Talk:Ascraeus Mons

Contradiction with Olympus Mons article

This article contradicts the article on Olympus Mons. This article says "This arrangement suggests that [the Tharsis Montes volcanoes] were formed by a crustal plate moving over a hot spot" but the Olympus Mons explains that volcano's enormous height by saying that "Mars does not have tectonic plates". Dricherby (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

there are a number of articles where folks seem to confirm the lack of plate tectonics, suggesting perhaps that the plume is moving under a static crust. http://www.physorg.com/news111850714.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.1.147 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I now have the contradiction taken care of.  I have added several references.  There seems to be a fair amount of evidence for a very early, very short period of plate motions.  A good discussion is in parts of ISBN 978-0-521-85226-5.  Jimmarsmars (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the topic of plate tectonics on Mars generates a lot of space in the popular media, but the evidence for it--even early in Mars history--is weak. Unfortunately, to discuss all the reasons why would require an article by itself. The 1994 paper by Sleep is often cited in articles here, but the paper is dated; spacecraft data from the last decade do not support the original hypothesis. The paper by Connerney et al. (2005), which suggests a form of plate tectonics to explain some geologic features of the planet, is also cited. I have not read the paper in detail, but my sense is that the idea that Earth-style plate tectonics ever occurred on Mars is not widely accepted. To say something has been proposed (wording used in atricle) is not the same as it being the majority opinion. Volcanoes, like the Tharsis Montes, can occur in a line because they erupt along linear fissures (rifts) in the crust. Many examples are present on Earth. Plate movement is not necessary. Also, the term island arc is used improperly here.Schaffman (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons above, I propose deleting the whole paragraph about the aligment of the volcanoes. The subject is addressed in the Tharsis Montes article, where I think it more properly belongs. If someone wants to thoughtfully address the plate tectonics thing, it could be done in a separate section there. This deletion removes the need for the contradiction tag. Schaffman (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo in Box

The photo in the descrition box is a nice oblique view of the volcano's caldera wall, but it really doesn't show the whole structure. I think we need a better picture. Schaffman (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

[Volcano] was formed from relatively recent liquid lava flows.

The geologic evidence is that the whole edifice formed over a very long period of Mars history, even though some relatively recent flows may be present. The wording implies that the volcano itself is young, which is probably not true. Schaffman (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)