Talk:Phobos
Administrative
Articles "Phobos" and "Phobos Photos" merged by import procedure on this date. - Jarogers2001 08:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Now there are at least two suggestions for the origin of the crater chains on Phobos that are more likely than the impact with Martian impact debris theory. We should not laugh at NASA's analysis. No explanations at all would be much worse. Praise NASA's courage and laugh with NASA. They can borrow the expanations offered here and the world will be better for a little less seriousness.--Farred 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article states that the crater chains on Phobos must have been excavated by ejecta from a Mars impact event[1]. It cites a scholarly paper[2] that refers to grooves that can be seen to be composed of closely spaced overlapping pits with raised rims, many of which appear identical in morphology and overall appearance to chains of secondary impact craters. However none of the photographs of Phobos that I have seen clearly show such raised rims on rows of overlapping craters. None of the photos of lunar secondary impact crater chains that I have seen seem much like the chains on Phobos. Since the lack of a raised rim distinguishes craters caused by subsidence from impact craters, one would expect to see the photographic evidence of these raised rims with the paper that refers to them. One would expect to see a better example of the "identical morphology" than that shown. --Farred 01:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I regret the figure of speech comparing the idea of straight line chains of craters being formed by ejecta from a Mars impact with the idea that Phobos is an alien interstellar spaceship. It seems that that sort of figurative speech does not meet the standards of Marspedia, so I removed it. Also since I have learned that a scholarly paper put forth the idea that I dispute, I am confident that the authors of the paper would not be happy with such a figure of speech. I certainly think that a proposition that is so difficult to believe ought to be supported by better evidence before its proponents present it as more than speculation, but such criticism should be put in literal terms. The photo previously offered with the cited scholarly paper of a lunar crater chain in support of "identical morphology" appears to be missing now, perhaps from embarrassment.
REFERENCES
