Slashdot Mirror


Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

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."

120 comments

  1. Recent activity.... by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Volcanic eruptions have happened in the last 4 million years....

    That's only about 15 iterations "emerge kde" on my gentoo laptop :)

    1. Re:Recent activity.... by lachlan76 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Still not as long as an "emerge openoffice" though ;)

  2. Okay... by JNighthawk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why is this interesting? I'm not intersted in the universe much, can someone explain the importance of this please?

    --
    Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    1. Re:Okay... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1



      No.


    2. Re:Okay... by rjch · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Why is this 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 and Europa. 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.

    3. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here, or not a nerd.

      If you don't like science, go here and select "None" at "Science" in the "Customize stories" section.

      There, that's how hard it was.

    4. Re:Okay... by Olix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought Venus was still active? http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html " Data from Magellan's imaging radar shows that much of the surface of Venus is covered by lava flows. There are several large shield volcanoes (similar to Hawaii or Olympus Mons) such as Sif Mons (right). Recently announced findings indicate that Venus is still volcanically active, but only in a few hot spots; for the most part it has been geologically rather quiet for the past few hundred million years."

    5. Re:Okay... by krymsin01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, geothermal energy is a great resource to have when colonizing planets. Io and Europa are not as exciting prospects for colonoization, for a number of reason, as Mars is.

      --
      stuff
    6. Re:Okay... by tloh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you know you are not interested, why do you desire an explanation?

      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.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    7. Re:Okay... by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      If you know you are not interested, why do you desire an explanation?

      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.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    8. Re:Okay... by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Erm weren't we supposed to stay away from Europa? All the rest of them are our's and that whole bit?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    9. Re:Okay... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Triton, the one near Neptune, is a very strange object. One of the coldest places in the solar system yet it manages to have geological activity and even a thin atmosphere with clouds. It's also possible that the entire atmosphere collapses into a frost covering the half of the moon that's in winter at the time. Not to mention the moon orbits Neptune backwards, suggesting that it's a captured object from the Kuiper Belt. If true this means it's the largest such object, not Pluto. There are missions being planned to orbit Neptune and send landers to Triton. Should be good!

      Only 20+ years to go ...

    10. Re:Okay... by Sir+Foxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Venus isn't inactive it just has long periods of inactivity before enough pressure builds and a huge amount of its surface gets covered in molten lava. This is due to no water being on the planet thereby lacking the necessary lubrication for plate technonics and an active surface like us.

      --
      "I don't which is worse, that everyone has a price, or that the price is always so low"--Hobbes
    11. Re:Okay... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      You know, this just isn't funny. The jokes obvious, no-one needed it said. Ever hear a joke 50 times in real life? I have, and it aint pretty. Yet it seems to be the norm here at slashdot. Says a lot about nerds.

    12. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Io and Europa are both moons of Jupiter. When mentioning neptune you were probably thinking of Triton, with its nitrogen geysers and cantaloupe terrain.

    13. Re:Okay... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Hearing and reading a joke isn't the same thing. If you hear it you're usually forced to do so, and you might also feel inclined to give some indicator that you recognized it as a joke.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    14. Re:Okay... by genner · · Score: 1

      Yeah well in Soviet Russia the joke is funny.

    15. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, jokes tell you.

    16. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only 20+ years to go ..."

      To Neptune? I think not. It was calculated in the 70's that with a Saturn V rocket, a Voyager-like payload, and a direct trajectory, it would take 30 years to get to Neptune. Voyager was lucky because the planets lined up so that it could do successive gravitational kicks. The Voyager Grand Tour planet lineup only occurs once every 180 years. Its reasonable to estimate that even with gravitational boosts and a very large rocket (in the near future planet configurations), it would take 20 years to get to Neptune. Add another 10 years to make the spacecraft and get the exact planet lineup schedule.

      Unless, of course you mean nuclear propulsion. With that we could do it in 10 years.

    17. Re:Okay... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but they haven't delivered on the Monlith front and still no bloomin' star child so I reckon all bets are off now.

    18. Re:Okay... by cakefool · · Score: 1

      I'll bite.

      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 atmospere stays here due to gravity, which, for its size, Earth has quite a bit of.

