Posted on 07/29/2003 8:56:47 AM PDT by RightWhale
New Theory: Catastrophe Created Mars' Moons
By Leonard David Senior Space Writer
posted: 07:00 am ET 29 July 2003
PASADENA, California – The two moons of Mars – Phobos and Deimos – could be the byproducts of a breakup of a huge moon that once circled the red planet, according to a new theory. The capture of a large Martian satellite may have taken place during or shortly after the formation of the planet, with Phobos and Deimos now the surviving remnants.
Origin of the two moons presents a longstanding puzzle to which one researcher proposed the new solution at the 6th International Conference on Mars, held here last week. "Nobody has been able to explain the origin of Phobos and Deimos," said S. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia’s Science & Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Virginia.
Violating laws
Based on research performed as a visiting scientist at the Lunar & Planetary Institute in Houston in October 2002, Singer said that conventional hypotheses about the moons either violate physical laws or have difficulty accounting for their observed orbits
Singer reported at the meeting that "there are no ready alternatives to explain the origin of the Martian moons."
At present, both satellites have near-circular and near-equatorial orbits. Phobos’ orbit, however, has been observed to shrink since its discovery in 1877. The present track of Deimos -- just beyond the synchronous limit where it nearly matches the spin rate of Mars – is an important data point, Singer said. "Is that by accident? I don’t think so…it gives you a clue about its origin," he told SPACE.com.
Through a complex set of orbital calculations involving Mars, the large hypothetical Mars moon itself, and tracing back in time the past and present whereabouts of Phobos and Deimos, Singer believes he has a case. In the Singer scenario, the close proximity of a large original moon to the red planet – captured in Mars synchronous orbit -- would have eventually fractured the object. Gravitational pushes and tugs would have turned it into a rubble pile that would still cling together gravitationally. "Forces would soon drive the largest pieces into Mars, with the smallest pieces remaining as Phobos and Deimos," Singer said. In the breakup process, the most massive pieces would spiral in far more rapidly, crashing into the planet. "We need to look for some sign that these existed."
Phobos: going, going, gone
A fundamental prediction by Singer is that the moons are similar in composition and petrology. However, Phobos and Deimos do not appear to be comparable. That distinction is obvious in looking at the differences in their regoliths – each moon’s topside covering. "We need both surface and deep samples to decide this issue, and to investigate whether Phobos and Deimos once formed as parts of a larger body, most of which has now disappeared, perhaps by impacting on Mars," Singer said.
Singer said Phobos will die in a few million years. "We’re lucky in the sense that we’re seeing Phobos while it’s still around," he said.
Destination Deimos
Singer has plans for Deimos. The scientist believes the moon would serve as a natural space station for future human explorers.
"First of all, humans on the surface of Mars cannot really do the exploration directly. They have to use rovers to get around. To go from the equator to a pole on Mars just takes too long. It’s a big, dangerous journey," Singer said. What Singer envisions is a Deimos gateway to extensive Mars exploration. An encampment of astronauts would reside on the Martian moon. From there, dozens of rovers could be autopiloted, in real-time.
"There would be no time delay, or so short that it’s within the human reaction time," Singer said. From Deimos, quick, down-to-the-surface sorties could be undertaken by humans to select areas, he added.
"This would be a 15-year project, as I look at it. It would cost roughly $30 billion, funded at some $2 billion a year average. That’s well within the existing NASA budget," Singer said. On the political side, Congress is not likely to fund a long series of robotic roving probes to Mars that extends over decades. "That would not be a very efficient way of studying Mars. If you want to solve the really big problems of Mars, like origin of life, you need to do this in one fell swoop," Singer concluded.
Lock the door.....QUICK!
I posted it more for the reloading double-barreled shotgun, but I'm glad you liked it for that too. :-)
Sounds so serene and decorous. Lift the crust. That's the model they taught, and it seems to be popular again. Some large body came by earth way back when and pulled the material out into space where it recollected forming the moon. It would probably work for Mars, too, even though Mars seems to have totally lost most of its material from one side of the planet anyway, not even a good-sized moon left. If Mars had a moon formed that way, it seems to be long gone, who knows where; it ought to be in a similar orbit as Mars, but there is nothing there. Perhaps Mars was farther out when that happened and has migrated inward toward the sun leaving the debris in the asteroid belt. Perhaps we'll track it down when we have done enough geological prospecting in the asteroid belt and have some good data.
And hope they don't have blasters?
Yeah, you're right. I don't think we understand much about about the rotation and orbits of planets. Just looking at the earth science says that our magnetic field is created by the iron core spinning faster than the mantle. If so why does magnetic North wander so unevenly around. There appears to be more than just momentum, angular momentum, and mass involved on the orbits and rotation of planets. It could be that our planet rotates in equilibrium. Maybe the electromagnetism from the sun rotatates our core so that it's force versus the friction of the oceans and the liquid parts of the mantle create a 24 hour day, unable to speed up because of the friction of the liquids mentioned, and unable to slow down because of the electromagnetism of our core and/or the sun. Then there's the spiralness of galaxies and Saturn's rings. Doesn't make sense if there is just gravitation and momentum involved. Just too many inconsistencies for me to accept mainstream sciences explanations for the movement of plantary bodies. I spent the last day looking into some theories but it's just too broadbased to try to make a point on. :^)
Since the iron core model of the earth doesn't work for me (because of the jaggedly wandering poles), I have my thoughts on the movement of continents and the Pacific Basin also. The nature of our magnetic field with it's flips, etc., resembles more a nuclear core than just an iron core. If only 1 percent of the magnetic strength is able to get through the mantle of the earth, then there may be some other physics going on. Perhaps a Meissner effect that could have spread the continents apart.
(Just a word to the scientifically wise because this has implications that I don't want to get into publically...and that's all I have to say about that...:^)...)
Red Planet's Ancient Equator Located
Scientific American (online) | April 20, 2005 | Sarah Graham
Posted on 04/24/2005 8:18:25 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1390424/posts
Long-Destroyed Fifth Planet May Have Caused Lunar Cataclysm, Researchers Say
SPACE dot COM | 18 March 2002 ,posted: 03:00 pm ET
By Leonard David, Senior Space Writer
Posted on 03/25/2002 2:42:10 PM PST by vannrox
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/653287/posts
Some alien tried to land a rock on Mars and used feet instead of meters in their calculations. It hit hard, broke in two and bounced up into orbit.
RightWhale also. Somewhere in the archives is the plan, probably a couple, three years old. It's at NASA, too.
I remember Dr. Velikovsky using the Jonathan Swift quote to suggest that once the moons of Mars were close enough to see without a telescope. Did he speculate on where they might have come from?
I'm kinda frightened of Phobos and Deimos... ;')
There was a paper in KRONOS (I think by Cardona) regarding that. It was suggested long ago (not by Dr V) that Swift had access to some kind of early, otherwise undocumented discovery of the moons of Mars because he gave the particulars of their orbital periods very close to the actual values. Turns out to be rooted in the view of an astronomer of his acquaintance. I'll try to check out the details when I get home.
ah here it is... Jonathan Swift and the Moons of Mars by Ken D. Moss, Vol.8:4
I'm in panic myself. :)
Neptune Might Have Captured Triton
Space.com on Yahoo | 5/10/06 | Sara Goudarzi
Posted on 05/10/2006 3:31:09 PM EDT by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1630007/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
