Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: What is it....

I'm sure
BRFelix — (archived)

your point of view reflects the standard wisdom of the field, and of course I'm suggesting that you question it -- which is nervous-making, especially if it doesn't seem like there is anything in particular to gain by raising questions about matters already well-settled, or by bringing up issues that can't be settled remotely.

In fact, though the criteria you mention do exist, on Mars one often has to ignore or modify those criteria in order to identify particular formations as impact craters.

For example: Orcas Patera has a name that indicates a volcanic origin, but it is often identified in the literature (both popular and scientific) as an impact basin formed by a glancing blow from an asteroid. Which is it? Do you know? Does anybody? In this case, alternative solutions are possible and recognized at least marginally, but a lay person is hard-pressed to find anything coherent, let alone expository regarding the question.

Just so, the "buried crater being exhumed." Despite Nick's assurances, there is visual evidence orbit and some elevation data suggesting the formation is something other than and impact crater somehow being pitted or exhumed.

The problem may not be whether it is or not; the problem may be questioning whether it is an impact formation.

Nick presented MOLA evidence which shows a modest quasi-circular depression and a raised northern margin -- and that was good enough for him. Is it sufficient evidence? Probably not over the long term, but why worry about that now? There are other more important things to fret over for the time being.

I hope eventually some of the questions I raise will worm their way into some folks subconscious, then worm their way back out again to engender some re-evaluation of what "we now know."

That's all!

Cheers, BFelix

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (52 posts)