Mars having water only problem sun only being 70% as bright

[TheBoss82]

In the past while i keep seeing articles saying that earth should of been a frozen ice ball. The only thing that saved it from that fate is greenhouse gases. Now mars is much further from the sun, much smaller. How the heck would mars even have lakes or even oceans now? The articles i read say that the sun was only 70% bright as it was, erm if i quoted that right.

I would say Venus would be more earth like in the early years of the solar system. And as the sun "grew" Venus went into a runaway greenhouse effect. Your thoughts and opinion? Sorry if i popped any ones bubbles on mars having water

 

[Jazman1985]

nope, haven't popped any bubbles, mars has water, it simply isn't a liquid. Even if it was the same temperature as the earth, it still isn't going to have liquid water on the surface due to it's low atmospheric pressure. It does have solid water ice trapped directly below the surface and trace amounts (210 parts per million) water vapor in the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

 

[crazyeddie]

Don't forget that early in the history of Mars, it had extensive volcanism and a (possibly) strong magnetic field. The volcanoes were belching a lot of water vapor and CO2 into the primordial atmosphere, and that atmosphere had some protection from solar radiation. The planet could have developed a very thick greenhouse atmosphere that would have permitted a hydrological cycle, even with the lower amount of insolation from the younger, cooler sun.

 

[neilsox]

Hi Boss: I've had some of the same thoughts. The terrain of Mars is marked like water flowed long ago. Logically Mars has some water as it gets hit with tiny icy comets daily, just as Earth does. The picture of an Earth like Mars in the past is likely wrong unless the 70% sun output in the past is wrong or Mars and Earth were 20% closer to the Sun billions of years ago. I am not aware of anyone with the latter hypothesis. Why did Earth have no ice ages until one billion years ago, when the CO2 was only 0.03% until recently? Something is wrong. Neil

 

[TheBoss82]

Maybe the sun was only 70% as bright as it was while the earth was still molten? I mean they haven't put a time line of how long the sun was still warming up. Interesting thought the planets being closer to the sun? I wonder what would cause the outward migration? Possibly Jupiter. I was going to mention the volcanoes on mars but those slipped my mind, I could see mars having small to medium sized lakes but no oceans, correction hot springs.

 

[orionrider]

Volcanoes, magnetism, right.
But also lots of large impacts bringing and/or melting lots of ice, and of course a warm core to provide heat from the inside.

Plus, who knows, extensive biology able to stabilize conditions for a significant period (algae photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, bacterial methane production,...).
There is, even today, some methane on the planet, see this link at Nasa: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090119.html

 

[DarkSands]

Looking at pictures of Mars one of the most notable features is the size of some of the canyon systems and how much larger than they are on Earth. An example is Kasei Valles, a canyon system that is 300 miles wide in places, it would take an enormous amount of water to create.

IMO these canyons were created by a rapid warmer and cooling cycle. This would mean that Mars was frozen most of the time, but over short periods, possibly after a meteor impact or a high volcanic period, the planet would quickly warm up releasing large amounts of water. The water would then freeze back into planet wide glaciers after a short time.

Here's a picture of the Kasei Valles, it looks like a fairly normal river on Earth, the only difference is its massive size. Its obvious that large amounts of water once flowed through this canyon.

 

[orionrider]

You have to take the low gravity into account. If the soil is less densely packed due to the reduced pressure, erosion gets magnified. Flowing water would still have the same inertia, whatever the local gravity. Just like the tides on a sandy beach, which carve 'river systems' in just a few hours, Mars water would tend to create larger structures quite rapidly.

Example of beach patterns found via google:

http://www.deepcraft.org/deep/wp-conten ... tterns.jpg

However, I don't believe flash floods alone would create such a massive formation as Kasei Valles. On a planet lacking tectonics, there would be nothing to bring ice to the summits, so water would quickly flow to the lowlands and remain there as frozen seas, carving only relatively small 'gullies'. The huge features we see needed time to create. I say only rain can sustain a massive water flow for that long. That would explain the dry and salty basins, where evaporation happened. To support a significant water cycle you need more than short periods of increased heat.

Obviously, someone has to get there digging to find out...

Just my 2ct

 

[robnissen]

At one time, Mars had a thick atmosphere. It has lost most of its atmosphere over the eons because it lacks a magentic field to protect its atmosphere from solar flares. When it had an atmosphere water could remain a liquid. Also, as someone pointed out, early in its life Mars had an additional energy source from its molton core. Thus, Mars probably had liquid water for eons.

 

[DarkSands]

Hopefully we get someone there sooner rather than later to start to digging, I want to unlock the planets many secrets.

 

[BlackHoleAndromeda]

Well TheBoss82, from what I've learned, there was a time when Mars was a habitable planet, back when its moon was large enough to balance out the gravitational pulls of the sun and Jupiter. But unfortunatley, Mars moon has long since shrunk(still haven't learned why though) and it's axis wobble (of up to 60 degrees) has caused an unstable atmosphere and all the lakes and oceans to dry up. But recent visits to the planet have confirmed the apperance of ice.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Mars may have had a large moon in the past. It did not shrink....Phobos and Deimos are captured asteroids, or possible debris from the former possible large moon. One explanation for the huge disparity in elevation between the northern and southern hemispheres is that a large moon impacted the surface in the far distant past.

