The Phobos Space Station?

Ive been watching a show with Dr Brian Cox, and there is an explanation for the lines on enceladus a moon of saturn , and the lines on it are created by tidal forces as it orbits saturn this causes the planet to contort along the tidal stress lines , since fractures and fault lines are commonly associated with tectonic plates here on earth , on encladus its different its the gravitational pull of saturn as encladus orbits that causes the planets mass to stree , to warp which causes friction within the moon , this causes the stress lines and also the friction melts underground resivours of ice to melt releasing the water plumes which enceladus is famous for!

With this reasoning it provides a good answer for the lines on phobos as it passes through its almost circular orbit the tidal gravitational forces from mars must have caused these lines or at least so it would seem.

About the declining orbit , i've known come to know that our own moon has a similar declining orbit and it seems that this is how all planetary bodies behave.

The origin of Phobos should be confirmed if they sample the materials it is made from and then sample material from olympus mons could reveal its martian composition, however it is also equally likely its a captured asteroid or comet.

Armap humour is something we scots take great pleasure in , we always try to apply humour often in unsavoury circumstances ,I guess you could say we always look for the funny side of things because life in scotland sucks , accept for the outdoors which is beautiful but bloody freezing and wet hahaha

Originally posted by spikey
If, for example he was talking about using the 10% jpg for something like a preview or for page content on his website, then that would be perfectly reasonable.

The JPEG version was used for the photo analysis...

And as I point on a latter post, it was not Hoagland that wrote that, it was J. P. Skipper.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by spikey

 

I enjoyed reading your thoughts about Phobos and the grooves. I had not considered the idea of the grooves being an artifact of the moon having been extruded through some giant Playdough Fun Factory. I doubt that this is the way that the grooves were formed but I have to give you credit for original thinking on the topic. snf.

That's a great analogy. Although there is a cruder one..

reply to post by lunarminer


Yep, i've always been a fan of poor old Arthur. Shame he's gone. I liked the Rama series quite a bit too. I even played the PC game many moons ago.

Even the game had the same 'weird' feel that the books had. The weirdness of the imagery that the stories projected was perfect, it added to the alien-esque i thought. It's one of the things you could only get by reading the books i think. If one had only played the game, i don't think many would have appreciated the vibe.

I think that an asteroid is the perfect camouflage for a generational starship, for the reasons you said. Just hope that 'someone' didn't see it as a threat, and tried to destroy it, for fear of it hitting them! (or want to mine it for minerals etc!) But yeah, it would probably be left alone apart from that...those scenarios could even be incorporated into part of a books storyline, to add a bit of drama maybe.






[edit on 27/3/2010 by spikey]

reply to post by ArMaP


Yup, i noticed your earlier post, about 10 minutes after posting.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Thanks for the updates mate.

I love this stuff.

reply to post by poet1b


Thanks very much for the compliment poet1b, very nice of you to say. It's not often i get encouragement on here, that's for sure. (I think it's my written manner, but what can i say, i am who i am!)

I did take a look at the freewebs link you gave, and it's interesting stuff.

A bit beyond me though, i have to admit. The terminology is largely unfamiliar to me, and i find i spend 50% of the time re-reading the PDF to understand the language, as much as the ideas.

But, he has obviously put a lot of thought and time into his hypothesis, and it's all put together well.

He could well be right, as could you about ceres being a former moon of Mars.

To expand on that a little, the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, could also support the super volcano (or super-duper volcano) eruption theory, but it could equally well show the path of a 'wrecking ball' that ploughed through the solar system, smashing a moon or two of Saturn leaving the debris to create the rings, and on to Mars.

It may have ripped through Mars, causing the crust to be blown away, together with most of it's water and causing super massive eruptions on what remained. Ceres may have been pulled out of Mars orbit, and deposited in it's position between Mars and Jupiter, among the debris from what was most of Mars' crust and a large part of the interior, and the remains of whatever it was that come crashing through our system. We now call the debris the asteroid belt.

Almost everyone agrees that there is plenty of evidence that Mars once had lots of surface water.

Perhaps Ceres IS ultimately that Martian water, albeit mixed with a fair amount of the former Mars crust and interior and ripped off the surface during a very close encounter with 'something' with a strong gravity or energy, and ultimately formed into Ceres.

Again, we are only speculating of course, and there's no real evidence, apart from a large belt of debris between Mars and Jupiter.

I like the way you think poet1b, you don't seem tied to dogma, which i think is great.

reply to post by kingmonkey


Hi kingmonkey

My personal thoughts are that the large Stickney crater, and possibly some of the others on Phobos, may not actually be impact craters in the classic sense.
I imagine 'craters from impacts' rather than impact craters, may fit better with my hypothesis of how both Phobos and Deimos began.

The distinction is subtle. There are of course a lot of maybes and perhaps', even in official literature, but i'm supposing that both moons came originally from within Mars, and were hurled into orbit by unimaginable energies in the form of super volcanic eruptions. (caused by whatever created the asteroid belt perhaps)

Before the ejection of both moons, they were subsurface and semi-molten and viscous. Deimos may have been first in the 'queue' nearing the caldera of a volcano, being swept along by magma tidal forces, then impacted by what would become Phobos from immediately below. The large Stickney crater may have formed on Phobos and Deimos may have lost a portion of it's mass, in the collision.

