Talk:Valles Marineris

Cosmic Thunderbolt
Is the Cosmic Thunderbolt Section really going to stay in the article, under "Formation"? It seems to me that the cite is a thoroughly unrepeatable wordpress blog and a youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.75.222 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see why the electrical discharge method is not considered. The evidence is overwhelming. It is also supported by several physicists and is growing in popularity. There are many aspects and features that plate tectonics has no hope of producing on the Mars landscape and you have the cheek to snub a better theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.45.150 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this theory does not appear in peer-reviewed articles. That is why we can't take it seriously. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Astrobleme theory
Is Valles Marineris an astrobleme? I'm not an expert, but I look at the map of Mars over my desk and wonder whether researchers are unanimous in agreeing that the extremely long, extremely straight feature, as well as numerous parallel features which also are extremely straight, as well as parallel crater chains, as well as the long straight colored region extending from the end of the valley...  all has geologic origin. Many other straight features are crater-chains from tidally disrupted meteors. A re-entering moon, or a de-orbiting planetary ring would be expected to create something like Valles Marineris. It would be expected to align roughly with the equator (align roughly with the plane of the solar system where moon orbits lie.) Am I alone in thinking that the current version cannot explain the straightness nor the parallel straight features? --Wjbeaty 01:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are thinking that maybe this is a low angle almost scrape the planet resulting in a giant trough, well, anything is possible, but I'd have to disagree. I'm of the opinion that the Valles is more of a rift valley akin to the East-African Rift valley.  Basically, the building of Olympus Mons created a huge on one side of the planet.  The planet want's to reach isostatic equilibrium and the valles is a result of that.  More of a radial fracture than a series of impact craters aligned. That's just my humble opinion and I have been wrong before.  --John Boone


 * Not a series of impact craters, but a single very oblong pattern. Any "low angle almost-scrape" would most probably be caused by a moon falling from orbit, and not by a impactor which just happened to strike the planet's limb. The many parallel features would be caused by separate material accompanying the moon, or perhaps the gradually-approaching moon would be disrupted by force gradients from atmospheric drag and atmospheric heating.  Speaking of atmospheric heating, the present article mentions a massive expulsion of subsurface CO2.  A glancing meteor strike heats surfaces by radiation and can fuse rock and sand, as with huge regions of green glass found in deserts in Libya and Australia.  If Valles Marineris is an astrobleme, and if incandescent impactors tend to liquify entire deserts, it wouldn't be unexpected that Valles Marineris would be accompanied by a large region of collapse caused by CO2.  Also, the Valles Marineris region contains several examples of rows of pits, with the rows aligned parallel to the valley.  Online material discussing the region's geology say that these pits are from faults and sand collapse.  But Mars also features many crater chains caused by the impact of tidally-disrupted objects.  If later Mars exploration shows that these pits along Valles Marineris are actually crater chains and not associated with faults, then Valles Marineris is almost certainly a large impact crater.  Additionally, I can imagine that the material creating such crater chains would not be tidally disrupted, but instead would be "atmospherically sorted" as the impactors of various sectional areas would experience various amounts of atmospheric drag for significant time, and an original tight cluster would spread out into a stream of objects.  (Such things would rarely happen with impactors entering atmosphere near-vertically.)  Small objects would produce crater-chains.  Large objects would dig out an entire valley-shaped crater.


 * But why do I, a total amateur, dare to question the mass opinion of Mars geologists? It's because Earth geology has a long history of intolerance of dissenting opinion, of texts written with dry authority as if all controversies had been long settled, and of experts missing things which were obvious to crackpots and fringe scientists.  Science includes instances paradigm-blindness or "Emperor's Clothes" effect, where the entire community supports a concept which is foolish in hindsight, and were only outsiders are able to see what's very obvious.  I suspect that Valles Marineris is an example of this.  There are so many little converging threads of evidence that, the more I look at it, the stronger my confidence.  But I could be wrong, and I just haven't yet seen a particular critique of the idea which deals it a death-blow.   --Wjbeaty 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the foolish hindsight, just look at all the explinations for plate tectonic features that were proposed before the theory took hold in the scientific communtity. I cannot deal the "death-blow" to your theory, therefore I suggest that you include it in the article.  I don't suppose we'll find out the real answer until we land a robot or human in the Valles to have a look around and gather more evidence, even then we still could be wrong. --John Boone 6 January 2006

