Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Looking at a Martian Aurora Borealis

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the northern-lights dept.

mike_1138 writes "According to new research, 'The Martian auroras differ from those on Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune...' I've seen the Borealis here on Earth, and they're beautiful. I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night."

100 comments

  1. Oh. Great. by soupdevil · · Score: 5, Funny

    New Slashdot category -- things we can't imagine...

    1. Re:Oh. Great. by weeboo0104 · · Score: 0

      Does this mean Beowulf clusters finally have a catagory of their own?

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  2. The Martian auroras differ... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny


    Of course they're different...the Martians are causing them to strobe out the message 'Keep your junk off our planet'.

    Too bad no one on Earth understands Martian Morse code...

    ^_^

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The Martian auroras differ... by 77Punker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, Martians prefer to beam messages directly into our brains or abduct us to tell us personally, which is why I use a thought screen. http://www.stopabductions.com/

    2. Re:The Martian auroras differ... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

      And I thought tin-foil hats would NEVER go out of style.

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
  3. redder and not in the sky, not the same really by tota · · Score: 1

    "auroras on Mars appear to form when charged particles from the sun speed up over magnetized rocks in the planet's crust."

    Not exactly like staring at the sky is it.

    --
    TODO: 753) write sig.
    1. Re:redder and not in the sky, not the same really by aussie_a · · Score: 1


      Not exactly like staring at the sky is it.

      From TFA:
      The light show was about 30 kilometres across and about eight kilometres high

      Now assuming this is 8km from the ground (and not 8km in height) I'd say it's staring at the sky for most people that would be on Mars (if there were any people on Mars).

  4. Martian auroras aren't secret either! by Suicyco · · Score: 1

    No government is safe from the prying eyes of... people with eyes!

    http://accelerationresearch.tripod.com/

  5. I can't imagine what they must look like on Mars by syntap · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune either I assume.

  6. Re:Obligatory... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    Don't complain about it, it happens, especially if all you do is point to a news story on another site.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  7. Little Chief! by kryogen1x · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Maybe these auroras will allow us to communicate with Martians in the future? I hope they tell me who wins the World Series.

    1. Re:Little Chief! by SeaDour · · Score: 1

      At the very least, we'll be able to prevent murders on Mars...from thirty years ago...

    2. Re:Little Chief! by kryogen1x · · Score: 1

      At least someone gets the reference to Frequency.

  8. Don'l look like much by pegasustonans · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen the Borealis here on Earth, and they're beautiful. I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night.

    Well, considering they're estimated to be about 1% as powerful, I'd have to venture a guess that they really don't look like much at all. At least not in visible light.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  9. Aurora Borealis? NO! Aurora Australis! by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Informative
    FTA:Auroras were detected from Terra Cimmeria in the southern hemisphere of Mars.

    southern hemispher auroras are called Aurora Australis. Nothern Hemisphere auroras are Aurora Borealis.

    1. Re:Aurora Borealis? NO! Aurora Australis! by ink_13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The terms "Borealis" and "Australis" are somewhat meaningless on Mars. The correct term is simply "Aurora". It's the editors who made the goof.

    2. Re:Aurora Borealis? NO! Aurora Australis! by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      The terms "Borealis" and "Australis" are somewhat meaningless on Mars. The correct term is simply "Aurora". It's the editors who made the goof.

      Borealis, Boreas - The great north wind; greek god of. aka Aquilo
      Australis, Auster - The great south wind; roman god of. aka Notus

      Aurora - latin / middle english - Dawn

      If you want to be anal about the subject, Aurora Aquilonis would be a bit more consistent with the Roman theme. But both words would apply on other planets just as well as they do on earth as it means the dawn north or south wind.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    3. Re:Aurora Borealis? NO! Aurora Australis! by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      The terms "Borealis" and "Australis" are somewhat meaningless on Mars. The correct term is simply "Aurora". It's the editors who made the goof.

      Yes, because (just to clarify the above statement) clearly there's no such thing as north and south on Mars.

    4. Re:Aurora Borealis? NO! Aurora Australis! by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      To further clarify the above: there is not much of a magnetic north and south on Mars, as noted elsewhere in this discussion. Mars has been known to have a magnetic field since about 1997, but the planet's magnetisation is largely undifferentiated. Some regions, as also noted elsewhere in this discussion, do reach magnetic variation of up to 400 nT, which is not insignificant (see e.g. this article (pdf format)).

      However, 'borealis' and 'australis' are not originally terms used in connection with magnetic fields, and Mars clearly does have poles in the sense that it rotates - which is why the GP post struck me as a very weird thing to say.

    5. Re:Aurora Borealis? NO! Aurora Australis! by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

      RTFA = Read The Fucking Article

      TFA = The Fucking Article

      FTA = Fuck The Article?

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  10. Re:Obligatory... by zakkie · · Score: 1

    You are correct of course, but I'm just a little miffed that I'm 0/4 so far ;-)

  11. I've found that auroras on Uranus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...burn more.

  12. Auroras and our protection from solar radiation by anglete · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that there is some radiation protection due to the magnetism in rocks on mars?

    Is this enough protection that people won't need heavy gear to protect themselves from solar flares?

    1. Re:Auroras and our protection from solar radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation protection from the sort of charged particles emitted by a solar flare is afforded by our planet's magnetic field, which deflects them. Most dangerous high frequency electromagnetic radiation (ie uv) is absorbed and reemitted at lower (infrared) frequencies by gaseous molecules in the atmosphere.

      Since Mars has a significantly reduced magnetic field compared to Earth (~15%?), and has 1% of the atmosphere, it's reasonably safe to say that radiation at the surface is going to be fairly dangerous, even if you do find a giant magnetic rock to sit on.

  13. Hrm... by Robotron23 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mars' atmosphere couldn't permit the spectacular light displays that can be witnessed here on Earth. While Mar's atmosphere stretches further into space than Earth's, its just not substantial enough to allow auroras. Further to this, since the solar wind has to travel further to Mars due to its distance from the sun the overall power of the aurorae would be reduced obviously.

    Furthermore, the actual sighting was seen in the southern hemisphere, theres definately a different name for auroras that occur south of the equator than borealis.

    1. Re:Hrm... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      While Mar's [sic]atmosphere stretches further into space than Earth's, its just not substantial enough to allow auroras.

      I was under the impression that auroras were the result of charged particles in the solar wind being deflected by the magnetosphere, and was not dependent on atmosphere at all.

      While Mars does receive much less solar radiation than Earth, its magnetic field is nearly as strong, so auroras should have respectable strength.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, should've been aurora australis, but since the only landmass inside the southern polar circle is Antarctica, aurora borealis is the only manifestation widely known (in the North there are many cities in which the aurora borealis is visible). Not a big deal, really, just a name (I'm from the southern hemisphere, and I don't much care). Anywa, correct naming aside, the aurora borealis is created by the solar wind interacting with the ionosphere, not with the atmosphere, and Mars' magnetic field is too weak, so this 'aurora australis' manifests on the ground (you know, red Mars, all the iron there? Highly magnetic stuff).

    3. Re:Hrm... by Ozric · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Mars's has a very weak magnetic field now. One theory is that the solar winds "blew away" most of the atmospheare which it turn cause the surface to lose heat and freeze up trundra style.

    4. Re:Hrm... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Actually, I have to correct an error in my previous post...the magnetic field strength of the Martian crust is 400 nT...compared to Earth's 3000 nT, it's a far cry from 'nearly as strong'.

      As for the solar winds, an insufficiently strong magnetic field would contribute to the solar wind eroding both the surface and the atmosphere over time.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    5. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Mars's magnetic field is weak -- indeed, it does not have a global field created by an active core, but rather weak patches -- link

      Here on Earth, the visible aurora has little to do with the magnetosphere either. While ionized particles from the solar wind are funneled towards the magnetic poles of the Earth (imagine spiralling along the field lines), the actual light is caused when atmospheric gas is bombarded by these particles, kicking them into higher energy states. These energy states tend to be unstable, so the molecules drop down a state and the energy is released as a photon. The specific colour released has to do with the particule kind of gas that is discharging.

    6. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While Mar's [sic]atmosphere stretches further into space than Earth's,

      Do you have any idea what "sic" is supposed to mean? It means "this may be a typo, but that's the way I found it." It most certainly does not mean "this was a typo, but I fixed it."

      Besides which, you didn't fix it, you broke it. Parent post to you had it right with "Mars'", possessive. You screwed it up trying to squeeze that apostrophe down before the "s".


      (And I know literally, "sic" in Latin meant "thus", or "like so", but that's not what we're talking about here, just the meaning derived from that.)

