Originally posted by Kandinsky
Do people ever read the sourced article?

We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids. When applied to various hypotheses bearing on the origin of Phobos, these results are inconsistent with the proposition that Phobos is a captured asteroid.

'Contains large voids' doesn't mean hollow. They're scientists...if they meant 'hollow' they'd say hollow.

Phobos has been identified as a sort of 'rubble pile' since around the 50s. IIRC it was the Russians who first identified it as such. At the same time, the mythology of a 'spaceship Phobos' was born. It's there in the early UFO lore of the 1950s.

When they dispute one of the theories that Phobos might be a 'captured asteroid,' they aren't suggesting it's an ET manufactured object dragged into position by tugboat alien tech.

As a 'rubble pile,' it could have come into existence by accretion. This means a certain amount of matter in diverse, but small, masses has been drawn together by planetary mechanics and gravity. Its decaying orbit and low mass lend support to the theory. The material could have come from meteorite debris or leftovers from the birth of Mars.

I totally disagree with most of the above.

The scientists use the term "void" to indicate that some parts of Phobos are not of the material of its outer surface which is more or less rock. Those voids could be water ice filled. The trouble is how water or any substance far lighter in mass than the rock got trapped inside. The ratio is quite huge. Water-filled fissures would have to command much of the interior to match the mass-versus-dimensions ratio work. If completely empty voids, the area could be much smaller. However, void certainly can mean hollow and they would have too smart to claim that outright.

The Soviets were not the first ones to discover that its mass was too light for its dimensions, it was our Vikings in the mid to late 1970s. The early soviet concept of them being hollow was totally false because that determination was made with the assumption that the moons Phobos and Deimos were shiny, metalic spheres. There is no relationship between Shklovskii's prediction and the facts of the matter.

It is totally untrue that Phobos has been determined at any time to be a rubble pile . That is merely one theory, and it fails some basic conditions for that theory to be viable. The problem is, as the ESA scientists have brought out for all to see, is that Phobos is really even more of a mystery than it was assumed.

Phobos and Deimos are best identified from their exterior compositions with D-class asteroids on the outer edge of the asteroidal belt. How they got around Mars is another mystery in that Mars lacks sufficient gravity to capture one, let alone two of the same type of asteroids from the other side of the asteroid belt.

The evidence is clear. The close, almost perfectly circular orbits of both moons, the compositions, the voids, the area from which the asteroids had to have come from, and the inability of Mars to attract such bodies to its gravity well all speak that they are placed in their positions, perhaps as habitats millions of years ago.

Anyone know if there is anything out in there indicating that Mars was part of a binary planet mini-system between Earth and Jupiter?

If Mars itself at some point was the little sister in binary, and the asteroid belt is largely compromised of what is left of the big sister, this would potentially explain how Mars has two pieces of the asteroid belt in orbit. Mars didn't capture them, so much as retained them.

Originally posted by IamRoy08
This is very intresting and my whole thoughts of Mars is that they were a civilization before and also visited earth and our ancients but some disaster happened and they lost all their water and nature... the artificial moon would just help to say civilization existed there before maybe even house the last remaining martians... it would be very exciting to have NASA to send someone to investigate or a probe designed to land and enter the hollow moon...

How funny you mention that! I recently took a trip to Santa Catalina Island, and my friend and I spoke to these 2 guys, one of whom worked for NASA at the JPL headquarters. (The other guy was just a big sci-fi fan - loved Firefly, etc.) I asked the NASA guy about my conspiracy theory stuff, which he thought was quite foolish "No, there are no UFOs flying around our atmosphere" (I still don't believe him - China is a great example) "There were no missions after Apollo 17" (in reference to the Apollo 20 mission) but then when I asked him about Phobos (he got really excited, and said he should pay me for being his "straightman" and bringing up Mars' moon) he told me he IS in fact writing a paper on how to effectively land on Phobos and use it as a base to explore mars with robots! They want to "drill" down into Phobos and build a station inside of it to protect our astronauts from the radiation, and that being INSIDE of Phobos would protect them from said radiation. I asked him why on earth would he rather land on Phobos, when in fact Mars is the cool place with all the artifacts. He said that it takes so much fuel to land on Mars, and they would not be able to blast of the surface of Mars to get back, but that by having a space station on Phobos, they can send more robots down to the surface of Mars. The amount of fuel required to lift off of Phobos is MUCH less than the amount required to blast off of Mars because of it's gravity.

Made sense to me. What do you think?

Hey, if The Bugs can use Phobos as a base why can't we?

(reference to Ender's Game).

Not a bad idea. Separating the interplanetary ships from the exploratory equipment might cost more up front seemingly, but likely costs way less in the long run.

The shipments between Earth and Mars (and other) coming from stations outside the atmosphere, and then more local "freighters" or wire transports taking it down to the surface.

I like it.

Sorry if anyone else has thought of this already........

If the density is low and these moons have voids or empty parts would it not make sence that if an ancient martian race wanted to mine an asteroid or other body it would make sence to bring it or a part of it back into orbit for minining and return of the material to the surface rather than keep returning to where it was originally located ?

These moons could have had minerals or similar simply not abundant or native to Mars itself.

Best Regards,

Kevin