Images reveal crashed Schiaparelli Mars lander

i'd flag ya if i could

s/f for later.

originally posted by: wildespace

P.S. Hey, I know how ESA can achieve 100% success rate for its Mars missions - make them impacting missions. We can learn a lot from impacts too.

They would probably land with a gentle roll

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: intrptr

Mars had a molten core and to some extent still does today , just not enough to generate the field to shield it.

Its not massive enough to have a molten core. This is proven by the math. In the distant past even less so, because Mars was even smaller, accreting material over the "billenias" at a slow, steady pace.

At the core of the argument (or denial). The argument is always "possibility" of life, so spend the money to go back and look again.

I know its resources they are drooling over.

a reply to: wildespace

Mars did have an em field at the beginning, but the core cooled down eventually. Atmosphere on Mars was thick enough to allow liquid water on the surface; it had rivers, lakes, and a sea.

The debate whether those lakes and rivers were volatile gasses melted from ice by large impactors and then boiling away is over?

I think the narrative is "liquid" not necessarily liquid water.

a reply to: intrptr

Its not massive enough to have a molten core. This is proven by the math.

And disproven by science.

One of the major insights allowed by the gravity map is the confirmation that Mars hosts an outer core consisting of liquid molten rock. The idea that Mars hosts a molten liquid outer core is not a new one, however previous gravitational studies had lacked the ability to confirm the discovery.

The superior resolution of the new map, which is capable of detecting gravity anomalies only 100 km (62 miles) across, has allowed scientists to confirm the theory by analyzing tides present in the mantle and outer crust of the planet created by the gravitational force of our star, and Mars' two moons Phobos and Deimos.
newatlas.com...

a reply to: intrptr
Hmm, what you're saying in these posts seems to go against what most planetary scientists believe in. Do you have any research to prove your points? Everything I've seen from planetary scientists regarding Mars' past accepts fairly confidently that Mars had a very earth-like environment with a thicker atmosphere and bodies of liquid water. Orbital photos show alluvial fans, and rover photos show mineral veins and hydrated minerals that formed in the presence of water.

There are some wet briny streaks on Mars even today: www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: wildespace

Orbital photos show alluvial fans, and rover photos show mineral veins and hydrated minerals that formed in the presence of water.

Or percolation of unstable volatiles boiling away in the thin atmosphere. Percolation is percolation. Liquid methane or ammonia is just as erosive as water.

There are river channels on the moon, too.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

Orbital photos show alluvial fans, and rover photos show mineral veins and hydrated minerals that formed in the presence of water.

Or percolation of unstable volatiles boiling away in the thin atmosphere. Percolation is percolation. Liquid methane or ammonia is just as erosive as water.

There are river channels on the moon, too.

Mars is too warm for liquid methane or amonia. The channels on the Moon look very different, and they are most definitely collapsed lava tubes.

But I see that you fancy yourself an informed planetary scientist and think you know better than NASA and ESA planetary scientists. www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: wildespace

The channels on the Moon look very different, and they are most definitely collapsed lava tubes.

Some of them are lava tubes, you mean.

a reply to: wildespace

Mars is too warm for liquid methane or ammonia.

The permafrost is just under the surface, rovers have dug it up. If a large impactor hit a region with enough underground permafrost that stuff would pour out of fissures they way it "trickles" out today. You call it "brine", whatever. Is there water in there, sure, mostly though the sub surface frozen 'ice' is volatile gasses. Which would flow for a time if there were enough of it disturbed all at once.

Martian Blueberries were produced in percolating liquid boiling away in the thin atmosphere, be it water or other volatiles.

A big enough impactor would cause the same conditions as seen on Titan, a smog of poison over lakes of liquid gases. The residual heat from which could keep cooking for millennia.

Edit: If the impacts of asteroids with Jupiter taught us anything its that the effects are far greater than we thought, Jupiter absorbed them readily, a smaller space body like Titan, Venus, Earth and Mars would reel under these runaway effects for eons, possibly. Creating conditions that appear life like on earth (like water erosion) but are actually completely toxic and inhospitable. Then unlike earth the effects would be visible for ever on Mars.

OK, folks, let's back it off just a touch.

Interesting topics like this don't need to have personalities brought into it.

Polite conversation will be a lot more fun, no?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: wildespace

Mars is too warm for liquid methane or ammonia.

The permafrost is just under the surface, rovers have dug it up.

They have dug up water ice.

If a large impactor hit a region with enough underground permafrost that stuff would pour out of fissures they way it "trickles" out today. You call it "brine", whatever. Is there water in there, sure, mostly though the sub surface frozen 'ice' is volatile gasses.

I'm not aware of any findings of frozen volatiles (apart from water and carbon dioxide) underneath the martian surface. Could you please point me to any research showing or at least suggesting that there are frozen methane and ammonia just below the surface? And could you please point me to any research showing that sublimation of those volatiles creates river-like channels and alluvial fans on the surface? Thanks.

From what I can find on the Internet, the sublimation of volatiles is proposed to create the "chaos" terrain that is broken up in blocks and troughs: www.sciencedirect.com...
Outflow channels are specifically attributed to water, even where sublimation of volatiles was involved: link

Back on topic, we now have a colour image of the impact site from orbit:



www.esa.int...
www.uahirise.org...

Notable are small white bits of stuff around the dark impact site, most likely pieces of the crashed lander.

Comparison with the previous b&w image also reveals that the parachute has moved a bit in the wind:



I'm amazed at the MRO camera's ability to see such small detail on a whole another planet out there.

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: gortex

Maybe it wasn't an accident. Maybe we are not allowed to be there. Remember HAL.

Then how did we get the photos?