    7. Re:Hrm... by jdhutchins · · Score: 1

      Mars has a negligable magnetic field, so there aren't any atmospheric auroras. The article seems to say that the auroras are created by charged particles passing over magnetized rocks on the surface, so there isn't an atmospheric aurora.

    8. Re:Hrm... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Perhaps you ought to read the post I was quoting before you start lecturing me about the meaning of 'sic'.

      Just to make things easier on you, here it is:


      Mars' atmosphere couldn't permit the spectacular light displays that can be witnessed here on Earth. While Mar's atmosphere stretches further into space than Earth's, its just not substantial enough to allow auroras.


      See the part I quoted?
      See the part you *think* I quoted?
      Don't you feel silly now?
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    9. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, you're quite right. And yes, I see the part I thought you quoted. And yes, I do. My humble apologies.

    10. Re:Hrm... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Apology accepted...and appreciated. Thank you.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    11. Re:Hrm... by helioquake · · Score: 1

      I should've been moderating you up...but..

      Here is one misconception, though. Often energetic particles in the solar wind isn't strong enough to penetrate through Earth's magnetic field. Mostly they get deflected, instead. But when the particles interact with the magnetic field, they stretch the Earth's field line. And sometimes the stretch is severe enough that the field lines get snapped (i.e., imagine a rubber band) to merge together (called magnetic reconnection). This happens at a downstream of the solar wind "eddying" around the Earth. When the fields snap, it releases its internal magnetic field energy, feeding it into heat/kinetic energy of the local particles. These particles are still charged and likely bounded by the magnetic fields;and these charged particles streams down the field lines and eventually collide onto the atmosphere near the magnetic poles. That's what you see as "bright" and "filamental" aurorae on Earth.

      When there is a major CME hitting onto Earth, some particles do penetrate through the Earth's field and interact with the atmosphere directly. These tend to generate reddish, diffused aurorae that have been seen in low magnetic latitudes, if I recall correctly (but I can be wrong about that).

    12. Re:Hrm... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      True but Earth 93 million miles away from the sun, while Mars 142 million miles away. If I remember my old surface area of a sphere equation, the solar wind should be about 2.3 times weaker when it gets to mars. That's a lot less for it's magnetic field to have to deflect. It's still getting hit hard, but not quite as bad as the 3000 vs 400 would at first make you think.

    13. Re:Hrm... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Anyway, us latin speakers really know the truth. Namely, that sic means, 'thusly.' It's used as an affirmative, no mater what those 'ita vera' bastards tell you.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    14. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrr... I couldn't sleep, and hoped your post would put me out. Unfortunately, I found it quite interesting.

      Still awake, and still a nerd.

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

      Well, that's certainly a detail I wasn't aware of -- the magnetic reconnection -- I'll look it up.

      Having lived in such places such as Fort McMurray, Alberta (Canada) (~57N), the aurora is a constant for most of the winter. I've never seen a diffuse red aurora any further south, however.

  14. Man on Mars by b1gs341 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is NASA still planing to land a man on mars?

    1. Re:Man on Mars by BobVila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can we just go there already? We need to start terraforming that place now. My great great great ... grandchildren need a place to live.

    2. Re:Man on Mars by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Unless your family is remarkably long lived, your great great great granchildren will be dead a long time before Mars is terraformed to a suitable state for human habitation.


      In any case, if we lack the discipline/maturity/technology to give others living room on the earth, we certainly lack the discipline required to live sustainably on Mars...

    3. Re:Man on Mars by BobVila · · Score: 1

      I got tired of writing great after the third one.

    4. Re:Man on Mars by BobVila · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention: It isn't running out of space on earth that concerns me. It is the fact that Earth just isn't going to be around forever. Something out of our control could happen to it. It would be nice to have a contigency plan.

    5. Re:Man on Mars by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      I forgot to mention: It isn't running out of space on earth that concerns me. It is the fact that Earth just isn't going to be around forever.

      No, it won't. But then, Mars won't either. If previous asteroid strikes on the earth are anything to go by then an asteroid striking the earth will still leave it more livable than Mars will ever be. When the Sun expands, Earth and Mars will become unlivable at pretty much the same time - an expanding star must give of heaps of solar wind, without a magnetosphere,folk on Mars but just as vulnerable as folk on Earth.

