Talk:Mars

Writing Critique

An Encyclopedic article should not explore past theories about a subject first. It should start with what is currently known and then later in the piece provide background on past theories.

67.40.136.109 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Hemisphere Impact Crater and Updating Other Articles

The second post below mentioned this, but their link is dead now. I've added two citations to news stories reporting on the June 2008 Nature journal, which published three articles where researchers independently ran simulations to lend credence to the theory that Mars was struck by a giant object four billion years ago that accounts for the geologically distinct features of the northern hemisphere. This would make it by and large the largest impact crater in the solar system, which deserves mentioning. If anyone thinks this is relevant, there are a few articles which could use this information, such as the south pole-aitken basin, the hellas basin, geography of mars, surface features of mars, etc. The citations are included below.

<ref name=northcratersn>{{cite web
  |date=July 19, 2008
  |title=Impact May Have Transformed Mars
  |publisher=ScienceNews.org
  |author=Ashley Yeager
  |url=http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33622/title/Impact_may_have_transformed_Mars_
  |accessdate=2008-08-12}}</ref>

<ref name=northcraterguard>{{cite web
  |date=June 26, 2008
  |title=Cataclysmic impact created north-south divide on Mars
  |publisher=Science @ guardian.co.uk
  |author=Ian Sample
  |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/26/mars.asteroid?gusrc=rss&feed=science
  |accessdate=2008-08-12}}</ref>

KHAAAAAAAAAAN (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy on Mars

The section claims that Earth and Moon are easily visible from Mars (and seems to imply they are both brighter than Phobos). Does anyone have a reference for this? I calculated that even the full Moon would have an apparent magnitude of about 2 when Mars is opposite the Earth as seen from the Sun (at other times a full Moon would not be visible from Mars), which I wouldn't consider "easily visible". The new moon (when Mars is closest to Earth on its orbit) would be invisible to the human eye with an apparent magnitude of 7.5 --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference for this: [1] which claims that Earth would have magnitude -3 and the Moon 0.9 as viewed from Mars. Since both would obviously be invisible during conjunctions, I presume these numbers refer to the times when the Earth and the Moon would be brightest as seen from Mars. Seeing the Earth and the Moon as separate objects is a different problem: I think that the separation would be about 8 minutes of arc or less when the Earth is 100 million miles from Mars, greater when the Earth is closer. Vegasprof (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Life

The following, according to every news source on the salt-like (it might even be a kind of salt) substance on the martian surface, is simply NOT true: "Recent evidence has suggested that any water on the Martian surface would have been too salty and acidic to support life.[68]" From what I've read, it doesn't seem to mean a thing one way or the other.

Motion to delete. Anyone with me? ----J.Dayton (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded Nbound (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete or qualify - The cited article only says Earth microbes could not have survived in it. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, or provide a counter citation. The claim is unsupportable, since it appears that life can adapt to any natuarally occuring body of water. Vegasprof (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "aurora" :
  • {{cite web | last=Bertaux et al. | first = Jean-Loup | url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/abs/nature03603.html | title=Discovery of an aurora on Mars | work=Nature Magazine | date=June 9, 2005 | accessdate=2006-06-13}}
  • empty
• "nasa" :
  • {{cite web | title = Mars: Facts & Figures | publisher = NASA | url = http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mars&Display=Facts&System=Metric | accessdate = 2007-03-06 }}
  • {{cite web | last = Phillips | first = Dr. Tony | title = Mars is Melting, Science at NASA | url = http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm | accessdate = 2007-02-26 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rogue asteroids

I have a question Pluto was declared a dwarf planet since it didn't clear the neighborhood but Mars has rogue asteroids so that means Mars haven't yet cleared the neighborhood so does that mean Mars isn't a planet but a dwarf planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.234.94 (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pluto did not clear (dominant) its region of other "similar sized objects". The asteroids near Mars (or the Earth) are not of a similar size to either planet. There are many objects in Pluto's region that are roughly half of Pluto's size. Had astronomers known Pluto was so small back when it was discovered it may never have been classified as a planet. Even as recently as the 1970's it was commonly believed that Pluto was 5700km in diameter and nearly as massive as the Earth. Rogue asteroids are rogues because they being pushed around by the dominant objects. -- Kheider (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply