Slashdot Mirror


Rosetta Probe Reveals Martian Cloud Systems

MattSparkes writes "The ESA's Rosetta probe swooped around Mars on Sunday, completing a key manoeuvre in its 10-year mission to land on a distant comet. The 3-tonne probe came within 155 miles of the planet's surface, and took some incredible images that reveal cloud systems on the planet. "At this time of the Martian year, a large fraction of Mars' atmosphere is evaporating from the southern polar cap and will migrate to the northern polar cap during nothern winter. Over most of the Martian disk one can see large cloud systems.""

26 comments

  1. Re:Huh? by MattSparkes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I really don't get this first post thing? Where's the enjoyment?

  2. Sure does make the notion of terra-forming.. by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    all the more tantalizing. Even if the only thing we did was use Mars as a test bed for climatological effects on Earth. It's an engineering/scientific endevour that appears just out of our reach...but only just.

    Then again...it may be that the phrase, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature" applies to the Solar System as well.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  3. Re:Moo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's how those words are spelt in England, in English. Tonne is a metric measurement. Manoeuvre is also correct. Why go out of your way just to display your ignorance?

  4. Hey... by Steendor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Don't knock it until you've tried it.

  5. Universal Warming! by BetaRelease · · Score: 5, Funny

    You unbelievers! See how global warming on earth has now started to affect other planets!

    1. Re:Universal Warming! by prmths · · Score: 1

      haha! too bad i dont have mod points anymore! MOD PARENT UP to 5!

    2. Re:Universal Warming! by Dausha · · Score: 1

      I myself have also wondered why there's more meltage on Mars. It seems the two planets (America, er, Earth and Mars) are both experiencing a similar warming trend. If only we could see something that the two share in common.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    3. Re:Universal Warming! by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Yup. It's all those SUV's and coal-fired electric plants that have caused the polar icecap on Mars to melt.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    4. Re:Universal Warming! by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      If only we could see something that the two share in common.
      Gosh, you are sooo witty! How on earth did anyone miss investigating such a subtle point?
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  6. acronyms by Ikyaat · · Score: 0
    "This series of beautiful images taken by Rosetta's Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared Remote Imaging System (OSIRIS)."

    I always wonder how much time is spent trying to make a name have a cool acronym

    --
    "Luck is a tag given by the mediocre to account for the accomplishments of genius." -Heinlein
    1. Re:acronyms by JasonKChapman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I always wonder how much time is spent trying to make a name have a cool acronym

      Hmmm, let's see.

      Weird Abbreviations Specifically To Emaphasize Technology In Media Environments

      About five minutes.

      --
      Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
    2. Re:acronyms by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      my project at uni uses; the Hot Potato Stepping Algorithm Utilising Contiguous Expansion. What's the point of inventing something if you can't manufacture a funny acronym to name it with? Interestingly enough, if you have a hot potato, you may like to put some HPSAUCE on it.

      On a completely unrelated note, I'm constantly impressed that missions intended to do one thing (land on a comet) get hijacked to snap a few photos of this or that completely unrelated bit of the solar system whilst they're passing by on their way. Did cassini take some photos of Venus? It snapped lots of photos of Saturns moons. One of the voyagers took a photo of earth from just past Jupiter. Hubble gets used to photograph mars. IIRC they've shoe-horned one mars probe into grabbing data from a lander it wasn't designed to grab data from when it's own mother-probe broke. Considering that weight is so limited on these things, it's quite impressive that they manage to get them to do so many extra little bits.

      --
      FGD 135
    3. Re:acronyms by DeGem · · Score: 1

      Oh I would say about half the buget =P

      --
      Smile It hurts!
    4. Re:acronyms by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      What part of the UK are you in? I'm USian, but I love a little HP Sauce on a bridie. It does wonders for haggis, too.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:acronyms by spun · · Score: 1

      Why, that's almost as good as PC Manufacturers Create Incomprehensible Acronyms.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  7. Terraforming won't work by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Terraforming makes for nice fiction, but misses the mark that the planet must _already_ be earth-like enough. Or you must be capable of the godlike feat of increasing its mass a few times, changing its rotation speed, melt its core again, etc. Otherwise the same reasons that shafted its original atmosphere, will shaft whatever atmosphere you create.

    E.g., for Mars, it's simply too small and it cooled down too fast. (Well, just right for its size and mass, actually.) So the magnetic field is much too weak to shield it from solar winds, and its low gravity doesn't do much to hold an atmosphere either. So it just escaped and was swept away into space. Any atmosphere you're going to create there while terraforming, is going to just go away too.

    The only way to terraform Mars would be to (A) increase its size to something more earth like, _and_ (B) melt its core again, and (C) bring from somewhere all the elements that got swept away in the past, e.g., a metric buttload of hydrogen, and maybe (D) fiddle with its rotation speed too, so that core you just melted generates enough magnetic field. Does it sound like pure SF yet?

    Heck, _if_ anyone were to start terraforming anywhere, the easiest start wouldn't be Mars, but Venus. It's about the same size as Earth, about the same density too, it still has a magma core, and it's in the right band to support life too. Why Venus ended up the poisonous wasteland instead of Earth-like? It spins way too slowly. So it pretty much doesn't have any magnetic shielding against the solar winds. The very weak magnetic field it has is mostly due to interaction between solar winds and its atmosphere, rather than an internal dynamo. So without shielding, it pretty much lost all its hydrogen. Whatever water it had evaporated, got ionized sooner or later and the hydrogen was just swept away. So now the atmosphere is almost pure CO2 and some nytrogen.

    By now you probably get the idea that terraforming even Venus is just nuts. You'd have to bring a heck of a lot of hydrogen from somewhere else (from where and at what cost?) _and_ give it a good spin (with what energy and just how?) _and_ somehow start some plate tectonics mechanism to get the convection currents going in the planet and start its dynamo (again, how?) _and_ oh, for that matter, get rid of all that carbon in the atmosphere or all the water will just boil off. Pretty tall order, don't you think? :P

    So "appears just out of our reach...but only just" must be the understatement of the century. Maybe if by "just" you mean "not in another million years."

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Terraforming won't work by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd have to bring a heck of a lot of hydrogen from somewhere else

      Reproduce the creation of our own moon by throwing Pluto at Venus. Any off-center hit will plow Pluto's mass of rock and ice into Venus' crust, vaporizing a good chunk of it and imparting a huge spin to the remaining planetary mass. Granted, that's not enough hydrogen yet, but any system capable of moving Pluto should surely be capable of tossing around other substantial icy bodies.

      (from where and at what cost?)

      Nuclear powered ion thrusters, shooting ionized hydrogen and oxygen from Pluto's surface. If you can get Pluto moving inward in the first place, the sun's gravity will give you a lot of the extra energy you need to get a really good thwack upon impact with Venus. No doubt, this would be a long, difficult, expensive proposition, but not impossible.

      _and_ give it a good spin (with what energy and just how?)

      See step #1. The energy comes from the acceleration of Pluto dropping into the sun's gravity well.

      _and_ somehow start some plate tectonics mechanism to get the convection currents going in the planet and start its dynamo

      See step #1. Melting the planet's surface will make it much amenable to taking a spin.

      Let the impact blow away most of the atmosphere, and follow the Pluto hit with a chain of large icy bodies. The vaporized crustal material will either fall back into the surface, which will keep churning the surface up, or it will coalesce in orbit to form a moon, and the tidal interactions will do much the same.

      get rid of all that carbon in the atmosphere or all the water will just boil off.

      Once you have water, it will get locked up in solid carbonates.

      No problem.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Terraforming won't work by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Reproduce the creation of our own moon by throwing...
      Why did I start reading that thinking "your own moon" in place of our? And why did it make more sense that way? I think your ruse is getting thin.
      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    3. Re:Terraforming won't work by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny
      To: Lord Traalogc Sstoarthlx, Undersecretary of Terraforming, Western Spiral Arm Division
      From: Dr. Flaorlesq Vvaerklyn, Managing Scientist-Supervisor (codename: "The Fun Guy")
      Re: Status report, Project 8723F-R3381-PTV11-03, Sol-III.

      Traal,

      It looks like this terraforming project we initiated on Sol-III is finally moving into the stage where it will begin paying off. As you can see from this latest message (attached below), the locals are starting to figure out that their planet is habitible because we gave them a moon of reasonable size. Pretty soon, they'll work out the interplanetary space drive and the cultural embargoes will expire; I give it less than one local year after they get off-world, and they'll be easy pickings for our marketing division. They'll be in hock to us for the rest of all eternity!

      I remember how expensive it was to bust up that fifth rocky planet so we could have something to throw at Sol-III, but that nickle & iron core was perfect for the job. It knocked all the light silicates into orbit, and when they coalesced into Sol-III's moon, it was heavy enough to keep the primary's core molten through tidal action, light enough to solidify completely without a liquid core of its own.

      True, it's been pretty time-consuming waiting around for semi-intelligent tool users to develop from the primordial life we seeded down there, but as I've said all along, just think how long we'd have had to wait without all of the intelligent designing we've done over the years. It's slower, but still cheaper to grow up our own customers than trying to find naturally occurring ones. You know how incredibly rare habitable planets are in this galaxy. What a dump!

      Anyway, it shouldn't be much more than another 600 years, local time, before they get off-world and we can start to really exploit them. The first job will be to get them to do the terraforming of Sol-II. Trust me on this one - they'll work for peanuts.

      Cheers,

      Lesq

      Reproduce the creation of our own moon by throwing...
      Why did I start reading that thinking "your own moon" in place of our? And why did it make more sense that way? I think your ruse is getting thin.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Terraforming won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down, he doesn't really understand the time scales which he is talking about, relative low mass and near non existent magnetic field are completely irrelevant to human time scales.. This is due to loss of atmosphere being expressed in millions of years, time scales much larger then humans have existed. As such if after a few million years loss of atmosphere becomes an issue, I'm sure the humans still living on Mars then will be more then able to fix the situation more permanently then us poor non advanced humans now, if so inclined.

      As for hydrogen loss, that is so simple to solve it is laughable, diverting a few good sized comets laden with water would be fairly trivial with something like a nuclear drive, something we could already construct now, it would take awhile, maybe even a few centuries to direct enough of them to Mars, but that is a very small time scale compared to how long the place would be useful and time till completion could always be reduced by adding more engines of course.

      Now after just showing it is possible and relatively easily, I wouldn't do it myself, for the same amount of effort you could probably get further constructing space habitats instead.

      PS Instead of terraforming Venus you should just build floating cities at 50-55 km altitude where temperature and pressure are near Earth norm, carbon dioxide is a lifting gas for our normal Earth atmosphere, so large open space would work particularly well. It would be an idea to mine carbon from the atmosphere as well, being nearer to the sun solar energy would be plentiful and make it much cheaper then you could do in most other places. (This would incidentally on the very long term lead to thinning out of the Venusian atmosphere as well and thus make very long term terraformation a profitable venture.)

    5. Re:Terraforming won't work by __aasuoh3209 · · Score: 0

      'have to bring a heck of a lot of hydrogen from somewhere else (from where and at what cost?)'

      I'm not well-versed in such matters but if there was enough spin wouldn't there be more gravity which would suck in material from space? I know it'd be incredibly slow but wouldn't it happen eventually?

    6. Re:Terraforming won't work by dave1g · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%E2%80%99s_law_ of_gravitation

      Notice that angular velocity (spin speed) is not in the equation.

    7. Re:Terraforming won't work by dave1g · · Score: 1

      Terraforming mars or venus are both pretty much impossible from an energy/matter budget. You could possibly heat up mars in a few hundred years... but it would never have earths gravity. Mars is at ~ 1/4 earths gravity. You would have to move gigatons of matter from asteroids into the planet. The heat would just make the atmosphere be even more depleted.
      Mars may have some water, but I doubt it has as much water as earth's oceans frozen in its soil. You would have to move a tone of hydrogen like you said.

      At best you could use this approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming#Paraterr aforming This wont terraform mars but it would allow people to live there. And is nice that it has immediate payback.

      There is a similar approach suitable for Venus as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus #Aerostat_habitats_and_floating_cities

      In these enclosed environments the water needs would be much lower than "wetting" the entire planet. And none of it would go to waste. Not a single hydrogen atom would leave the atmosphere into space. Now you still have a problem of bringing water there. And if earth keeps up we might have an excess of water (global warming melting all the ice) but that will still be expensive but atleast it can be spread out over time and sent piece meal with the colonizers.

      Given that Venus is lower in the Sun's gravity well, it is closer to earth on average than Mars, has plenty of solar power, similar gravity I would say that Venus is the better target. Using floating cities is nice because no hard landing has to be made, potentially making entrance easier, but im not sure that may actually be harder.

      Another nice thing about these strategies is they dont preempt terraforming. So if by some miracle we do gain that ability then we could go ahed with that.

      But these domed/floating cities are they only possible way right now. The only thing lacking is an economic incentive. The engineering is much closer to being there. Biosphere failed because it was way too ambitious for a first try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 They attempted to recreate at least 4 different ecosystems separately under 1 roof this is overkill as far as creating a livable environment goes. Maybe a 100 or so years to perfecting that technology. But you can start with something the size of ISS and just continue to add modules. Looks like work is being done on the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Analogue_Researc h_Station_Programme

      Soviets did some work too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS-3