      With not magnetic field to shield it's surface, the atmosphere thinned and water became scarce

      The atmosphere of Mars disappeared (assumption 1) due to low gravity more than anything else. To achieve a sea level air pressure similar to Earths, a Martian atmosphere would be many times deeper, with the upper reaches so far out they can easily bleed off into space. With no/very little gasseous production on Mars, the atmosphere is not replaced.

    19. Re:Okay... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      The journey time with nuclear propulsion is said to be 20 years, but yes I forgot about the actual build time. I just re-read the article , they hope to launch in 2016. So it'll be 30+ years I have to wait!

      And that's only if NASA select the mission.

    20. Re:Okay... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and old Koreans think it's funny too

    21. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venus is active, the Venera 9 & 10 probes that landed on the surface there took pictures of magma flows
      http://www.russianspaceweb.com/venera75.html

    22. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what they have designed, not what is possible. There are nuclear propulsion technologies that could allow very rapid flights across the solar system. With extraordinary prices. 20 years is for a price that any space agency is willing to pay.

      Hopefully JIMO will go ahead and show the world a brief glimpse of the power offered by nuclear propulsion in space (which will probably be a required precursor for this mission).

    23. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      news flash, genius. Two deadly chemicals combining to form salt ain't magic. it *IS* Chemistry.

  3. Molten core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's as recent as 4 million years that would put to bed the dead Mars theory. The idea that Mars lacks a molten core. If there was magma that recently there would still be a molten core. It would take hundreds of millions if not billions of years to go from volcanic to a cold core. There would almost have to be liquid underground water. Good news for life and also water for explorers.

    1. Re:Molten core by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mars does have a molten core.

      Take a Look

      --
      Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    2. Re:Molten core by helioquake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mars probably has a molten core (see Science article from 2003). But then it begs me another question: where has its magnetic field go?

      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...)?

    3. Re:Molten core by mpe · · Score: 1

      If it's as recent as 4 million years that would put to bed the dead Mars theory. The idea that Mars lacks a molten core. If there was magma that recently there would still be a molten core.

      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 have a cold core, with "hot spots" near the surface.

      There would almost have to be liquid underground water.

      Hot rock can just as easily convert water into steam. Or very hot water kept liquid due to being under preassure.

      Good news for life and also water for explorers.

      If you have water under preasure at a temperature higher 90 celsius it will not make a good source drinking water.

    4. Re:Molten core by bdcrazy · · Score: 1

      High pressure high temperature water might not make a good source of drinking water for us, but some bacteria thrive on it on earth.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    5. Re:Molten core by cluckshot · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    6. Re:Molten core by Rob+Carr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      These paradoxes have not been answered to by modern science types.

      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!

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    7. Re:Molten core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take hundreds of millions if not billions of years to go from volcanic to a cold core.

      Hah! My wife did it in less than three years.

    8. Re:Molten core by cakefool · · Score: 1

      If you have water under preasure at a temperature higher 90 celsius it will not make a good source drinking water.

      Houston - this water is too hot, we're coming back~

      Houston to mars - have you tried cooling it?~

      Mars here - oh yeah...~

    9. Re:Molten core by Aglassis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You said "If it's as recent as 4 million years that would put to bed the dead Mars theory. The idea that Mars lacks a molten core. If there was magma that recently there would still be a molten core. It would take hundreds of millions if not billions of years to go from volcanic to a cold core. There would almost have to be liquid underground water. Good news for life and also water for explorers."

      For the core to be molten there is a non-linear temperature and pressure dependance. On Earth, the inner core is solid and the outer core is liquid even though the temperature of the inner core is higher. This is because the increased pressure at the inner core forces iron to stay solid while the decreased pressure at the outer core boundary allows it to melt. The pressure at the core of Mars should be less because of the smaller size of Mars, but the core temperature will almost certainly be lower because of the higher surface area to volume ratio (more heat can be radiated into space per the given mass of the planet). This makes it difficult to say for sure whether it is solid or liquid (though the lack of a magnetic field makes me inclined to believe that its solid).

