1. A Cold Solar Nebula
Problem 2, Ch. 8 in the text (p. 235)
If the solar nebula cooled to 50K rapidly (and before the solar wind cleared it), we'd have condensation of all three major components - ices, rocks, and metals - throughout the nebula. The frost line would be right next to the sun. The terrestrial planets would probably be icier, larger, or more numerous. At the least, one might expect there to be larger atmospheres and more water on planets such as Earth and Mars. (Mercury would still be close to the sun and boil off its atmosphere quickly!)
2. A Backward Planet
Problem 7, Ch. 8 in the text (p. 236)
A planet orbiting backwards around the sun could probably not be formed by accretion of planetesimals from the solar nebula. You could imagine that perhaps it formed forwards, and then was hit to start orbiting backwards -- but this requires an impactor moving backwards, so we're back to the same problem. Most likely, a backwards planet would have to be captured from elsewhere, e.g., tossed out from another solar system, and then brought into orbit gravitationally around the Sun. Several of the retrograde satellites of the Jovian planets were probably asteroids captured in a similar way. Keep in mind that a planet orbiting backwards is far different than a planet rotating backwards (like Venus).
3. Water on Mars
It has been known for several decades that water existed on Mars'
surface perhaps a billion years ago. Recent images from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft
indicate that water has been at the surface much more recently.
Discuss (1 page or so) some of the evidence for recent liquid
water. Do you believe this evidence? What new results could shift the
debate one way or the other? You may wish to visit the Science website or space.com
for more information, or watch the press conference.
The new evidence for recent liquid water is along several lines, most of which
center around several hundred images of narrow carved channels in Mars' surface:
Will it stand scientifically? It's strong suggestive evidence for
recent ground water, but any of these features by themselves is
probably weak, or can be explained some other way. If - after more
images, more time, and more research - there's a general concensus that
these features a) were caused by water, and b) are young, then mars
could be a very much alive planet today. Keep in mind, however, that
the current results are those published by two scientists, of brand-new
data, and interpretations of the scientific community may well change
over time. New data - from a lander, or higher resolution imaging, or
samples from the planet, or radar (e.g.) - could really change the
picture, and make us more convinced of this result. Or, it could be
that all these features could be explained by other processes in the next
few years, and it's all bunk. Stay tuned!
Dr. Henry Throop, University of Colorado / throop@broccoli.colorado.edu
Last modified 29-Jun-2000