      At some point after that, the universe will simply cool, or collapse, or otherwise die, and whoever remains will die also. But so what? Unique and beautiful species go extinct every day right here on earth, and we don't give a damn.

  15. I Can! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night."

    I can!

    Man, it's GREAT!

  16. Re:Obligatory... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about that. :) The truth simply is that most stories do get submitted by multiple readers, and only one submission is published, of course (not counting dupes, which seem to happen quite often lately). So it's really something that you'll have to get used to.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  17. Maybe once, then I'd sleep in by smchris · · Score: 4, Funny


    It's hard enough to get me out for this sort of thing when it's 0F. At -100F, it better be REALLY, REALLY pretty.

  18. Pictures for those who haven't by KarMann · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "...I've seen the Borealis here on Earth, and they're beautiful. I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night."

    For those who haven't seen them, I happened to get some nice pictures of the bunch from this past May 14/15. Please don't melt down my server, but enjoy the pictures.

    On the other hand, it doesn't seem likely anyone here hasn't already seen them in pictures, but what the heck.

    --
    ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
    1. Re:Pictures for those who haven't by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      I have very bad color vision. I have never really seen these lights I believe.

      (color vision problems are tremendously exagerated by low light levels).

      The films always show the light patterns changing very rapidly, The complete pattern seems to change in less than a minute

      Do they change that quick, or is it time laspe photgraphy?

      Thanks

    2. Re:Pictures for those who haven't by KarMann · · Score: 1

      To tell the truth, I couldn't see any of those colours myself. But then, I live in a rather brightly lit area of the city, which makes it even harder to see the colours.

      And yes, they do change that quickly! (Note the timestamps on the pictures.) This was much more active than the couple of others I've seen, and a big part of the reason for the pictures being so grainy is that I didn't want to leave the shutter open too long, or they would've blurred out all over the place, so I had to crank up the ISO. I tried taking a few "movies" with the camera, too, but those didn't turn out at all. But there were these bright spots shooting up from about a third of the way up the sky to the zenith, in a second or two. My dinky little camera couldn't do them justice. :(

      Oh, an afterthought: I'm not sure just how you mean "time lapse photography"; if you mean, did the shutter stay open longer than just a quick *click*, then yes, mostly around 2-5 seconds (again, all of them are marked with the exposure times); if you mean did I set it so that the shutter would stay open a nice long while in order to catch the movement, then no, just the opposite, I was trying to keep the exposures as short as possible and still collect enough photons.

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
  19. Reminds me of the Simpsons.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skinner: [faking a yawn] Well, that was wonderful. Good time was had by all. I'm pooped.
    Chalmers: Yes, I guess I should be -- [notes entire kitchen is on fire] Good Lord, what is happening in there!?
    Skinner: ...Aurora Borealis?
    Chalmers: Aurora Borealis?? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
    Skinner: Yes!
    Chalmers: ...May I see it?
    Skinner: Oh, erm... No.

  20. Imagination is a nice thing... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night

    I can't either. They should take a picture of it.

  21. I can't imagine what they look like on Mars... by Justifiable_Delusion · · Score: 2, Funny

    well...you could look at the pictures...those help. :-)

    --
    Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
  22. I can't see it.... by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 1

    ....is it visible from earth? *ducks*

  23. from the northern-lights dept by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    I've done Northern Lights, and saw plenty of colors in the sky....

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  24. In case of slashdotting... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Informative

    use coral cache.

    http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net.nyud.net:8090/~jowen s/AuroraTemp/

    1. Re:In case of slashdotting... by KarMann · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip. It's a bit late now, of course, and too bad I can't go back and edit my post. It seems to be bearing up fairly well (but then, it's not like it got on the front page or in a first post), but I suppose I'll never know whether that's because of your "coral cache" link, or in spite of it. But at least I'll know better next time.

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
  25. Magnetic Field? by Arbin · · Score: 1

    Curious, how does a magnetic field go extinct, like it did on Mars?