      It should also be noted that the mantle is solid on Earth (yet still deformable) yet liquid magma is found near the surface (and lava on the surface). This is for the same reason described (since the pressure is much less near the surface). A solid core can still allow vulcanism.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    10. Re:Molten core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "That is they are by the gas laws (which also apply to liquids and solids)"

      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 assumptions used in the gas laws that don't apply to solids or liquids. Some of the assumptions include: the average intermolecular spacing is assumed to be huge so that inter-molecular forces are insignificant, the walls of the container are infinitely hard, the gas is homogenous, and the gas particles are infinitely small.

    11. Re:Molten core by CobwoyNeal · · Score: 1

      First of all, volatiles like helium, water, CO2, and nitrogen make up less than 0.1% of the mass of Earth or Venus. Furthermore, Most of the hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen on earth is bound up in non-volatile compounds like silicates and nitrates. Even the loss of all the volatiles would not have interfered with early accretion of planets.

      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 space without "evaporating". Those two things make up the majority of the mass of all the rocky planets.

      You also blatantly fail to take into account the difference in the density of debris available for accretion between now and 4 billion years ago. More debris => more accretion. The early loss of volatiles like helium, water and nitrogen is insignificant compared to the number of asteroids colliding with planets in the early solar system. It may well be that most of the water on earth comes from asteroids that reached earth after it accreted to the size of Mars.

  4. But... by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, we have only been closely looking at mars for (in an astronomical sense) a fraction of a second. Just because there hasn't been any evidence of eruption yet doesn't really mean anything.

    Mars does have a molten core, according to JPL. Strikingly similar to both earth, and venus. Interesting stuff, none the less.

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    1. Re:But... by RedBear · · Score: 1

      Well, we have only been closely looking at mars for (in an astronomical sense) a fraction of a second. Just because there hasn't been any evidence of eruption yet doesn't really mean anything.

      Don't you mean in a geological sense?

      (astronomical) is to (distance/size) as (geological) is to (time)

  5. Real reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1.The Great Machine has awakened and is starting the terraforming process.

    2.Didn't you folks play Doom3? Hello Hellgate.

    1. Re:Real reasons by ubernoob22 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you folks play Doom3? Hello Hellgate. Better send that memo to Andrzej Bartkowiak because he apparently thinks it's a mutated-super-virus!!

    2. Re:Real reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > 2.Didn't you folks play Doom3? Hello Hellgate.

      From the article:

      > Some of the Martian lava fields must have been created very recently in geologic time, because of the very small number of impact craters on them, said study leader Gerhard Neukum of the Free University in Berlin.

      Not DOOM3. Gerhard Neukum Forever!

  6. Re:Gerhard Neukum ? by concerning · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe this is some elaborate backstory hype before they release DN: Forever?

  7. Hmm interesting by Agret · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If volcanoes supposably created our atmosphere does that mean that if we leave Mars alone for a few million years it will produce it's own life? (Non-bacterial)

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
    1. Re:Hmm interesting by priestx · · Score: 0

      that's little over Bush's last term.

      --
      "To be is to do." -Socrates
      "To do is to be." -Jean-Paul Sartre
      "Do-be-do-be-do." -Frank Sinatra
    2. Re:Hmm interesting by rufferto · · 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.

    3. Re:Hmm interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clearly you haven't been reading your creationist study books. Only God can create life.

    4. Re:Hmm interesting by mailtomomo · · Score: 0

      the real problem is that its magnetosphere is pretty dead : the Sun wipe out Mars atmosphere.

    5. Re:Hmm interesting by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      And is He setting off some volcanoes in order to actually result in that life any different?

      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!)

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    6. Re:Hmm interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It was probably posted AC because discussions with creationists tend to be so tedious. Why can't they just accept that they are wrong?

    7. Re:Hmm interesting by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      It was probably posted AC because discussions with creationists tend to be so tedious. Why can't they just accept that they are wrong?

      Because accepting one has been wrong means admitting one has been something of an ass.

      This is generally OK for most people ... if you reach a wrong conclusiong because your missing some facts or make a mistake in reasoning, its not a big deal to admit your failing and move on.

