Not a NASA website. Believed to, would have, likely. This is not an article of facts. It is speculation. Postulating a complex sequence of events and creating a computer simulation to demonstrate how it is possible for that sequence of events to have actually occurred. This is not science. If a body flew by Mars and was broken into pieces then became more pieces and then a ring which has since disappeared and now only two tiny pieces are left, it’s too much explanation than necessary.
Diemos and Phobos were most likely captured from the asteroid belt which is kind of close to Mars and has lots of asteroids in the size range of Mars’ moons. This is the result of a study made by me using the computing power of a human brain and repeating similar studies done by large numbers of other human brains.
So, like, who cares about speculating how they formed or were captured? Just wait long enough and it won't matter.
/s
It is part of the process, as long as one calls the product a hypothesis and not a postulate. From the language of the report, I don't think they are. Before one could justify the expense of a consequent experiment (go look and get samples), one would have to generate findings consistent with the hypothesis. That's what this model appears to me to be. If said experiment requires political backing to expend the capital, one can forgive a bit of hyperbole in generating popular support as long as it doesn't distort the actual proposal.
Diemos and Phobos were most likely captured from the asteroid belt which is kind of close to Mars and has lots of asteroids in the size range of Mars’ moons.
Looks like your language is similarly couched in the hypothetical.
It is “speculation”, but based on physical models, and proposes one theory of the genesis of Mars’s moons. Phobos is well withing the Roche limit of Mars. If Phobos were a “rubble pile”, it would already have broken up. It must be held together by tensile strength, which reinforces your argument.
Or they’re the remains of a space elevator.🤔