ... by franimal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The same thing was happening on Earth. Earth gets smacked, life gets crushed, picks itself up, and tries again. Thankfully, life has yet to crush itself.

    1. Re:3.85 billion years ago ... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Thankfully, life has yet to crush itself.

      We're working on it, though...

  7. speculating by katalyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mars has always been a mystery to us humans, right from H.G.Well's War of the world , to the recent Red Planet, we've been fantasizing about Mars. The Pathfinder has been the most exciting Mars project yet !!! It's interesting to read theories as in this article, but then that's what they are-theories. I wonder if we will ever be able to CONCLUSIVELY prove such theories. (other than using a time machine ;) )

    --
    |/________
    |\A|ALYS|
    1. Re:speculating by splateagle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "CONCLUSIVE" proof of anything is impossible. One day I expect we'll have gathered enough information to be able to settle comfortably on one martian theory over the others, but the whole point about science is that you don't get to *know* the answers, you just have to keep asking the questions.

      In that light this is an interesting article: personally I still think the atmospheric therories carry more wieght, but this is an interesting new way of asking the Mars question all the same.

      Real advances are often the product of what someone in an earlier post refered to as "National Enquirer Science", which might more neutrally be called "thinking outside the box"

    2. Re:speculating by freeweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As Sagan so eloquently put it:

      "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed ate are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

      Just because the odd breakthrough comes from some really bizarre sounding theory, doesn't negate the fact that most crackpots are just that - crackpots.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  8. I wonder, by deathcloset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    does rain precipitates differently in lower gravity? Certainly it would look a bit different hitting the ground, right? Maybe the Drops have to condensate bigger, so these giant raindrops come down at a half the speed of earths raindrops, like some boy-band video slow mo. Or maybe the raindrops are much smaller and it's a miniature version of earth rain. I wonder.

  9. Atmosphere by SmartGamer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mars has a denser atmosphere than Earth. While spaceborne objects would be a nice explanation for these formations- if a bit uncreative- it forgets the element of the atmosphere, which is the only reason Earth doesn't get pounded into rubble every meteor shower.

    Such objects tend to burn up in the atmosphere- and those which don't are rather uncommon, even geologically. What would be likely to make it through a thicker atmosphere?

    I think this is a long shot, personally. It's a possibility- but for it to be a real possibility, this would have had to somehow occur before Mars had its atmosphere. Which is not impossible- far from it- but not particularly consistent with the data.

    Admittedly, it's possible that the atmosphere was carried in a solid-frozen format on said bombardial objects, but that's even more of a stretch.

    --
    Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
    1. Re:Atmosphere by entrager · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um... check your facts. The atmospheric pressure on Mars (a direct effect of the density of the atmosphere) is approximately 1/100th of the pressure on Earth. So actually, Earth has a FAR thicker atmosphere.

    2. Re:Atmosphere by Planetes · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Mars has a denser atmosphere than Earth. While spaceborne objects would be a nice explanation for these formations- if a bit uncreative- it forgets the element of the atmosphere, which is the only reason Earth doesn't get pounded into rubble every meteor shower."

      Interesting. There's only one problem. You're incorrect. Mars' surface density is pretty close to the Earth's at 35000 meters. Roughly 0.015 kg/m3. Earth's at the surface (sea level) is approximately 1.2 kg/m3.

      The martian figure is from Nasa (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/eqstat. html)

      and the Earth figure is from any standard atmosphere chart available on the web. I don't have my texts with me so I just grabbed the one off USA Today's site. (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm)

      Even if it were, Mars' atmosphere is much thinner and has a much lower pressure than Earth's. Meteors entering Mars' atmosphere stand a much better chance at reaching the surface than they would on Earth. Combined with the ambient atmospheric temperature of the planet's atmosphere, even the density wouldn't prevent this.

      The equation of state for an ideal gas shows this relationship. (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/eqstat. html)

      "Admittedly, it's possible that the atmosphere was carried in a solid-frozen format on said bombardial objects, but that's even more of a stretch."

      I have one word: "Comets" They are believed to be responsible for a large amount of the atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars.

      Anyway, just my $.02.. :-)

      Daniel
      Aerospace Engineering major
      University of Central Florida - Orlando

      --
      Planetes
      "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
      "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
    3. Re:Atmosphere by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 3, Funny

      While it would explain Mars having more impacts than Earth, it wouldn't explain that many.

      I'm not sure about that. Every time I play as Mars in SimEarth I always bombard the hell out of it immediately with at least 20 Ice Meteors to form an ocean.

      Who's to say that the universe doesn't play SimEarth the same way that I do?

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
  10. Your scientists are all wrong. by Lethyos · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe"

    Spare me your "theories" of a harsh surface! If our democratically elected President believes we can breathe there, we can!

    --
    Why bother.
  11. Misinterpreted article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article is not quite clear in its interpretation of the research- the main source of the water would be ice on the planet, not on the meteorites.

    For a better article head to the bbc website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2546923.stm

    The gist is that large impacts by asteroids or other bodies would heat water in subsurface ice, leading to massive flash flooding. They are speculating that very large impacts would have planet wide effects for short periods of time. This isn't that contrived, as there is evidence around small martian craters that suggest that ice has been melted leading to mud flows around the crater rim.

    However, this doesn't explain why the northern hemisphere of mars looks like a dessicated ocean floor, which suggests a relatively long period of warm conditions.

  12. And its significance now is? by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, so the only currently relevant conclusion they are reaching is that life on Mars (if there is any) would have evolved to bloom and spread at massive speeds, like an even more extreme version of our desert plants. I can *kinda* see that since if there's usually no life in most places there's also no competition for anything that gets there. Given the Martian wind levels and a presumption of heavy rains then fast propagation is possible.
    Thass nice. So what?
    Well, it seems to me that if we begin to terraform Mars, or in fact, even build a base there that heats the surrounding area and spreads some moisture just by mistake, then we may get some sorta Martian kudzu spreading everywhere. Sounds fine to me.
    Rustin

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  13. BBC version by jkcity · · Score: 4, Informative

    BBC version

    a little nicer one the eyes in my opinion and has a picture too :).

  14. Re:NASA and Disney, you mean by ianscot · · Score: 5, Funny
    My father worked at a mapmaking company. They had some charts of Mars that NASA printed through the USGS.

    Down in the corner there was a standard disclaimer to the effect that if you found any inaccuracies in the map during use, NASA and the USGS weren't responsible.

    Use?

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  15. hell on earth too by peter303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The first half billion years of earth were likely a molten meteorite hell too. Also most of the earths surface- the surfloors are recycled every 100-200 million years by plate tectonics, perhaps 20 times or so overall, wiping out much of the hellish scars.

  16. Re:Bullshit... by Christianfreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What? I don't believe the article has anything to do with religion. I find it truely sad that someone can't offer an opposing scientific theory because it doesn't meet with other people's preconceptions.

    Isn't that why the creationists are so annoying??? Because they can't make evolution fit with their preconceptions so its a lie?

  17. Re:Asteroids sizes unlikey by sunspot42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why do people who can't read keep getting modded as "insightful" here at /.?

    >Doesnt anyone think we'd notice the pothole
    >left by a 150 mile wide asteroid?

    Please READ the article:

    "Segura and colleagues used photographs of the Red Planet's surface and computer models to show that large asteroids or comets hit the planet 3.5 billion years ago."

    That's 3.5 *billion* years. Almost any impact crater from 3.5 billion years ago on the surface of the Earth would have long ago been eroded away, uplifted by faults into mountains, or subducted down into the mantle. In any case, they'd be difficult or impossible to identify now. Very little of the Earth's surface from 3.5 billion years ago remains intact. On Mars, it's a completely different story.

    There are a handful of large craters on Earth that are still identifiable after around 2 billion years, as this article makes clear. But the giants formed by large impactors from early in our solar system's history have long ago been erased (or at least thoroughly obscured) from the surface of this world.

    Our moon on the other hand has plenty of gigantic impact scars left over from before 3.5 billion years ago. For example, the gigantic Imbrium crater on the lunar surface is around 700 miles in diameter, and was formed about 3.85 billion years ago. There are several lunar craters in excess of 500 miles in diameter. Our moon is also home to the largest known impact crater in the solar system, the colossal 1,300 mile wide South Pole-Aitken Basin.

  18. The true story. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Funny

    I refuse to believe this. Mars had an atmosphere and environment and ecosystem EXACTLY like the Earth, only much, much better. There were over a hundred trillion different species of animals and over nine hundred trillion different species of plants. The vegetation was lush and full everywhere except the oceans, which comprised twenty seven and a third percent of the planet's surface. Over a period of twelve thousand years, the people of Mars became incredibly intelligent and had built underground caverns of terrifying proportions in which they constructed enormous cities without damaging any of the plants above ground. All of their actions and technologies fit precisely within the balance of their planet's ecosystem such that no pollution or impurities took place. They began to explore other planets and had arrived at the farthest reaches of the universe. Then, a Martian child saw an interesting stamp on a little Martian girl's school desk and thought it looked cool, so he took it without telling anyone. The girl found this out and a fight broke out between her and the boy. As she could not prove who had done it, she became very angry and involved her parents. The boy's parents thus became involved in the argument and a family feud resulted. This escalated into a citywide riot, which resulted in a war between two neighboring cities, which had further involved their governing states. Within a matter of days after the stamp had been stolen, all of Mars was engulfed in a massive and horrendous world war which caused all the underground caverns to collapse onto the cities they contained, destroying them and the vegetation, and ending the fine balance in the ecosystem which made Mars such a nice place to live. The only remaining Martians alive were three astronauts on a Martian spaceship, a man and two women, who found themselves marooned on Earth when their spacecraft broke down while in orbit of the Earth's moon. They made an emergency landing, expecting that a rescue mission would be launched within a matter of days. That mission never took place. The astronauts thus reproduced into the human population as we know it today. That was approximately fourteen thousand years ago.