    1. Re:Magnetic Field? by TeacherOfHeroes · · Score: 3, Informative
      Planetary magnetic fields are caused by the activity in the interior of the planet. From Wikipedia:
      The Earth's core, however, is hotter than 1043 K, the Curie point temperature at which the orientations of electron orbits within iron become randomized. Such randomization tends to cause the substance to lose its magnetic field. Therefore the Earth's magnetic field is caused not by magnetised iron deposits, but mostly by electric currents (known as telluric currents).
      Another feature that distinguishes the Earth magnetically from a bar magnet is its magnetosphere. At large distances from the planet, this dominates the surface magnetic field. In addition, the magnetized elements within the planetary core are undergoing rotation and are not static.
      Electric currents induced in the ionosphere also generate magnetic fields. Such a field is always generated near where the atmosphere is closest to the Sun, causing daily alterations which can deflect surface magnetic fields by as much as one degree.
      As the planet ages, the core cools, and the resultant magnetic field decreases. Cehck out the full wikipedia article
    2. Re:Magnetic Field? by kshotswell · · Score: 1

      I think that as the molten core cools and solidifies it stops rotating and the magnetic field dies, Ours is dying now, go rent The Core it will explain it all. I get my science from Hollywood and the Discovery Channel

    3. Re:Magnetic Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course we've got a dirty big moon to provide lots of tidal forces and keep it hot.

  26. atmospheric composition by viva_fourier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looking at Mars' Atmosphere there is substantially less atmospheric oxygen, nitrogen, and argon on the red planet.

    Since, Earth's Aurora is caused by the magnectic excitation of ions in the atmosphere, namely the O2 and N2 -- I imagine the "Aurora Martiania" would be a lot less intense. Also, because there's a greater distance to Mars from the Sun, I would also think the intensity of the magnetic 'bursts' would be smaller (due to lambertian emission, i.e. equidirectional).

    But, since "they've" detected *something*, it's reasonable to say there is an aurora present on Mars. I would wait on booking your MLT vacation until some hard evidence comes in...

    --
    and now back to the fallout shelter...
  27. *grin* by noneloud · · Score: 1

    " Please don't melt down my server" Riiiggghhtt...

    1. Re:*grin* by KarMann · · Score: 1

      Can't say I'm sure which way you meant that, but I don't think I've ever posted a link to my own "server" before in a Slashdot post (not counting the link that's part of my profile), so I had no idea how severe it would be for a link that wasn't in the article itself, or at least a first post. So far, it seems pretty trivial, so if the gist of your sarcasm was "as if it's going to bring you a massive buttload of traffic," you're right on the money. If, on the other hand, your sarcasm was meaning "as if anyone's single machine could stand the traffic after being posted in a reply a ways down in a Slashdot thread," it's not been bad at all. It hasn't even made a bump in my MRTG (although that's measured against a peak around 660 kb/s, and my max up seems to be around 400 kb/s), only 87 hits so far from those who reveal their referer. (Though I would imagine more of the Slashdot crowd conceals their referer than the general public.) All in all, an educational experience for me, and one that hasn't left a molten puddle of slag on my basement floor where my "server" used to be.

      Of course, as I pointed out to the other response above, I've no way of knowing how much his coral cache link might've helped me out on that.

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
  28. Re:Obligatory... by Ghoser777 · · Score: 1

    Just try not to get annoyed when a story you submitted a week ago gets rejected, but the same story submitted today gets accepted... with a grammatical error or two thrown in for fun.

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
  29. Oblig. Futurama Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Fry: Did you build the Smelloscope?

    Prof. Farnsworth: No, I remembered that I'd built one last year. Go ahead, try it. You'll find that every heavenly body has its own particular scent. Here, I'll point it at Jupiter.

    Fry: Smells like strawberries.

    Prof. Farnsworth: Exactly. And now, now Saturn.

    Fry: Pine needles. Oh, man, this is great... hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus.

    Leela: I don't get it.

    Prof. Farnsworth: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

    Fry: Oh. What's it called now?

    Prof. Farnsworth: Urrectum. Here, let me locate it for you.

  30. Re:I can't imagine what they must look like on Mar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jupiter must have some pretty impressive ones, because of its ridiculously strong magnetic field. Though I guess it IS farther away from the Sun, so the amount of charged particles from the Sun hitting Jupiter's magnetosphere would fall ~1/R^2, assuming an isotropic Sun. (Should be roughly correct?)

  31. Re:I can't imagine what they must look like on Mar by SeaDour · · Score: 4, Informative

    Aurora on Jupiter: http://msslhx.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~npm/Web_Pages/Visito r_Pages/aurora/Jupiter_aurora.gif

    Aurora on Saturn: http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/pages/general/news/satur ns_aurora/assets/saturn_aurora.jpg

    Uranus and Neptune probably have them too, but are too far away to see them clearly from Earth-based telescopes.