      If, however, you insist on an ever more unlikely scenerio (like, say, a belief in a bearded pedophile who lives at the North Pole, climbs down chimneys delivering presents, or lumps of coal, to small children, travels via a flying sled pulled by eight small reindeer, and cavorts with elves) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as Creationists by definition are doing (the earth is only a few thousand years old but "created old" to get us sinners, evolution either doesn't exist, exists only in animals, or is somehow directed, "intelligent design" nonsense, and a dozen other non-scientific "theories" that either deny a mountain of evidence to the contrary, violate occams razer, or assert unfalsifiable, unprovable notions that stretch credulity beyond the breaking point), then admitting one was such a ginormous, collassal ass of such epic proportions is understandably difficult.

      Of course, continuing to be such an ass is even worse, but I'm afraid that point is lost on most creationists...which is why they continue to provide the rest of us with such amusement.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    8. Re:Hmm interesting by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see creationism as a way of just not bothering to figure out the past. We don't have a good idea of what happened more than a few thousand years ago. Solution? The world simply didn't exist. Where did the universe come from? God made it. Even if they acknowledge something like the Big Bang, there's still an orign for that initial mass, once again the notion of a God relieves them of a need to learn more.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    9. Re:Hmm interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because we know for SURE that we weren't "created", but evolved instead.

      Hey, can I use your time machine?

    10. Re:Hmm interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "supposably"? "supposably"?!!

      Dude. You are supposedly an idiot.

      Love, that spelling guy.

    11. Re:Hmm interesting by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Creationism is a faith. It is about not asking questions.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  8. babys bottoms by barnseyboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Regions that are smooth as a baby's bottom must have been "resurfaced" recently, in geologist's parlance."

    My babies bottom is typically surfaced in an unidentifiable brown pitted substance, and is far from smooth.

    --
    Think you can program? Prove it @ the geek challenges
    1. Re:babys bottoms by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 1

      except for the fact that baby's poop is not usually brown and runny.

    2. Re:babys bottoms by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

      "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 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 little b******s will wait until your face is within range before they turn into little yellow fountains.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    3. Re:babys bottoms by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      Face nothing, mine goes for distance. I learned quickly to keep him covered so I only got splashed a couple of times. The wife was a little slower on the uptake. Before she got consistant with the covering he had christened the floor, the wall, a lamp, a plant five feet away, etc. I swear his goal is to hit the ceiling.

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
    4. Re:babys bottoms by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      you better teach him better before he grows up and turns into another tubgirl

  9. mars is not dead by Ambient_Developer · · Score: 3, Funny

    So where are the little green men?

    1. Re:mars is not dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleaning the Mars Opportunity Rover obviously... http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/2 2/145246

    2. Re:mars is not dead by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      Possibly charred beyond recognition.

    3. Re:mars is not dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all out cleaning the solar cells on the rovers.

  10. Re: Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt by manavendra · · Score: 1, Redundant

    ...suggest the red planet is more active than many scientists had thought<snip/>

    Usually that's something the parents discover...

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  11. Re:Gerhard Neukum ? by koi88 · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Duke's brother, the Mars scientist Gerhard Nukem, has mysteriosly disappeared.

    Was he kidnapped?
    Is there a relation to the strange activities on Mars?
    And why is every information about the volcanic activities strictly confidential? Who's behind the organization ESA?
    To find out, Duke must go to Mars...
    Coming next, uhm, summer: DN:Forever.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  12. Flat top volcanos. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Those lava flows look quite different from ones on earth. They're flat topped, show no signs of caldera/explosion, and seem to sit largly isloated from any other feature.

    Anyone have a clue?

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    1. Re:Flat top volcanos. by Doomsdaisy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could it be because Mars does not have floating tectonic plates as does earth? I'm no vulcanologist but I am curious.

      --
      These are breasts; this is source code.
      Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
    2. Re:Flat top volcanos. by zvesda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll hazard a guess; if the lava on the Big Island of Hawai'i was looked at from a great height then it too would look smooth. On the other hand, lava from Etna or Mt St Helen's wouldn't. 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). On Mars, the lack of plate tectonics means that little surface material (inc. water) is pushed back into the mantle (c.f. Etna) and only 'pure' mantle material errupts (c.f. Hawai'i). Into a thin atmosphere, which allows dissolved gasses to leave more rapidly, the erruption would tend to be quite gentle and lower (Martian) gravity means it can spread over larger areas than on Earth.