I found an article about this on Tom Van Flandern's site. It seems quite plausible, and it does look like it was formed west to east, as any impacting moon would have to do. The only difficulty is that one would think most moons would tidally break up before impacting. The way, the truth, and the light 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Time of discovery
When exactly did Mariner 9 discover the canyons? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible Citation?
Ok, I'm new here & citing sources isn't something I have experience in yet, but I *may* have found something! What do you all think? In the opening section, the statement of the dimensions of this ol' valley has a Citation Needed flag. Today an article came out in the online version of The Guardian which states essentially the same dimensions (the depth being even greater than our data shows!)   Is this article an acceptable source that could be cited for this information? If so, I'll defer to someone who knows how to do that, because I don't (yet)! Thanks! Newbie Mpwrmnt 10:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest valley in the Solar system?
Everybody says this, but the East African Rift Valley is almost twice as long. I'm not sure how it compares in the other two dimensions, but it seems to me that Valles Marineris' status as "largest valley in the Solar system" is not as clear-cut as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.167.183 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct up to a point; the deep rift valley of the Mid Atlantic Ridge is vastly longer than either the Rift Valley (which starts in the Levant, and continues through east Africa), or the Valles Marinaris.85.1.19.145 (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversed image.
The first image (NASA Mars Wind) in the 'Formation' section appears to be reversed.

Plate boundary
This recent discovery indicates that Valles Marineris is a potentially active plate boundary. Update time.  Volcano guy  09:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Mar's moons, that revolve along the equator, cause tidal friction that are responsible for the Valles Marineris that also runs along the equator. And the small size of these moons accounting for why tectonics is relatively minor on mars. Sidelight12 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/mgs_plates.html Sidelight12 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This finding is based on nothing, plate tectonics involve subduction zones and rift zones that do NOT exist on Mars, please use your eyes to watch the surface of Mars! 151.52.28.227 (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage of JPL images without copyright notice in caption
As my edit has been reverted twice, I wanted to state here for the record (as I have done already on the page of the user): I think that JPL images are used here (and in other articles) without proper copyright notice.

The relevant copyright notice by JPL states: By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees: … 2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." …. In my view, JPL's copyright terms clearly ask anybody displaying their copyrighted images to use a credit line in the caption.

I will leave this article alone for now, and hope that a proper solution will be found for all JPL images – one way of the other. Tony Mach (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The caption referred to in the JPL image credit request is actually the caption of the Planetary Photojournal web page for an image. This is where the proper credit line for a particular image is given, e.g. "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASI/USGS" or, "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU", as the case may be. We already satisfy JPL's request to have the appropriate credit line given "in connection" with an image by putting it on the "Author" listing of the image page obtainable by clicking on an image. To repeat that credit in the caption of an article image would be redundant and contrary to normal Wikipedia style, and JPL is not asking us to do so. "Courtesy" is equivalent to "Author", and thus we do not need to add "Courtesy" to the image page author listing. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