The official hypothesis about Phobos doesn't make much sense to me, i have to say. I imagine like most things official, it probably is widely held to be true among academia though.

Edit to add; I've just noticed i'm rambling here, six replies in a row, and i'm more or less talking to myself! Off to bed i think!




[edit on 27/3/2010 by spikey]

Originally posted by sapien82


About the declining orbit , i've known come to know that our own moon has a similar declining orbit and it seems that this is how all planetary bodies behave.

Thats strange because the moon is moving away from the Earth so where did you find that out. Measurments taken since the Astronauts left the laser reflectors on the Moon show it's moving away.

reply to post by wmd_2008



My friend told me that !

which i've know come to realise is that he had got it wrong !

reply to post by sapien82


You guys are discussing two different moons...

This thread is about Phobos, which does seem to have an orbit that is decaying.

Earth's Moon, on the other hand, IS moving away, about 2.8 cm per year. This due to the conservation of angular momentum, and the gravitational interaction of the two masses, Earth and Luna.

Situation with Phobos is different, because Phobos' mass is so minor (compared to the relatively huge Luna). Tidal forces from Mars' mass exert a pull on Phobos, and will cause its orbit to gradually spiral inward, until it eventually crosses the 'Roche Limit'.

You can read all about that interesting topic right here.

where are these images ESA ???

Originally posted by DJW001
The moon IS the spaceship... get it? Fortunately, the website "crashed," so now we can talk about the "conspiracy" instead of the evidence. *whew*

Wow, DJW001, you sem to be the only one with this theory of Phobos being an actual spacecraft. I happen to agree with you, remember a few years ago when both of Mars moons went missing for a time? then came back? That in itself suggests intelligent control. I also happen to think our own moon is an ancient spacecraft, placed there in it's perfect orbit by perhaps the Annunaki when last they were here. Phobos may be them returning, or it may be a Reptilian ship too, guess time will tell.

Well it would seem that MEX presents further data that Phobos has large internal voids !

General , Science 25 March, 2010 17:21
Radio science result from 2008 Phobos Flyby now accepted for publication

I’ve just heard that the technical paper discussing the mass and density of Phobos, as determined during the 2008 flyby, has been accepted by Geophysical Research Letters. The abstract is:


We report independent results from two subgroups of the Mars Express Radio Science (MaRS) team who independently analyzed Mars Express (MEX) radio tracking data for the purpose of determining consistently the gravitational attraction of the moon Phobos on the MEX spacecraft, and hence the mass of Phobos. New values for the gravitational parameter (GM=0.7127 ± 0.0021 x 10-³ km³/s²) and density of Phobos (1876 ± 20 kg/m³) provide meaningful new constraints on the corresponding range of the body's porosity (30% ± 5%), provide a basis for improved interpretation of the internal structure. 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.

If you are a subscriber to the journal, you can access the full paper here.



For a less technical treatment, see the piece I wrote for New Scientist, where some of the authors talk about this work in the section under the 'Space oddity' heading.

-- Stuart



(Click on 'Full story' for full GRL journal reference).





The full reference in GRL will be:



Andert, T. P., P. Rosenblatt, M. Pätzold, B. Hausler, V. Dehant, G.L. Tyler, and J. C. Marty (2010), Precise Mass Determination and the Nature of Phobos, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL041829, in press. (accepted 22 March 2010)

Wasn't Phobos Station in Unreal Tournament? I think it was the first one or second one but I vaguely remember it. Interesting...

[edit on 30-3-2010 by nastalgik]

reply to post by sapien82


actually our moon is moving away at several inches a year. which is opposite to phobos. eventually we'll lose the moon, whereas eventually phobos will crash into mars.

reply to post by autowrench


phobos and deimos went missing? i hadn't heard anything of the sort, could you link me to an article about that? i'd be really interesting in learning about that situation.

reply to post by optimus primal


Yeh Ive since been corrected by my friend and a few others on here ! planetary bodies do act in strange ways eh !

Id like to know more about Phobos and Deimos dissapearing as well any sources ?

so when will all the facts and images finally be revelead ?

So it would seem that ESA and the mars explorer had some difficulty in getting the images sorted !

ESA Phobos Blog

A less obvious but also important concern was raised a few weeks later by a ground station failure. This is an also rare but possible anomaly, and it happened just at the time when Mars Express was sending the data from one of the Phobos pictures taken by HRSC to Earth. Such data losses are covered by our procedures and we have memory space onboard to temporarily store missed data and resend it to Earth later. In this case though, the ground anomaly lasted for more than an hour and affected the HRSC data return containing the Phobos picture, which would soon be overwritten by other observations. The special extra space onboard was too small to secure the Phobos picture. So we had to copy the HRSC data to the large storage area normally reserved for another instrument. That instrument was also in use but producing less data. Then we had to bring all the data back to Earth without affecting the data from the other instrument. Mission accomplished.”

This would be the reason for the delay , I believe this means that they are taking the image data from different sources and piecing it back together , so your guess is as good as mine , does this give them ample time to remove any suspicious artifacts maybe , does this also mean that the image may not be 100% complete maybe ?

who knows at this point im just annoyed its taking so long for the close ups !

[edit on 1-4-2010 by sapien82]