      Result is wide smooth basalt flows.

      (but I only ever did Geology in 1st year undergrad---1A NatSci---so this might be incorrect).

      --
      -- Thus conscience does make cowards of us all - Hamlet
    3. Re:Flat top volcanos. by toxic666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they look much like certain lava flows on earth. Here's the URL of a primer on vulcanism with some examples:

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/volc/types.html

      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.

    4. Re:Flat top volcanos. by toxic666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they look much like certain lava flows on earth. Here's the URL of a primer on vulcanism with some examples:

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/volc/types.html

      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. They move through the crust more slowly and once the pressure gets low enough, the water boils explosively.

      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.

    5. Re:Flat top volcanos. by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll hazard a guess; if the lava on the Big Island of Hawai'i was looked at from a great height then it too would look smooth.

      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 also a difference between Kilauea errupting continuiously and the likes of Etna, St Helens which spend most of their time "dormant" periodically errupting explosivly.
      It's even been suggested that there are different types of vulcanism at work. There is no evidence of the Hawaiian islands being subject to any caldera forming erruptions, as happened to Thera and Krakatoa.

      Into a thin atmosphere, which allows dissolved gasses to leave more rapidly, the erruption would tend to be quite gentle and lower (Martian) gravity means it can spread over larger areas than on Earth.

      You'd also need very runny lava to allow any gasses to escape quickly. With a viscous lava a lower preasure would tend to make things even more violent.

    6. Re:Flat top volcanos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and i thought vulcanologists were just crazy people who liked star trek too much...

    7. Re:Flat top volcanos. by BurntNickel · · 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

      Volcano World is an interesting site full of volcanic goodness.

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    8. Re:Flat top volcanos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they're flat topped, show now signs of caldera

      from the article:

      Each of the mountains is dominated by a caldera, a depression at the top that is the collapsed remains of eruptions past
    9. Re:Flat top volcanos. by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      All of the lines along which plates move apart on Earth are underwater; being that there isn't a goodly amount of surface water on Mars I would presume that we would be able to see the stretch lines fairly easily. The compression lines form mountain ranges; I don't know if there are any non-volcanic mountains on Mars?

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Flat top volcanos. by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're only looking at the caldera's?
      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.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    11. Re:Flat top volcanos. by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I've found a different picture of Mont Olympus that explains what you see.
      http://www.esa.int/export/mex_mm/images/x_ol ympus. jpg

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  13. stoned spirit by flibberdi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The question is rather, is the spirit stoned?

    OR

    is the spirit just stuck?

    OR

    Has there been to much to drink?

  14. Oh shit... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 3, Funny

    There goes the planet...

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  15. Here's the real Mars news... by nokilli · · Score: 2
    Ice.

    (don't bother submitting it as a story, I already tried.)

    1. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

      Cool image.

      Even more than ice, it really looks like a lake in the bottom right of the photo.

      Thanks for sharing.

      --
      Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
    2. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by fewnorms · · Score: 1

      Not a lake by far, compare this pic to the other ones posted by the GPP, this is just a detail shot of the surface. At most it's a small puddle, as it does look like a liqiud of some kind to me, 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. This is the same kind of behaviour you would expect on Earth.

      --
      Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    3. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

      Not a lake by far, compare this pic to the other ones posted by the GPP, as it does look like a liqiud of some kind to me,

      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. This is the same kind of behaviour you would expect on Earth.

      Yes, these are the same things that made me consider it to be a liquid too. It could be something else though -- photography doesn't always show reality. It sure does look like water though...

      --
      Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
    4. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by laura20 · · Score: 1

      It does look startlingly like water/ice. But NASA scientists aren't stupid and have a big investment in finding water on Mars, so I'm guessing it's not. Maybe dust?

    5. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by fewnorms · · Score: 1
      But NASA scientists aren't stupid ...
      Euhm, anyone remember that solardust collecting satelite that was supposed to return to Earth in once piece? Or what about that error with a NASA engineer forgetting to convert from metric to imperial or the other way round ;)
      There are plenty more examples where that came from.
      But, on the up side, the NASA guys usually never make mistakes.
      --
      Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
    6. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by DrinkingIllini · · Score: 1

      Flying through space ain't like dusting crops boy.