New paper on lava tubes
The new paper, A network of lava tubes as the origin of Labyrinthus Noctis and Valles Marineris on Mars, can certainly be cited and discussed in the article, but it would be best if this was not done by its author, who is presumed not to be neutral regarding its significance. Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for self-promotion by authors of scientific papers (see WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SELFCITE). WolfmanSF (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the lead does seem to over-emphasize the "tectonic origin" theory right now. Is that really what "most researchers think"? I don't see an indication for that claim. Rather, it seems the "Martian plate tectonics" theory hasn't quite caught on. Huon (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Folks, the problem here is that a lot of information is wrong or missing! I cited a paper by Leverington (2011) about the lava origin of the outflow channels like Valles Marineris, which is not self promotion, and this was removed. If we want to give correct information to the audience, we must provide all the views. The origin of Valles Marineris by lava erosion is missing and this is absolutely unfair. First, Valles Marineris starts from the slope of a volcano and, notoriously, lava (not water) flows from volcanoes and its slopes; this occurs even on Earth, which is rich of water, imagine on Mars that is devoid of water. There are other papers related to the volcanic origin of the valleys on Mars, Athabasca Valles for example, by Jaeger et al (Science, 2007) but also Keszthelyi et al (2008) and Leverington (2004) after the pioneering work of Greeley et al (1998) about lava erosion. Second, I cited other references by other authors, again not self promotion, who state that Mars has not plate tectonics; regardless of the emphasis given to the topic, telling to the audience that Valles Marineris is like a rift valley on Earth is simply wrong! Third, it is stated that Valles Marineris was made by water, wrong, there are papers that are doubting about the possibility of water on Mars. Jarosite is unaltered meaning that no humid climate was ever present on Mars (Madden et al, Nature or Science, 2004), olivine is unaltered on Mars meaning that no water touched it for more than 100-10000 years (Oze and Sharma, 2007), there is also a wonderful map in which Valles Marineris is included in Ehlmann et al (GRL, 2010). Last but not least, Mr WolmanSF should provide his real name to reveal if he has not conflict of interest related to water on Mars instead of removing correct information with the excuse of self promotion of other authors. Giovanni.leone.pa (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any secondary (review) sources to back up your claim? Ruslik_ Zero 19:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Giovanni did cite Leverington et al. 3 times, papers by three other authors once each, and his own work 15 times. This tends to create a perception of a possibly biased promotion of one viewpoint. I would encourage anyone who cares to work on this to provide a balanced overview of the latest research on the origin of Valles Marineris and the outflow channels. However, my impression is that theories of origin that are based largely on volcanic processes to the exclusion of faulting and erosion by wind, water or ice are not the mainstream viewpoint at present (e.g., this paper comments. "The formation of the Valles Marineris troughs on Mars is widely held to involve some combination of horizontal extension and vertical subsidence or collapse ..."). Evidence regarding the past role of water on Mars is conflicting. We see exposures of minerals like olivine that would have been destroyed by water, but we also see evidence of tidal waves in former oceans and dry waterfalls that appear to have formed in massive floods. The full story eludes us. By the way, I have have never been involved professionally in astronomy. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, WolfmanSF admits that he was never involved professionally in astronomy (can you prove it by giving your real name please? can Wikipedia check the real identity of this user?) but he still hides his real name and, by some strange coincidence, cites old fashioned papers that were dismantled by the more plausible volcanic origin of Valles Marineris that it is located on the slope of a volcano! So why on Earth you remove correct information from Wikipedia only on the basis that my paper was cited 15 times? Don't you think that there were good arguments linked to that paper in the text and that required more than one citation? How can you judge these arguments if you are not a professional astronomer/planetologist? Have you read the arguments against tectonics supported by MOLA data written in my paper? Have you read the volumetric arguments written in my paper against water? So this man suggests to write on Wikipedia even incorrect information provided that it is sufficiently balanced but he did not spend even one word to say if my arguments are correct or not. He's so fond of other theories, so strange to see in an unexperienced man!! Does he care if the children or other students who read Wikipedia learn wrong science? Of course not! I officially request that the information I provided and supported not only by my work will be immediately restored on the Wikipedia page of Valles Marineris. Please do it or I will do it again by myself over the next days, thanks! Giovanni.leone.pa (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Insisting on having your own theory highlighted in a Wikipedia article, as well as ridiculing and demanding to know the real name of someone on the other side of an edit conflict, are extremely inappropriate behaviors for a Wikipedian. Please give up the idea of editing articles to highlight your own work, either under your own name, using anonymous i.p. addresses, or sock puppets. Look around and you will notice that other scientists aren't doing this. If you persist, the situation will only get uglier. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear WolfmanSF, of course the other scientists are not doing it because they have sock puppets like you who do the dirty work on their behalf hidden behind a nickname. Your pathetic arguments will not stop me from correcting the wrong information about Valles Marineris and Mars that you are contributing to spread among the general audience. All this being said, I have nothing else to say to a troll like you. I will deal with your despicable act of vandalism together with the moderators of Wikipedia. Best regards 151.52.28.227 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Valles Marineris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711145413/http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html to http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711145413/http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html to http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/Vallis.Marineris.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agathadaemon
This article starts off by saying that the valley is named after the Mariner 9 orbiter which discover'd it. But the Mars article says that the valley is "also known as Agathadaemon in the old canal maps". Is this true, and can someone give a reference? If it is true, we should include the fact that it was seen long before Mariner. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Contradictions in quoted maximum depth measurements
In the article's first paragraph the maximum depth measurement is given as 7km cited by NASA (2005), however in the Melas, Candor and Ophir chasmata section of the article a figure of 11km is given - in the first part of a sentence which also includes measurements of a separate entity, and ends with a citation by Cattermole (2001). It is not clear if Cattermole was the source for the whole sentence and the 11km estimate, as I cannot access the publication to check.

