What makes Mars the 'Red' Planet? Scientists have some new ideas
Mars is widely known for its iconic rusty red color — many people even refer to it as just the "Red Planet" — but new research suggests the Martian shade isn't just lovely to look at. The chemistry behind Mars' rosy hue may actually hold important information about our cosmic neighbor.
For decades, spacecraft and rovers have gathered data pointing to a familiar explanation behind Mars' redness: the rusting of iron minerals, namely iron oxide, in the planet's dust. That's the same compound that gives your standard "rust" on Earth its red color.
Scientists already knew that on Mars, over billions of years, iron oxide has been ground into dust and carried across the planet by powerful winds, a process still shaping the Martian landscape today. However, not all iron oxides are the same, so experts have long debated the precise nature of Martian rust. Understanding how this rust formed offers a crucial glimpse into the planet's past environment — was it once warm and wet, or always cold and dry? And, more importantly, did it ever support life?
"We were trying to create a replica Martian dust in the laboratory using different types of iron oxide," Adomas Valantinas, a postdoctoral researcher at Brown University, formerly at the University of Bern in Switzerland where he started his work with the European Space Agency's (ESA) Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) data, said in a statement.
To recreate the Martian dust, the new study's research team used an advanced grinding machine to refine their samples such that they matched the fine, windblown particles found on Mars. The scientists then analyzed these ground-up samples using the same techniques as spacecraft orbiting Mars would, allowing for a direct comparison with real Martian data.
"This study is the result of the complementary datasets from the fleet of international missions exploring Mars from orbit and at ground level," Colin Wilson, the TGO and Mars Express project scientist, said in the statement.
What they found was that the best match for Mars' red dust is a combination of basaltic volcanic rock and a water-rich iron oxide called ferrihydrite.
This discovery is intriguing because ferrihydrite typically forms rapidly in the presence of cool water — meaning it must have originated when liquid water still existed on Mars' surface.
Even after billions of years of being ground into dust and scattered by Martian winds, ferrihydrite has retained its watery signature, offering a tantalizing clue about Mars' ancient past.
"The major implication is that because ferrihydrite could only have formed when water was still present on the surface, Mars rusted earlier than we previously thought," said Valantinas. "Moreover, the ferrihydrite remains stable under present-day conditions on Mars."
Data from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter along with ground-based measurements from the Curiosity, Pathfinder and Opportunity rovers further support the identification of ferrihydrite. These observations provide crucial evidence that Mars's red dust retains a signature of its watery past, reinforcing the idea that liquid water once played a key role in shaping the planet's surface.
— Perseverance Mars rover finds 'one-of-a-kind treasure' on Red Planet's Silver Mountain
— Trump wants the US to land astronauts on Mars soon. Could it happen by 2029?
— NASA and General Atomics test nuclear fuel for future moon and Mars missions
"We eagerly await the results from upcoming missions like ESA's Rosalind Franklin rover and the NASA-ESA Mars Sample Return, which will allow us to probe deeper into what makes Mars red," added Colin. "Some of the samples already collected by NASA's Perseverance rover and awaiting return to Earth include dust; once we get these precious samples into the lab, we'll be able to measure exactly how much ferrihydrite the dust contains, and what this means for our understanding of the history of water — and the possibility for life — on Mars."
"Mars is still the Red Planet," added Valantinas. "It's just that our understanding of why Mars is red has been transformed."