  32. Proton event just happend again by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    Another proton event happened a few minutes ago. It looks very simular to the one in January. This is very odd. I Think it is caused by streams passing through our solar system.

  33. 4 steps by todd10k · · Score: 1

    1. Build spaceship 2. Go to mars 3. ????? 4. Profit!

    1. Re:4 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK SPACE!!!!

  34. No, still wrong... by umofomia · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Borealis, Boreas - The great north wind; greek god of. aka Aquilo
    Australis, Auster - The great south wind; roman god of. aka Notus
    Even though the aurora was observed in the southern hemisphere of Mars, it doesn't mean it should automatically be called aurora australis. They're called borealis and australis on Earth because they're caused by the magnetic field lines going to the northern and southern poles, respectively.

    However, because Mars' magnetic field is too weak to create the phenomenon by similar means, the aurora is caused by a separate mechanism, namely the magnetic anomalies described in the article, which can occur anywhere on the planet. For this reason, it should not be called aurora borealis or aurora australis, but rather aurora [insert god of magnetic rocks here].

    1. Re:No, still wrong... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      However, because Mars' magnetic field is too weak to create the phenomenon by similar means, the aurora is caused by a separate mechanism, namely the magnetic anomalies described in the article, which can occur anywhere on the planet. For this reason, it should not be called aurora borealis or aurora australis, but rather aurora [insert god of magnetic rocks here].

      Valid point. I was thinking that the concept of a southern pole being at a 90 degree angle in relation to the path of travel of a celesteral body, but hey.

      Aurora Hematitius - haematites r. lithos g.
      {haima - blood) Either blood dawn or dawn of the iron oxide substance.
      [note i'm not a geology expert, but some what fitting as it's related somewhat to the greek god]
      Arurora Hephaestus - Greek God of the Forge
      Mars needs weapons
      Aurora Vulcanis - Roman God of the Forge
      Mars might need weapons, but Mars doesn't have pointed ears
      Aurora Marsionis - Probally the most accurate.

      Elicius springs to mind as well as in Jupiter Elicius, but that might not be fitting as Jupiter is right next door.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    2. Re:No, still wrong... by saider · · Score: 1

      Valid point. I was thinking that the concept of a southern pole being at a 90 degree angle in relation to the path of travel of a celesteral body, but hey.

      Poles are relative to the axis of rotation, not the plane of the orbit.

      Uranus is tilted something like 87 degrees, so twice a (Uranus) year the poles line up with the path of travel.

      I never said Uranus so many times in one discussion. Not even as a joke.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    3. Re:No, still wrong... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      To start with, I'm posting a related space.com URL (note the date this article was posted... /. behind the times):

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050608_mars_ aurora.html

      The magnetic field of Mars is more like what it will be like on the Earth when the pole reversal occurs: There are several north and south poles scattered all over the surface of Mars, including some near the equator. A "North Pole" and "South Pole" may only be a hundred miles apart in some cases.

      The overall effect of this is that the general magnetic field for the planet as a whole is weak, and instead of having ionized material streaming into just two poles on Mars, solar storms will stream into dozens or hundreds of magnetic poles all across the entire planet.

      The terms of Aurora Borealis and Australis would still be correct terms in the sense that there still are north and south "poles" to stream material toward, but it would be scattered over almost the entire planet. Unless you happen to have a "compass" on you when a solar storm hit Mars, you wouldn't really be be able to tell the difference.

      I do feel like the original researcher who has pushed this "press release" out did a disservice by only mentioning the Aurora Borealis, probably because he has lived his entire life in the Northern hemisphere and is really only familiar with that term, even if he is an astrophysicist and should know both auroral terms. Coming up with a new term is just silly.

    4. Re:No, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't mix your latin and greek.

      Aurora Aresonis, perhaps?

      Aurora Uberalis? For the clash reference (since we are wandering all over the liguistic map.)

      p.s. I am an anon cow. not a bot. please dispence with the "confirm you're not a script" crap.

    5. Re:No, still wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arurora Hephaestus - Greek God of the Forge
      Mars needs weapons

      Aurora Venus: Mars needs women!

    6. Re:No, still wrong... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Please don't mix your latin and greek.

      Hard to do as there are so much in common with those cultures.

