http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910142705.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910142705.htm
The Mars missions of 2005 brought light to many questions we had about the red planet. Most notably they gave scientists proof of water on Mars. Scientists believed that clay found in Mars’s southern hemisphere was formed by the action of liquid water. However a French-US team of scientists proved the clay came from magmatic/volcanic origins.
Similarities between these Martian clays and clays of volcanic origin collected on the Mururoa Atoll, a coral island near in the Pacific Ocean , support this hypothesis. Scientists compared basalts from Mururoa Atoll (French Polynesia ) to Martian clay. These basalts are composed of crystals which contain small spaces filled with a finely-crystallized material called mesostasis. The mesostasis contains ferro-magnesian clays, similar to the clays found on Mars. Researchers have discovered these clays formed from residual water-rich magmatic liquids trapped in the empty spaces between the crystals. When the magma cooled, the contents in the lingering fluid precipitated, thus forming a variety of minerals including the clays on Mars. In order for this process to have occurred, high water and chlorine contents in the magma would have been needed to create so much clay. Mars was covered by magma shortly after its formation, therefore allowing this clay making process possible. The major evidence that ties the Martian and Mururoa clay together is that the infrared spectrum of the Martian clays is identical to that of the Mururoa Atoll clays.
The conclusion over the clay does not mean that liquid water was never present on Mars. Evidence of rivers, lakes and other bodies of water have been found on Mars, which could have supported life. The clay dates back 4 to 4.5 billion years, while these lakes are around 3 billon years old. 4 billion years ago is believed to be the most favorable time for life to have started on Mars. In the greater scheme of things, this means that Mars could have supported life for less time than previously believed.
This article was very informative. I had been aware that there were lakes and river beds on Mars, but I did not know that clay was previously seen as evidence for water/ life on Mars. Over all, the article was pretty easy to understand.
Meunier, Alain, Sabine Petit, Bethany Ehlmann, Patrick Dudoignon, Frances Westall, Antoine Mas, Abderrazak El Albani, and Eric Ferrage. "Martian Clays Were Not All Formed by the Action of Liquid Water." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910142705.htm>.
5 comments:
This person did a very nice job on arguing both sides of the article. For instance, the article talks about how it is believed that 4 billion years ago there was evidence of water and lakes on mars. However, a French scientist had proved the clay came from magmatic/volcanic origins. A second good thing that the writer did was describe the background of how the different clays formed and what volcanic origin the clay originated from. It gives the reader knowledge of how the clay was formed if it wasn’t formed by water. Thirdly the writer did a very nice job on describing how it is still proven that billions of years ago that water exists on mars but that it is not how the clay was formed. Two things that the writer could have done differently was go into more detail about why the French team went about proving why clay is formed by volcanic origins. Secondly the writer that proved volcanic origins created clay on mars. For instance what other studies have been proven to be correct? And how this study came about? One thing that amazes me about this article is the similarities between Martian clays and Mururoa atoll. And how the basalts of the two contain spaces where tiny crystals are filled.
These students did a nice job incorporating the article into their response; it helped connect the article and their response in a clear and simple way for the readers to understand. A second thing that they did well was give extensive detail on the process that forms the clay, simply stating that the clay shows less evidence for water would have been something that I could have inferred from the title. When they instead explained the complexity of the process necessary to form these identical clays it helped show how conclusive this new piece of evidence really is. A third thing that I liked about their response was when they addressed the first logical question that most people as when given information like this: so was there no life on Mars? No, they made sure to point out that this is simply one piece of evidence against the theory, there is still evidence showing lakes and rivers on mars so life could have been possible. Although I liked how thoroughly they explained the formation of the clay at one point the article mentions the need for water to be present for the type of crystals to form, I think they could have elaborated on that because it sounds like proof that there was more water on mars. Another thing that they could have improved on was broadening their background knowledge by citing some other sources, this article was very thorough so it didn’t stand out but more background information can never hurt. One thing that amazes me about this article is the amount of similarities that they find between Earth and Mars; granted the planets are very different but it amazes me that in environments so different there are similar features and processes that occur on each planet.
-Matt James
I think this writer did a great job at reviewing this article. In particular I think she excelled at explaining the process of how the clay from mars forms. It was very easy to understand and thorough. She than did a good job in using this information to show the reader that water was once on mars because water is needed to produce the clay. Finally, she did a good job in showing how it affects modern day science by showing that the possibility of life on mars happened over a shorter period of time than previously believed.
Two things that I thought could have been done differently is giving more examples of how this discovery affects us today and providing more information on the infrared spectrum. You did do a good job at saying how this discovery discredited a previous theory about mars, but I would have loved it if you connected it more to the modern day world. Also, at the end of the second paragraph you mentioned infrared spectrum when me as a reader had no idea what that is.
One of the most interesting things I learned about this topic is that scientists really do think water was once on mars. I have heard about theories scientists have, but I had no idea they have solid evidence to prove it. Hopefully scientists look into this subject even more.
Interesting article I would say. It caught my attention that magma covered mars over the last billion years but to my amazement, we actually have some of the clay from mars? That’s spectacular. Not to mention the fact that mars have signs of rivers and other bodies of water are found on mars sparked my interest. I never really believed in aliens but these facts here are starting to make me believe in them. First thing I would love to comment on this article is that I love how much details and fact that are given to us. These facts might help us identify what really is on mars and if there are any life signs on the barren planet. Secondly, as I was reading through the article, facts such as the Mururoa Atoll really gave me a better understanding on ground based materials that might be on Mars. One interest I’ve found truly interesting is that you need water to form these crystals/clay. Given the current information many, who will read this, will start to study on the Mururoa Atoll, because it might give us a hint that there really is life signs on Mars. Thirdly, the author did a fantastic job on thoroughly explaining the Mururoa Atoll and that is what kept me reading on about this article, nevertheless the fact how Mr. Ippolito assigned us this homework. However, one thing I would love to add is adding more evidence, if possible, to the explanation of how magma arose on mars. Another thing I would add is a explanation or maybe a hypothesis on if there really are aliens in this universe. Everything else in this article is quite amazing!
Fantastic job Malika!
Alina did a wonderful job reviewing the article, “Martian Clays Were Not All Formed by the Action of Liquid Water.” I find it very interesting that the scientists were able to compare the clay found on Mars to the clay found in Mururoa Atoll, a coral island near in the Pacific Ocean. It’s fascinating how the same type of basalt exists on different planets! I also had no idea that Mars was covered by magma shortly after its formation. I am curious as to why this happened. Lastly, I find it fascinating that the clay helps us further our investigation about life on Mars. Alina did a wonderful job of explaining how the clay on Mars is formed. Also, it was interesting about the water found on Mars. She also states theat the discovery of clay will affect the scientific research into life on Mars.
For this review to be improved I think that Alinia should have included more detail about the discovery of water on mars vs. the discovery of clay on mars. This is an important topic since it shows that Mars could have supported life over 4 billion years ago which is a longer time than what was previously believed. I also think that there could have been more details given about how the French-US team of scientist was able to retrieve the clay. Also, in reference to the French US team, I would have liked to have known how they knew to test the clay with the clay of volcanic origin collected on the Mururoa Atoll.
I find this review to be very interesting since we have always been told that the main evidence of life on mars has been based on the discovery of water. It is also nice to know that clay found in the southern hemisphere help to further prove this theory.
Post a Comment