Scientists have no idea what made this huge hole on Mars

"50 mile wide FROZEN SEA discovered on Mars – enough for centuries of human colonisation"

But . . . but that means we can live there; the downside though is we'll have to live there in a space suit all our lives so we can breathe. But stay - what happens when that FROZEN SEA runs out after all those 'centuries of human colonisation'? Do we all have to come home? And supposing it isn't 50 miles wide, only half an inch wide - who can possibly tell from a 'photo'? Nope, I'm not gonna buy a ticket just yet. I'm no sucker!

Oh and somebody please tell those puzzled 'scientists' it isn't 'a hole', it's a crater. If it was a hole the snow wouldn't be laying there.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ed-planet-human-colonisation-elon-musk-spacex

 

Yes, they know it's a crater:

Once again, your issue should be with the Express' terrible science coverage, not the ESA...

 

"
JM: When this event happened, there’s evidence that the Cerberus Fossae erupted both volcanic ash and dust.
Erupting about 5 million years ago, from a series of fractures known as the Cerberus Fossae, the water flowed down in a catastrophic flood, collecting in an area 800 x 900 km and was initially an average of 45 meters deep. You can see the sequence of events. You can see where the water has come out of the Cerberus Fossae, these deep fissures on Mars, and flowed down for hundreds of kilometers. The water filled a vast area the size of Lake Michigan, and the surface then froze. You had the volcanic ash falling on the ice when it first formed over this sea, and the ash protected the ice. Then there was a drop in the water level – it’s clear that the water level has dropped by about 20 meters since it first formed – and the surface ice broke up to form these icebergs or ice floes. The blocks drifted around and rotated, and then the whole thing froze solid again.

AM: How do you know the water level dropped? Do you see an erosion pattern in the surrounding soil caused by the receding water level?

JM: There are submerged craters where the ice has settled down on top of them as the water level dropped. You can see where the ice floe has become stuck on both the outside and the inside of the crater. Only the lowering of the water level would have caused ice to become draped along the outside of a crater and also down into it.

AM: What caused the water to flow out onto the surface of Mars? The volcanism?

JM: It might have been volcanism. The other possibility is this idea of Clifford and Parker, which has been around for years, of an ice-rich surface of Mars. It was a wacky idea when it first came out, but it does explain an awful lot of things. The surface must be ice because of the cold temperatures, but as you go down into Mars, geothermal heating melts this ice into liquid. They’ve calculated that at a depth of several kilometers, you’re supposed to get these pockets of liquid water."
https://www.astrobio.net/mars/the-martian-frozen-sea/

 

Differing in situ values have been reported for the average temperature on Mars, with a common value being −63 °C (210 K; −81 °F). Surface temperatures may reach a high of about 20 °C (293 K; 68 °F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about −153 °C (120 K; −243 °F) at the poles.

 

So your latest scientific insight is that it’s impossible to tell scale from a photo.

Your lack of understanding is truly staggering

 

Umm hmm. Wow, they found ice water on the surface of Mars. It should have been boiled away, by the sun's radiation, because Mars doesn't have an EM field.

So either on day NASA is going to tell us there's been a weak but functioning EM fields on Mars, or it was water brought in by a crashed comet.

So many new discoveries about Mars. I won't be as surprised as I once was that Mars has a present day weak EM field and volcanism.

 

Don't just quote figures at me which you've read in some space mag Robert! As far as NASA's concerned it's all guesswork to impress gullible people like you.

 

Well no, but you don't really want to learn, Techniques include:

• Measuring the wavelength of reflected radiation
• Looking at the physical properties of known substances - like is Nitrogen a gas, liquid or solid
• Direct measurement

 

I'll tell you what . . . when somebody does finally let the cat out of the bag (like that astronaut who with solid impartiality and agenda-free has just said NASA's project of sending human beings to Mars is effing ridiculous beyond words), there are really gonna be some red faces on this forum. But then however NASA squirms out of it, the gullibles will believe that as well, so really, when we think about it, NASA has a following who'll believe every word they publish, so the joke is on people like us because we're out-numbered by them a zillion to one?

 

In this specific case, the science - which I've never disputed - is one thing, and the self-serving space industry's fabricated and nonsensical outpourings are quite another. So in short, TD, you're spectacularly missing the salient point. You are right - I don't want to learn the science, I just want you to learn that you're being fooled?

 

One day you'll remember posting that, then you're really gonna feel stupid. It's a bit like Glasshopper telling his mentor Master Po that he's got it all wrong because the pupil knows better than the master?

 

So are you actually claiming that it’s not possible to measure from a photo?

You constantly dispute any science you’re don’t understand

The astronaut you quoted is perfectly ok with unmanned missions something you disbute and claim are fake constantly.

So do you believe in these unmanned missions now or he just half right?

 

....and a merry Christmas to you too

You claim that the temperature measurement is guesswork and then say that you don't dispute the science. Maybe I hit the eggnog too early, but I'm confused....

 

Can you provide just one instance where I have disputed science? If you can't then stop accusing me of it. I don't dispute science, I reject the misuse of it by charlatans.

 

LOL If the temperature there isn't guesswork then it must, by definition, be known; so can you tell me how, without physically measuring it, the value was arrived at?

 

You can accurately measure the temperature of something by measuring the wavelength of the light it emits.

 

For starters,

Photos can’t be used to measure distance or scale.
It’s impossible to control remote objects i.e. mars rover
Parallax can’t be used to measure the distance to far objects
It’s impossible to calculate the speed of asteroid form photos
It’s impossible to land a probe on an asteroid

 

Centuries is probably enough time for atmospheric terraforming. I'd go if they let me.

 

They're all about physics, not science.

 

Ha ha, that’s funny, so physics isn’t science

 

Science is multi-faceted. Check it out.

 

Yes I know, I’m not the one that just claimed physics isn’t science

 

science still has little to no idea what's in our own ocean's depths, yet they proport to know exactly what a planet/star, that is billions of light year away, is comprised of... silly notion

 

Two unrelated problems, the use of spectroscopy (how different elements emit different wavelengths / colours) is well established and has been verified via experimentation.

The problems caused by the immense pressures on the ocean floors is one of the main factors in limiting exploration of the ocean depths.

 

You truly got triggered. Even had I posted the link, clearly you still would be triggered.