 

[robnissen]

One explanation for the huge disparity in elevation between the northern and southern hemispheres is that a large moon impacted the surface in the far distant past.

Interesting. I had not heard that hypothesis before.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It was in Science or Nature...I'll see if I can find something online.
MW

Edit, here's an old SDC article...this may be the one I was thinking of... So much to read in the journals, seems like it was only a few months ago...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... mpact.html

 

[robnissen]

It was in Science or Nature...I'll see if I can find something online.
MW

Edit, here's an old SDC article...this may be the one I was thinking of... So much to read in the journals, seems like it was only a few months ago...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... mpact.html

Thx.

 

[3488]

I think the Faint Sun Paradox on Mars has the same solution as on Earth.

1). CO2, H2O & Methane in abundance in primordial atmospheres, globally warmed both planets through greenhouse effects.

2). Massive impacts.

3). High levels of volcanism.

4) Large quantities of geothermal / arethermal heat (Earth / Mars).

Worth noting, Mars Pathfinder in July 1997, landed in the mouth of Ares Vallis, just prior to where it empties out into Chryse Planitia approx 800 KM S E of Viking 1.

Mars Pathfinder carried the Sojourner Rover. Mars Pathfinder although a technology demonstrator, was sent to the mouth of Ares Vallis (incidently the exact same spot as the first choice for Viking 1 lander in 1976, before the site was deemed too risky), to test the assumption that Ares Vallis was a huge flood valley.

The landing site was chosen for MPF, because here, the flood waters would be slowing down & fanning out, dropping the rocks washed down from up to 1,000 KM to the south.

MPF & Sojourner certainly proved this spectacularly. Boulders & rocks were seen to be stacked up & leaning all in one general direction & some rocks were pitted with corners knocked off, also indicative of being swept down in massive floods. There were also a few conglomerates, two or more rocks sort of 'cemented' together by dried sediments. Also Sojourner discovered many types of rocks, some volcanic, some sedimentary, all dumped in the same general location.

MPF data suggested catastrophic flooding, over short periods, perhaps as much as the Black Sea emptying out in less than a week. MER B Opportunity & Phoenix Mars Lander suggests that water may have persisted long term, perhaps both scenarios are correct depending on location.

A sample of MPF & Sojourner images below. It is quite apparent, what I mentioned above.







Andrew Brown.

 

[bdewoody]

One possibly negative aspect of discovering evidence of life on Mars is the likelyhood that manned exploration would be suspended possibly forever for fear of interfering with the development of life elsewhere.

 

[orionrider]

If some life remains on Mars, it is just that, remains. Since it's dying anyway, I believe the point is moot.

Human planetary interference is one of the subjects of the trilogy of (fiction) books: Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars by K.S. Robinson.
K.S.R. depicts a strikingly 'true' vision of Mars. Since he wrote the books in 1993, discoveries made by orbiters and landers have only confirmed his imaginative views. For that it should be mandatory reading in Science class. The soap he could have left behind, but that's personnal

The Phoenix lander carries a digital copy of 'Green Mars' on a DVD; that's kind of an acknowledgement...

 

[crazyeddie]

If some life remains on Mars, it is just that, remains. Since it's dying anyway, I believe the point is moot.

A "moot point"? Carl Sagan would be spinning in his grave to hear any suggestion that humans would do anything to jeopardize indigenous life found on any other world. You are speaking of a very grave matter concerning scientific ethics. We don't have an automatic right to exterminate a biosphere just because it's "dying". If we find life on Mars, it will probably be underground, and very well suited to it's environment....one that could remain stable for millions of years if humans do not intervene.

 

[orionrider]

I would not vote to stay away from a whole planet just because it harbors some kind of ancient underground life form.

If Mars has life, there is a great probability that it is common wherever conditions are right. So we would effectively restrict ourselves from study, exploration and colonization of the most hospitable places in the neighborhood? No way.

Like you say, it all comes down to ethics, right and wrong and everything in-between

 

[crazyeddie]

I would not vote to stay away from a whole planet just because it harbors some kind of ancient underground life form.

Nor would I. I merely wanted to emphasize that this issue is far from being "a moot point". I would hope that should life be found on Mars, underground, there would be a way of peacefully co-existing with it should we decide to colonize the planet.

 

[bdewoody]

I would not vote to stay away from a whole planet just because it harbors some kind of ancient underground life form.

Nor would I. I merely wanted to emphasize that this issue is far from being "a moot point". I would hope that should life be found on Mars, underground, there would be a way of peacefully co-existing with it should we decide to colonize the planet.

Me either but there is a significant percentage of the scientific community that would stop at nothing to prevent our "contamination" of a planet harboring life.