Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Volcanoes May Still Erupt

Posted by samzenpus on from the send-joe dept.

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."

10 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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...)?

    2. 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.
    3. 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....
  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. 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 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
  4. 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?

  5. 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."

  6. 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