90 minutes of research to find the consensus maximum depth makes me suspect radar telemetry is no reliable method for ascertaining such measurements, varied research papers dealing with Martian topographical phenomena (e.g. Cole HM, Andrews-Hanna JC. The anatomy of a wrinkle ridge revealed in the wall of Melas Chasma, Mars. Journal of Geophysical research. Planets. 2017 May;122(5):889-900. DOI: 10.1002/2017JE005274 ) give a range of 6.5-11 km without mentioning the sources, which I assume to be NASA's MOLA, Mars Express etc. Ad-funded websites such as Sciencetoday quote NASA for maximum depths of up to 40,000 ft. NASA's 2017 analysis of their most recent DEM at the time compromised with 9km maximum depth. In dozens upon dozens of self-promoting web articles NASA extolls the accuracy of NASA. Search for Valles Marineris contour map in the search tab on nasa.gov and the best they can do is furnish a map from 1999 - with elevations no lower than -5.5km. NASA is not a reputable or reliable source for scientific Wikipedia articles. Nickwilso (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There a number of possible ambiguities related to the "maximum depth" issue: deepest section vs. deepest single point, depth below rim vs. depth below highest point on surrounding plateau, and total depth vs. depth below one of several definitions of Martian datum. I suggest you not make sweeping generalizations based on frustration relating to an issue you may not fully understand. The MOLA altimetry dataset is actually pretty accurate. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Along with my sweeping generalisation I pointed to the lack of scientifically supported data presented by those offering particular measurements, and that NASA presents contradictory information on this topic. I was well aware of the ambiguities you mention and that a zero elevation reference point has been established to rectify them, why did you presume I wasn’t? If the depth below said reference point of a crater can be established to a fine margin of error, it is reasonable to enquire why it can’t be in another area. No authority is clear on whether the deepest surface point on Mars is in a crater or a trench. There’s also no evidence on the internet that you are a scientist, where have the results of your experiments been published? If you wish to be constructive with your criticism, stick to the points raised by the person you are criticising or dispensing advice to, instead of questioning their level of understanding and providing links you presume they haven’t visited. I do not fully understand any area of knowledge, do you? I have obviously read your contributions in above sections and note that you’re particularly sensitive to what goes on in this article, yet there’s no evidence anywhere that you are an actual person. Scientists present evidence, you just write things on the internetNickwilso (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That you claim the accuracy of MOLA and provide no reference to support (a link to the dataset itself is not support) is evidence that you are not a scientist. This little exercise might help - reference the deepest point on Mars according to MOLA (hint: Table 4 in Smith et al., 2001. Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter: Experiment summary after the first year of global mapping of Mars, JOURNAL OF  GEOPHYSICAL  RESEARCH,  VOL.  106, NO.  El0,  PAGES  23,689-23,722) and then compare that figure with analysis of more recent DEMs. Why such variation in the results and no explanation? The Hellas crater seems to have a history of consistent measurement and MOLA got it right, so what's happened in Valles Marineris? Thermal image distorted by the geomorph down there and not in the crater? No one at NASA or behind MOLA cares to explain, but you do - from a profile with no link to a real personNickwilso (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

valles
valles 178.138.33.102 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)