A paper about these results was published on Feb. 25 in the journal Nature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Did 'primordial' black holes born right after the Big Bang help our universe's 1st stars form?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. New research suggests that primordial black holes created during the Big Bang could have played a major role in forming the universe's first stars. The findings could help to assess how suitable primordial black holes are as candidates for dark matter, the universe's most mysterious "stuff." But the study team isn't sure yet whether these black holes helped star formation, acting as "cosmic midwives" by ferrying matter to sites of stellar birth, or if they acted to suppress starbirth! The role primordial black holes played in the formation of so-called "Population III (POP III) stars" ( a confusing name for the first generation of stars) all depends on what masses these hypothetical original black holes have. "We investigated how primordial black holes — ancient black holes that may have formed in the very early universe — could have influenced the birth of the first stars," team member Stefano Profumo of the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC) told "Using advanced computer simulations, we found that, depending on their mass and abundance, these black holes could either speed up or delay the formation of the first stars." Profumo added that, in some cases, primordial black holes likely acted like "cosmic seeds," helping matter clump together earlier than expected. However, in other scenarios, Profumo and colleagues found that these black holes could have disrupted gas clouds, actually preventing stars from forming promptly. Primordial black holes: Friend or foe to star formation? Primordial black holes are thought to have formed as a result of density fluctuations in matter in the early universe. This is quite different from the origin of so-called stellar-mass black holes, which are created when massive stars collapse and erupt in supernovas at the end of their lives. This means that primordial black holes didn't have to wait for the first generation of stars to live and die before they could be created. Also, it doesn't place the same kinds of mass limits on primordial black holes that exist for stellar-mass black holes, as the former are created directly from early cosmic material rather than from collapsing stars, which can only be so massive. However, because primordial black holes are yet to be discovered, there isn't much else scientists can firmly say about them. Profumo explained how primordial black holes could play a role in star formation. "Massive primordial black holes can serve as powerful gravitational centers. In the early universe, they could have pulled in gas and dark matter more quickly, jump-starting the formation of small galaxies and stars," he said. "This could explain how some of the earliest galaxies we now see — thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) — managed to form so surprisingly fast after the Big Bang." However, primordial black holes must have a certain mass to play a positive role in star birth, according to the team's simulations, which were performed using a software package called GIZMO, running the hydrodynamics of the universe's initial gas and dust. "To boost early star formation in the way we observed, the black holes would need to be quite massive — about a thousand to ten thousand times the mass of our sun," Profumo said. "At those sizes, and in the right numbers, they'd have a noticeable effect on how quickly the first stars formed." More massive primordial black holes would do this by causing density fluctuations in matter to increase. This would create more so-called dark matter haloes, vast clusters of this mysterious form of matter within which the building blocks of stars and galaxies could gather en masse. If there are too many of these massive primordial black holes, however, then stars and galaxies would form too fast, thus not reflecting our picture of the early universe. But the team found that primordial black holes with masses smaller than around 100 times that of the sun wouldn't increase density fluctuations. Instead, the team's simulations indicated that, if there were enough of these less massive primordial black holes, the influence of their gravity would generate tidal forces within vast clouds of gas and heat them. This is problematic for star formation, because stellar bodies are born when cold and over-dense clumps of gas and dust collapse under the influence of their own gravity. The more low-mass primordial black holes in the early universe, the more gas is heated and the more star formation is stunted. Thus, this is a really Goldilocks situation. To assist in star formation, the masses and population sizes of primordial black holes need to be "just right." Further investigation of these competing scenarios could tell scientists more about dark matter. Primordial black holes and dark matter Dark matter is so problematic to scientists because, despite accounting for about 85% of the matter in the universe, it remains effectively invisible. That means everything we see — stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, each other, and so forth — accounts for just 15% of the stuff in the universe. Scientists can gather that dark matter isn't made up of particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, which compose the atoms of "normal" matter, because those particles interact with light, and whatever dark matter is doesn't. This has spurred a search for particles beyond the standard model of particle physics. The fact that this hunt has turned up empty has kept primordial black holes in the frame as dark matter suspects. "This research tells us that if primordial black holes do make up some or all of the dark matter, they can't just have any mass or be present in any amount," Profumo said. "If there are too many, or if they're too massive, they would cause the first stars to form much too early — before we see any signs of them. "On the other hand, if they're too small and too abundant, they can get in the way of star formation. This gives us a new way to rule out certain black hole scenarios for dark matter." Of course, primordial black holes remain hypothetical. Barring the detection of these Big Bang-generated black holes, there are other ways that astronomers could find evidence supporting the team's theory about their role in early star formation. "The effects we studied would show up during what's called the cosmic dawn — roughly 100 to 200 million years after the Big Bang. In some of our most extreme scenarios, star formation could start as early as 15 million years after the Big Bang — much earlier than traditional models suggest," Profumo said. "If telescopes like JWST or future instruments can find galaxies or stars forming very, very early in the universe, that would support the idea that something like primordial black holes helped cosmic structures form faster than usual." Related Stories: — A 'primordial' black hole may zoom through our solar system every decade — Primordial black holes may flood the universe. Could one hit Earth? — Tiny black holes left over from the Big Bang may be prime dark matter suspects The next step for the team is to move beyond the assumption that all primordial black holes would have the same masses. "Most theories suggest a mix of masses, and we want to model that more realistically," Profumo said. "We're also planning to improve the physical modeling of star formation, and to simulate larger patches of the early universe to understand how primordial black holes might have influenced not just the first stars but also the formation of early galaxies." The team's research is available as a preprint on the paper repository arXiv. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
