Hollow Phobos, and it was not captured by Mars! Scientists says

Hollow Phobos.
It's official now.
A scientific search, carried out from an independent team by Mars Express Radio Science (MaRS), has analyzed the monitoring radio data of Mars Express (MEX), on board of the same probe, with the intention to determine in coherent way the gravitational attraction of the Mars moon Phobos and therefore the mass of the celestial body.



New values for the gravitational parameter supplies meaningful new ties on the Phobos range porosity correspondent for a better interpretation of the internal structure.

The scientists conclude that, in all probability, the inside of Phobos is composed by an empty one of great dimensions.

The conclusions of the scientists EXCLUDE the thesis that Phobos is an asteroid captured from the gravitational Mars attraction.

Source:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09202, 4 PP., 2010
Precise mass determination and the nature of Phobos
www.agu.org...

Then Phobos is not a captured asteroid?

Then Phobos is hollow?

Ad how Phobos has arrived in the gravitational field of MARS?


This thesis was proposed in year 1959 from the Soviet astrophysical Iosif Shklovsky, which supported the hypothesis that Phobos was of not natural origin and that the inside of the celestial body was HOLLOW.
And now confirmed!


This discovery, made recently, opens new and alarming interrogative.
This search would guarantee the hypothesis that Phobos is artificial?

Maybe Mr. Richard Hoagland was right...
www.enterprisemission.com...


To Mod: Feel free to remove, if this thread already exist.

incredible. we have to send people inside it.

incredible 2nd line.

reply to post by Arken


There is no way an object of this size is going to form hollow. Gravity would always bring the heavier mass to the core.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Arken

 

There is no way an object of this size is going to form hollow. Gravity would always bring the heavier mass to the core.

Right.
Same conclusion.
But then, why Phobos is hollow and with huge cavities?

reply to post by Arken


Well nobody has proved that. Why could it not just as easily consist primarily of a very pourous material. It is quite a leap to assume that just because something is not as dense as you assumed it would be that it is therefore hollow.

maybe it was mined like we may some day do to our moon. isnt there supposed to be some sort of helium crystals or something?

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.

reply to post by Kandinsky



Ok. Not a "unique hole", but probably dozens of huge voids.
But:
These Large voids are incoherents with the proposition that Phobos is a captured asteroid.

Now, how Phobos has arrived in the gravitational field of MARS?

I interpret the findings as meaning that Phobos is not as dense as expected; for me that indicates a honeycomb type interior particularly in light of the assertion of the existence of large cavities. At this stage they are not saying it is hollow.

Yes. If i'm reading it right the article summary only describes conclusions reached from measuring the effect of Phobos on the Mars express. All they can say is that its less dense than expected as its exerting less effect than expected for an object of its size.

It would be interesting to get the actual paper itself rather then the summary.

There is no way to support the conclusion that it contains large individual cavities, or its like a sponge. At this point either would explain the discrepancy equally.

More information is needed. What this does is make a good case for a robotic mission to study Phobos as an end in itself. I'm not sure how deep you could survey with a spacecraft mounted ground penetrating radar? That would seem a relatively cheap way to answer some questions.

reply to post by spacedonk


Space Bee's... I knew it!!!
Line B

reply to post by Arken



If you ACTUALLY read the link you gave its says this

www.agu.org...

It says the important part in bold

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.

LIKELY doesn't mean definite and VOIDS doesn't mean HOLLOW.

This is a stone it's lighter than it looks it also has VOIDS and is NOT HOLLOW.


www.swisseduc.ch...

Just to make you think!

perhaps when mons olympus was still active it had such a violent eruption that it blew volcanic rock into space and solidified into the orbiting moon we know as phobos?

Just food for thought.

I think Kandinsky pretty well nailed it. Think of the voids that form in volcanic rock, like trapped bubbles. If Phobos was formed from leftover matter it's gravity may never have been sufficient to form a dense solid but rather clumped together leaving plenty of voids within. Science studying its orbital mechanics have speculated on it's lighter density (meaning less mass) as a means of explaining its motion.

I remembr reading a theory a while ago that Mars may have been struck by a giant object at some point in time resulting in the southern hemisphere being a higher elevation than the north. Considering this, Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris are both in the southern hemisphere, though not by much.

Is it possible that a large object did actually collide with the red planet causing the opposite side to bulge, with the increased pressure forcing molten magma through the path of least resistance (Olympus Mons and other volcanoes in the Tharsis region) and causing a crack along one of the tectonic plates (Valles Marineris) like it blew at the seam?

Could the force of the collision have ejected molten lava from Olympus Mons into orbit where it coalesced and formed Phobos? If possible/true, it could explain why Phobos has voids (lava bubbles) and why it doesn't appear to be in a captured orbit.

While typing this I had a thought. Could this also explain the asteriod belt? The asteroid belt is missing most of its mass, well, Mars seems to be missing some of it's mass (unless of course it has just been displaced). It's also interesting that the dwarf planet Ceres, located in the asteroid belt and making up about 1/3 of its total mass, is spherical, consists of a rocky core with an ice mantle and possibly contains an ocean of liquid water beneath the surface. Perhaps an old moon of Mars blasted out of orbit with the collision?

reply to post by ZuluChaka


What if it was a large asteroid that had a core of something along the lines of dry ice.

It comes flying into the solar system. The sun and tidal forces cause the new moon to heat up. The core then begins to sublimate and enter a gaseous state. Pressure builds up causing a section of the moon to blow out and vent the gas leaving a hole and a hollow interior.

Its amaqzing how the human mind can span vast distances and hurl planets from their accustomed orbits in the blink of an eye....
Phobos 2, the russian exploratory craft, had some purported photos that seemed to display both a craft rising from mars and aproaching itself in its last few seconds of life.
The lines on the surface beg to be interprated by the eye as artificial....
Its orbit and position in space seems quite anomalous...now it has hollow sections very possibly,(if not, a more uniform bubbly texture like angel food cake i suppose...?)now i wonder if it has any water in it?
In short, the possibilities that phobos is an artificial construct seem higher than zero, yet remote at this time.
Further indications must begin to tip this balance the more anomalies are brought forth,
Hubble is one avenue, there are others to study this rock,it would behoove us to try to lobby for their use , in precisely this endeavour ........
As for me, im already convinced that phobos poses some unique questions,that we are gonna have to be persistent to get answers for....

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Arken

 

Well nobody has proved that. Why could it not just as easily consist primarily of a very pourous material. It is quite a leap to assume that just because something is not as dense as you assumed it would be that it is therefore hollow.

Im sure the scientists did not think of that one..

reply to post by Arken


well very interesting . i would like to know how much mass is missing. ant to all the people that just want to say "it not hollow" , well your right but that doesnt mean that u throw the rest of the story out . i mean to my crazy eyes we have a asteroid that was moved into orbit , because it could not there thru gravity. if it was put there artifically then u wouldnt be suprised to find large cavities and NOT a fully hollow object , i mean "beings" need to walk on something right . good find my first s a f goes to you.

Hi
i have been on your links and also on the ESA-Site.
I downloaded 2 Phobos pictures there and i think i found
something very interesting, its from the first one with 995kb
There seems to be some kind of entrance+ ? Sign...,i dont know who did this to the picture (download it for yourself and see).
ESA

Possible Entrance.., to what i dont know

Where to find on the Picture


[edit on 12-7-2010 by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO]