Is Mars really red? A physicist explains the planet's reddish hue and why it looks different to some telescopes
Is Mars really as red as people say it is? – Jasmine, age 14, Everson, Washington
People from cultures across the world have been looking at Mars since ancient times. Because it appears reddish, it has often been called the red planet.
The English name for the planet comes from the Romans, who named it after their god of war because its color reminded them of blood. In reality, the reddish color of Mars comes from iron oxide in the rocks and dust covering its surface.
Your blood is also red because of a mixture of iron and oxygen in a molecule called hemoglobin. So in a way, the ancient connection between the planet Mars and blood wasn't completely wrong. Rust, which is a common form of iron oxide found here on Earth, also often has a reddish color.
In my current research on exoplanets, I observe different types of signals from planets beyond Earth. Lots of interesting physics goes into how researchers perceive the colors of planets and stars through different types of telescopes.
If you look closely at pictures of Mars taken by rovers on its surface, you can see that most of the planet isn't purely red, but more of a rusty brown or tan color.
Probes sent from Earth have taken pictures showing rocks with a rusty color. A 1976 picture from the Viking lander, the very first spacecraft to land on Mars, shows the Martian ground covered with a layer of rusty orange dust.
Not all of Mars' surface has the same color. At the poles, its ice caps appear white. These ice caps contain frozen water, like the ice we usually find on Earth, but these ice caps are also covered by a layer of frozen carbon dioxide – dry ice.
This layer of dry ice can evaporate very quickly when sunlight shines on it and grows back again when it becomes dark. This process causes the white ice caps to grow and shrink in size depending on the Martian seasons.
Mars also gives off light in colors that you can't see with your eyes but that scientists can measure with special cameras on telescopes.
Light itself can be thought of not only as a wave but also as a stream of particles called photons. The amount of energy carried by each photon is related to its color. For example, blue and violet photons have more energy than orange and red photons.
Ultraviolet photons have even more energy than the photons you can see with your eyes. These photons are found in direct sunlight, and because they have so much energy, they can damage the cells in your body. You can use sunscreen to protect yourself from them.
Infrared photons have less energy than the photons you can see with your eyes, and you don't need any special protection from them. This is how some types of night-vision goggles work: They can see light in the infrared spectrum as well as the visible color spectrum. Scientists can take pictures of Mars in the infrared spectrum using special cameras that work almost like night-vision goggles for telescopes.
The colors on the infrared picture aren't really what the infrared light looks like, because you can't see those colors with your eyes. They are called 'false colors,' and researchers add them to look at the picture more easily.
When you compare the visible color picture and the infrared picture, you can see some of the same features – and the ice caps are visible in both sets of colors.
NASA's MAVEN spacecraft, launched in 2013, has even taken pictures with ultraviolet light, giving scientists a different view of both the surface of Mars and its atmosphere.
Each new type of picture tells scientists more about the Martian landscape. They hope to use these details to answer questions about how Mars formed, how long it had active volcanoes, where its atmosphere came from and whether it had liquid water on its surface.
Astronomers are always looking for new ways to take telescope pictures outside of the regular visible spectrum. They can even make images using radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays. Each part of the spectrum they can use to look at an object in space represents new information they can learn from.
Even though people have been looking at Mars since ancient times, we still have much to learn about this fascinating neighbor.
Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.
And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: David Joffe, Kennesaw State University
Read more:
Ancient Mars may have had a carbon cycle − a new study suggests the red planet may have once been warmer, wetter and more favorable for life
Could people turn Mars into another Earth? Here's what it would take to transform its barren landscape into a life-friendly world
Colors are objective, according to two philosophers − even though the blue you see doesn't match what I see
David Joffe receives funding from the NASA Office of STEM Engagement through a grant from the Georgia Space Grant Consortium
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns
Key Points CRISPR Therapeutics' first approved therapy, Casgevy, was a breakthrough. One of Casgevy's biggest achievements may be demonstrating the viability of CRISPR Therapeutics' strategy. The biotech company could soar if it can follow up that win with more clinical and regulatory milestones. 10 stocks we like better than CRISPR Therapeutics › Over the past few years, the market hasn't been kind to somewhat speculative, unprofitable stocks. CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP), a mid-cap biotech, fits that description. The company's shares are down by 24% since mid-2022. The S&P 500 is up 50% over the same period. Despite this terrible performance, there are reasons to believe that CRISPR Therapeutics could still generate life-changing returns for investors willing to be patient. Here's how the biotech could pull it off. CRISPR Therapeutics' first success CRISPR Therapeutics' first approval was for Casgevy, a treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT), which it developed in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Before Casgevy, no CRISPR-based gene-editing medicine had been approved. While it became the first, it still faces some challenges. Ex vivo gene-editing therapies require a complex manufacturing and administration process that can only be performed in authorized treatment centers (ATCs). Moreover, they're expensive. Casgevy costs $2.2 million in the U.S. Getting third-party payers on board for that is no easy feat. Still, CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals are making steady progress. As of the second quarter, CRISPR Therapeutics had achieved its goal of activating 75 ATCs. It had also secured reimbursement for eligible patients in 10 countries. The two companies estimate there are roughly 60,000 eligible SCD and TDT patients in the regions they have targeted. Let's say they continue to strike reimbursement deals and can count on third-party coverage for 70% of this target population (42,000 people), then go on to treat another 30% of that group in the next decade (12,600 patients). Assuming they could extend that $2.2 million price tag to those countries, Casgevy could generate more than $27.7 billion over this period. Based on its agreement with Vertex, 40% would go to CRISPR Therapeutics, or roughly $11.1 billion over a decade. That's not bad, but it's not that impressive either. So, while Casgevy could contribute meaningfully to CRISPR Therapeutics' results -- and may even reach blockbuster status at some point -- the medicine may primarily serve as a proof of concept to demonstrate that the biotech's approach can be effective. Substantial progress with its first commercialized product will help the stock price. But the company's performance will depend even more on future clinical and regulatory milestones, especially as it shows with Casgevy that it can manage the intricacies and complexities of marketing gene-editing medicines. Can the pipeline deliver? CRISPR Therapeutics has six candidates in clinical trials, which isn't bad at all for a mid-cap biotech company. One of its leading programs is CTX310, a potential therapy designed to help reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with certain conditions. CTX310 is already producing encouraging clinical trial results. Additionally, it's an in vivo medicine, meaning it bypasses the need to harvest patients' cells to manufacture therapies; in vivo gene-editing treatments are easier to handle than their ex vivo counterparts. The company's path to creating life-changing returns hinges on its ability to deliver consistent clinical and regulatory wins over the next few years for CTX310 and other important candidates. If CRISPR Therapeutics can successfully launch several new products in the next five to seven years, its shares are likely to skyrocket. In the meantime, under this scenario, the company would succeed in making gene-editing medicines more mainstream. This would encourage third-party payers to get on board -- and healthcare institutions, and perhaps even governments, to help push for more ATCs, since there'd be a greater need to accommodate these treatments. Can CRISPR Therapeutics achieve this? In my view, the biotech stock is on the riskier side, but does carry significant upside potential. There's a (small) chance the gene-editing specialist will deliver life-changing returns in the next decade, but investors need to hedge their bets. It's best to start by initiating a small position in the stock, then progressively add more if CRISPR Therapeutics lands more wins. Should you invest $1,000 in CRISPR Therapeutics right now? Before you buy stock in CRISPR Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and CRISPR Therapeutics wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Fuel Fill-Ups in Space? Musk and Bezos Are Working on It
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are trying to figure out how to pump gas in space. The billionaire space rivals are working on ambitious missions to the moon or Mars, and a crucial design element for each venture is using spacecraft that take on additional fuel while orbiting Earth. Vehicles that could grab propellants in orbit would be less weighed down at liftoff, letting planners design missions to travel farther from Earth with more cargo, scientific gear or crew members, advocates say.