      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.

    7. Re:Here's the real Mars news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not ice, just dust. Take a look at the same scene with a different sun angle. See the ripples in the "ice"?
      http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all /1/p/307 /1P155424127EFF38EVP2555R1M1.JPG

  16. Re:Gerhard Neukum ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this is some elaborate backstory hype before they release DN: Forever?
    It seems that recently everything funny is being modded as off-topic...?
    Everything slightly ironic is modded as Troll.

    I guess some people here really have no sense of humor...

  17. doom3 ! by phreakv6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

    so beware when u play doom3 !

    --
    fifteen jugglers, five believers
    1. Re:doom3 ! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      The Mars rovers are having difficulties examining and mapping the surface of mars.

      The problem - they can't see where they are going whilst holding the spectrometer. ;)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:doom3 ! by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps their spectrometer needs a flashlight mod?

  18. Re:F post by DrMrLordX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think now is an excellent time for me to state what I feel are some fundamental problems here, along with a few simple solutions. After all, it is better to solve problems than to simply whine about them.

    The parent post is but one of many posts here that is modded down, and will go unnoticed. Does this truly benefit anyone? No, not really. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the readers here are mature enough to handle any and all posts, regardless of their eventual moderations. Yes, even the -1 Troll posts, goatse ASCII and all, are appropriate reading material. We're not mental children. We can, and should, be expected to withstand the blather of every member here who actually bothers to post.

    Furthermore, I would like to state that there is too much pressure being placed upon the moderators to "protect" the average reader here from "bad" posts. The moderators aren't perfect, but honestly, are they being paid to provide the service of moderation to Slashdot? I believe not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, their work was done pro bono. I'm sure some of the moderators enjoy their perceived power. Sadly, mod points are more of a burden than anything else, and they can even push moderators away from discussions(the mods would rather moderate than reply, etc).

    To make matters worse, the work of moderators is constantly trivialized by editors who can arbitrarily moderate posts to -1. Why have moderators if you're unwilling to invest any trust in them at all?

    A few solutions:

    1). Readers should elect to browse at -1. Really. Of what are you afraid?

    2). Save a moderator some trouble by either refusing to metamoderate, or metamoderate every moderation as unfair/unfunny. Moderators will be better off either without our interference, or without their mod points.

    3). Eventually, the editors should force all ACs and registered non-subscribers to browse at -1 at all times, without any ability to adjust thresholds. The moderation system should, effectively, only be relevant to subscribers. I'm sure the editors would appreciate the resulting increase in revenues.

  19. Mars exchanging magnetic poles? by doktoromni · · Score: 1

    Earth's magnetic field exchange its poles from times to times, doesn't it? So, a tentative explanation for the lack of a Martian magnetic field despite its molten core would be that Mars also exchange poles from times to times and coincidentally we are observing the planet during one of the transitions (when the magnetism would weaken and eventually reach zero). Of course, in order to test this theory, geologic, or better saying, "areologic" evidence would have to be corrected. (The flips of Earth's magnetic field were discovered by analysing the magnetic alignment of the crystal in rocks of different ages, as far as I remember.)

    1. Re:Mars exchanging magnetic poles? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      From what I've been told, Earth is rather dense for its size which is why our planet is still able to generate a magnetic field. It's only a matter of time before it too has it's atmosphere stripped away. If in when this happens though, I would be the least likely person to answer that as I'm not a geologist.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  20. Magnetic field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's a molten core, how come there's no magnetic field? Any areologists able to comment?

    1. Re:Magnetic field by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      If there's a molten core, how come there's no magnetic field?

      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 to expect?

  21. No they are cannon shots from Mars... by freedom_india · · Score: 1
    No they are not volcanic eruptions. They are cannon shots by Mars which are firing cylinders to land in New Jersey and England.

    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!!!

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  22. Back in the 80s..... by commo1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I distinctly remember reading in Dickinson, Sagan and Clarke books back in the 80s that Olympus was an active volcano. The "largest active volcano in the solar system".

  23. Re:Sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the first Soviet Russia joke that I've actually found funny.