      Haematites is about as latin as you can get.
      Hematite is the more common spelling for Fe2O3 which i'm willing to bet, while not being a geologist, is a common enough mineral on Mars.

      Hephaestus g. or Vulcanus r. would also be fitting, but less so as both are also assocated with fire/lava.

      Aurora Aresonis, perhaps?

      But you just said not to mix Latin with Greek. Ares is the greek god of war. Mars is the Roman god of war.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  35. Q&A by zenneth · · Score: 1

    "I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night."

    very cold.

    --
    The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
  36. Re:4 steps (lame) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Learn new jokes

    2) Use them

    3) ????

    4) Don't look like a jackass!

    In Soviet Russia, LAME JOKES BEAT THE CRAP OUTTA YOU.

  37. Re:4 steps (lame) by todd10k · · Score: 1

    1. No 2. No 3. ???? 4. die

  38. Oblig by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    This thread is useless without pics. Wait, this is Fark right?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  39. ob Simpson's by po_boy · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's nothing. I've had them localized entirely within my kitchen.

  40. Well from Mars... by Zero+to+Hero · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine what they must look like in a Martian night. The Aurora Boreallis probably look ... small.

  41. Names for Mars by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

    Well, the name "Mars" is the name of the Roman god of war, and associayed with Sol 4, the red planet. Terran aurora are named "Borealis" and "Australis", associated with the North ans South poles respectively. Since the Martian auroras are not associated specificly with poles, they could be refered to as:
    Arean, Angarean, Artagnean, Mirikhan, Pyroeian, Lohitangan, Mustabarrunian, Verethragnan, Salbatanun, Urbarran, Nirgalan, or my favorite, Nabunian, after the Babylonian/ Sumarian/ Chaldean god Nabu.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  42. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chalmers: Good Lord, what is happening in there?
    Skinner: Aurora Borealis?
    Chalmers: Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
    Skinner: Yes.
    Chalmers: May I see it?
    Skinner: Oh, erm... No.
    (Skinner and Chalmers walk outside)
    Agnes: (screaming from inside the house) Seymour! The house is on fire!
    Skinner: No, mother. It's just the Northern Lights.

  43. Left out by myenigmaself · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person who's never seen an aurora? Everyone keeps mentioning how they can't imagine what it looks like on other planets... well I can't imagine what it looks like on ours! I need to get out more.

    1. Re:Left out by ukyfan · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad, it is kinda hard to be able to see it down here in KY. I have never seen it but am hoping that something I will get to. Had a friend once who always talked about it and rubbing it in.

  44. No Reason, Just an Urge by Shihar · · Score: 1

    Anything that would make all life on Earth die would kill anyone on Mars too. Earth is full of water, oxygen, and tons of minerals. Even if the atmosphere was to turn toxic tomorrow, you simply can't get rid of all of that oxygen and water over night. If survival after some disaster is the reason to move to Mars, I suggest building self-sufficient underwater cities first. Not only would said city be swimming in H2O (ha ha, pun), but if you got sick of living inside you could just jump in a sub, take it to the surface, and go on vacation on the mainland.

    The only reason to push off of earth is for resources and the more intangible benefits of having a new frontier to move out into. There is a lot to be said about having a frontier to move to. Even to this day people push west in the United States all the time for a change of pace. In my opinion, I think that a lot of these people going to California go more for the psychological benefit of 'going west' to the 'frontier' then for any practical reason. People pile up on the west coast because there is no where else left to go. If tomorrow there was a magical technology that made getting into space cheap and easy, I would be an arm and a leg, California would have more space ports then the rest of the US combined and people would pile on and blast off to the new frontier.

    When people say they want humans in space, I don't think they have much in the way of practical reasons. Even when there are practical reasons, I think the true reason that drives them is not the practical reasons they give. I think mostly we want to go to space because it is there, it is empty, and we want to fill it up. Call it human nature. We are a species that migrates and moves. Something deeply instinctual in us that tells us to fragment and move on is probably going nuts in nationalistic societies that focus on unity. Humans and to fragment and throw themselves to the wind. Only powerful forces like nationalism makes it possible for us to overcome our urge to fragment and stake out for greener pastures (even if they don't exist)

  45. No: Fark The Australians by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    That's what the so-called Free Trade Agreement (US-FTA) is working out to so far. Only small bits of the US are signatory to it, and those bits are definitely getting the longer end of the stick.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing