|
Post by Pem on Jun 25, 2008 7:22:35 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Dec 8, 2008 18:46:12 GMT -7
it just means that there was once water on Mars. But it was frozen. how? i dont know
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Dec 9, 2008 1:12:39 GMT -7
The water was probably put there as a result of a supernova. The star might have had enough Hydrogen left over when it exploded and had produced enough Oxygen that the scattered elements which landed on Mars that they could react with each other and produce water. It's really not that odd in my opinion, though it might be unusual to get that much water on a mostly barren planet.
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Dec 10, 2008 12:42:40 GMT -7
Well, look at the jovian moon Europa. This is a barren rock out in the middle of the solar system, but it is believed to perhaps hold a liquid water interior. (source= www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806210116.htm) Although it does not surprise me that the polar caps are, in fact, polar ice caps, i cannot wait to see what discoveries come from this information. i certainly, do NOT hope, that we, as a species, go into the terraforming business. I think it's a bad idea. let's take mars as an example. we go to mars, and we create an atmosphere and then we introduce simple plants, then complex plants, then animals, then we set up permanent camp there. build cities, introduce pollution to a world that WE created, then let it die. bad scenario.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Feb 20, 2009 18:56:04 GMT -7
i thought Europa already had a liquid interior or is that another moon and planet???
either way, this is fascinating. i cant wait to see more discoveries like this
|
|
|
Post by millis on Mar 1, 2009 4:33:27 GMT -7
I'm not surprised to hear its ice at the poles either. I guess it makes sense. Astronomy os not my forte, however, so i dont have much to contribute, but it is intriguing. Wonder if there was ever any water anywhere else on the planet, and what caused it to disappear...i dont agree with the supernova idea though if the ice is on both poles, just seems too unlikely. I do, however, agree with electroshock. Moving to mars would only be a good idea if we didnt destroy it in the process. Its one thing to start a self contained place to live when the earth gets spent, should it ever happen due to the idiocy of human kind, but basically killing that planet too would be the worst thing ever...
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 1, 2009 13:22:27 GMT -7
Well, it's entirely possible that the supernova coated the entire planet in water, or at least a large amount of it, but it was only cold enough to freeze, and therefore remain, on the poles. And I think if we ever set up camp on Mars, we'd have learned at least a little from our Earthly mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Mar 2, 2009 8:35:45 GMT -7
Where did this supernova theory come from, when a super nova does come apart it is unlikely it is releasing water, all the smaller atoms that could have been used to make water (hydrogen) have been used up in fusion reactions long before then. Not to mention in order to get that much ice on a planet you'd have to assume such a star was fairly close by, this is extremely unlikely as the gravitational consequences of said star would still be affecting the solar system. Furthermore, the principle of diffusion still takes place in space, in order for a super nova to go off at a safe distance from our solar system it would mean that in order for the particles to end up on mars by shear diffusion of materials they should have ended up on everything else as well.
In all likelyhood, the water is left over from when Mars formed, it has frozen at the poles because those poles are cold, same as the earths poles. It is unlikely due to an ice age of some sort as you need an atmosphere thicker than mars with life of some kind to constantly change the gas percentages in the atmosphere.
{/end scientific rant}
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Mar 2, 2009 15:24:26 GMT -7
Pem, you're probably right. The likelihood of a supernova having sprayed water all over the surrounding area is very slim.
on a seperate note, the likelihood of life on mars is much higher than i once thought after doing some digging...
After much digging in the Google/Wikipedia National Library, i have found nothing. I was going to see if orbital decay could have moved Mars farther from the sun than it once was, perhaps out of the habitable zone. Unfortunately, since i couldn't find anything saying the age of mars, i couldn't properly asses how far it could've moved.(all calculation based on the assumption the average planetary decay is one millionth of a meter per year (earth's orbital decay)) The earth has moved approx. 4540 meters since its beginning 4.54 billion years ago. Now, that's barely anything in an astronomical scale, but, the age of mars, combined with whatever it's orbital decay is, it could've once been in the habitable zone of this planet. Also, at that time, the sun might've burned brighter and hotter, and the habitable zone may have been farther out.
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Mar 4, 2009 11:19:29 GMT -7
A safe assumption on the age of mars would be the age of the solar system, and thus the age of earth.
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Mar 4, 2009 14:39:04 GMT -7
Pemmy, you say that it's probably left over from when Mars formed, I don't really get that. How does a planet form exactly?
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Mar 4, 2009 21:19:33 GMT -7
solar systems begin in what are called "proto-planetary disks". This is a dense field of gas and matter rotating around a new sun. After a while, the gas and matter clump together and the bigger the clump, the higher the density. When the density increases, it's gravity increases as well, and it attracts more particles. eventually, they build up into a roughly spherical mass known as a planet. Pem is saying that the water is a combination of the hydrogen and oxygen gas that were gravitationally attracted to the planet in its infancy.
|
|