  24. I wonder by Striker770S · · Score: 0

    if the environmentalists are going to say that the increase in CO2 on Mars is not caused by the volcano but actually from man and their inventions. Of course they prolly wont even care about Mars, so self-centered...

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
  25. Mars/Mars'/Martian by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

    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.

  26. No, no no by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    youve got it all wrong.

    Somebody has opened up a gateway to hell (which for those who dont know, makes it kind of toasty)

  27. Terminology problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else bothered by the phrase "Martian geology?" Couldn't this be compressed to "areology?"

  28. No. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    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.

    Just how big do you think the rovers are? That was taken by Opportunity.

  29. It's not ice and it's not water. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    That was taken on the crater wall. There are other pictures that show the surrounding area and it's obvious that it's not water or ice. That one frame that you showed does look like ice/water, but when you see a wider angle shot of the area you can tell that it's not ice/water.

    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 "puddles" are actually deposits of fine sand that are dark in color.

    1. Re:It's not ice and it's not water. by sho222 · · Score: 1

      Those rocks in the pic you posted look pretty rectangular to an untrained eye. Almost as if they were stacked there to create a structure. Is there a geoligical explanation, or did little green men put them there?

    2. Re:It's not ice and it's not water. by RedBear · · Score: 1

      Certain types of rock often fracture and wear along orthogonal lines like that. There are even weirder forms of rock in nature on this planet. Somewhere along the coast of someplace, maybe England, there are rock formations that look like hexagonal columns of varying height all fitted together like some sort of mechanically man-made sculpture.

      Here's a link. And another link. And a third link. Nature is weird. Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions about intelligent life just because you see a repeating pattern.

  30. Actually the gandparent is correct (Re:Okay...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spelling aside, the grandparent is correct in reporting NOVA.
    see:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3111_orig ins.html (pbs.org)

    It says: "Without Earth's liquid iron core, life would be in trouble. This swirling ball of molten iron is what generates the magnetic field around our planet. And we need that magnetic field because every day a deadly stream of electrically charged particles bombards the Earth.

    Ejected by the sun in monstrous solar flares, these particles hurtle through space at about a million miles an hour, forming what is known as the solar wind. Some think that if the solar wind ever reached our planet, it would strip away the atmosphere. But Earth's magnetic field creates a protective shield that deflects these deadly particles."


    So maybe NEIL deGRASSE TYSON is wrong.

    1. Re:Actually the gandparent is correct (Re:Okay...) by cakefool · · Score: 1

      yup, I feel stupid. Thanks for expanding my knowledge though.

  31. Slashdot users mentioned in the article... by viral-contagion · · Score: 1

    He said the orbiter^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H , erm, Slashdot users might get lucky in coming years and "see some action, but the chances are slim."

    Sorry, fellow geeks, no action for us anytime soon.

  32. Welcome by bozojoe · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our magma martian overlords

    --
    lick the cancle button (at least thats what our Chinese QA says)
  33. Life on Mars? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    If volcanoes supposably created our atmosphere does that mean that if we leave Mars alone for a few million years it will produce it's own life? (Non-bacterial)

    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 when the food is exhausted. If the food is buried organic matter from a past solar-powered surface life, there is no more food being created. With the huge growth rate of bacteria, they would consume any food source in a short time. Either their metabolic rate is excruciatingly slow or the access to the food supply is restricted.

    The deep hot biosphere viewpoint is that methane is probably created by geologic/chemical processes, and is the food source for deep-living bacteria. So the methane on Mars might just be rock gas and not a sign of life. But if methane is reaching the atmosphere, there still is a supply which may be feeding bacteria.

    One part of the deep biosphere theory is that the food source for bacteria has to be unavailable to the bacteria, and the food is only available at a restricted rate. Methane from depths which are too hot for bacteria would allow life to exist for as long a time as the methane continues to trickle up to cooler regions.

    So the methane tells us to keep looking for life, as there is still a food source.

    Methane leaking up from deep below also hints at volcanic activity. Carbon fluids are suspected of causing upward cracks and being significant participants in volcanic and earthquake activity on Earth. Volcanoes often emit carbon in several forms. It is hardly surprising for both methane and volcanoes to be present.