New study says the 'one-set rule' could help you build more muscle in the gym (while doing less) — here's how
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. If you're anything like me, gym motivation comes and goes, and sometimes, no matter what conversation you have with yourself, it just isn't happening. Well, I might have found a fix. From now on, whenever you're debating whether or not to do that workout or lift those barbells or dumbbells, think this: just one set. That's it, just one set. New research published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise has made a fascinating discovery, and it's that a single-set routine could save time and still build muscle, even when transitioning from higher-volume workouts. Here's everything you need to know about the 'one-set rule,' and why it works, according to researchers. What is the study? Researchers took 42 young men and women who were already resistance-trained, and assigned them to one of two groups: the first group trained to failure on all exercises, while the other worked at a submaximal effort, meaning they had roughly two reps 'in reserve' for the same exercises. All participants performed one set of nine different exercises focusing on all major muscle groups each session. They did this twice per week for eight weeks. Researchers then measured muscle thickness in the biceps and triceps brachii and quadriceps, and looked at muscular strength, power and endurance markers. What are the results? The results showed that both groups benefitted from 'appreciable gains in most of the assessed outcomes," and several measures of hypertrophy (muscle growth) favored the all-out effort group. However, increases in strength and local muscular endurance were similar between groups. The next time you head to the gym, you could perform just one set of each exercise twice per week and still benefit. The study concluded that single-set routines can be time-efficient and still promote modest muscular adaptations, although this was an assessment on trained individuals only. That said, even if participants had transitioned from higher-volume programs, it was still effective. What does it all mean? Training toward failure and prioritizing intensity rather than volume (high sets or reps) is where muscle adaptations can occur. Even just one set per exercise can help you build muscle and power, so long as you work with intensity close to failure. However, results didn't show the same for strength or local muscle endurance in this case. The next time you head to the gym, you could perform just one set of each exercise twice per week and still benefit. Training to failure in this case favored slightly better muscle growth, but both groups still benefited significantly overall, and strength outcomes were similar. Remember, the experiment targeted the whole body and main muscle groups, but by keeping it minimal, sessions were still short and time-efficient. Just think of intensity and ensure you're lifting toward failure rather than keeping reps in reserve. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button. More from Tom's Guide Forget running and swimming — study finds this sport adds 10 years to your life New study reveals cycling can reduce dementia risk by 88% Work out less and get better results — a new study says this is exactly how
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
This comet is traveling 100x faster than a bullet. NASA still managed to photograph it
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The fastest-moving objects are often the most challenging subjects to photograph – which means NASA scientists had a challenge ahead of them when the ATLAS comet warning system flagged the fastest solar system visitor yet. The Hubble Space Telescope has managed to capture the sharpest ever photograph of the comet known as 3I/ATLAS as it travels at 130,000 miles per hour / 209,215 kph. The 3I/ATLAS, which was first spotted on July 1, has the fastest velocity of any solar system visitor to date, NASA says. The comet's 130,000 mph speed is nearly 100 times the speed of some bullets. The comet's speed suggests that 3I/ATLAS may have originated from a very distant, developing planetary system, which means the comet could be a space fossil with clues about the universe's history. The challenge, of course, was how to photograph something moving 100 times the speed of some bullets and still get a sharp enough photograph that scientists could infer some data from the image. NASA put the Hubble Space Telescope up to the task, using the orbiting telescope's onboard WFC3 charge-coupled camera. The researchers used a single gyroscope to allow the camera to follow the movement of the comet, creating a sharper, more detailed image. The stars in the background of the image are streaked because the camera was moving in order to follow the quick-moving comet, much like the panning technique blurs the background of photos taken following fast action on Earth. The resulting photograph is giving researchers a wealth of different information about the speedy solar system visitor. Researchers now estimate that the comet's nucleus is between 1,000 feet (320 m) and 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) in diameter. The photograph also shows the dust ejecting from the comet on the side that the sun is heating up. The comet's rate of dust loss indicates the comet may have originated 300 million miles from the sun, researchers estimate. 'No one knows where the comet came from,' said David Jewitt, the science team leader for the Hubble observations. 'It's like glimpsing a rifle bullet for a thousandth of a second. You can't project that back with any accuracy to figure out where it started on its path.' The 3I/ATLAS comet was first discovered by the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) at the beginning of July 2025. While the comet isn't Earth-bound, its speed indicates the comet could be billions of years old. Researchers will continue to study the comet until it passes too close to the sun to observe sometime in September, though it's expected to be visible again on the other side of the sun around December. You may also like Take a look at the best cameras for astrophotography or the best lenses for astrophotography. Solve the daily Crossword
