This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Olympus Mons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The intro describes Olympus Mons as second to Earth's Tamu Massif and Vesta's Rheasilvia in size and height, but both of those articles give figures that they are smaller than Olympus Mons. Craig Butz ( talk) 17:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Height of Olympus Mons is given in this article as 27 km, but was given as 25 km in the [[Mars (planet) article. I have adjusted to make both articles read the same. BUT there is no mention of how these different heights are calculated. As there is no " sea level" on Mars, as there is no sea of free water, what height datum is used? On Mars is the height above mean surface level used or is the height based on elevation above surrounding landscape? I understand Olympus Mons sits in a depression 2 km below mean surface level - this would account for the 2 km discrepancy between the articles. -- kiwiinapanic 09:18 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
My copy of The New Atlas of the Universe lists the height as 25 km above surface level. -- Dante Alighieri 10:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
So - how big is Olympus Mons?! I found a variety of answers:
[1] | 29 km above base | 600 km diameter | |
[2] | 29 km high | 500 km dia | |
[3] | 27 km high | 700 km dia | |
[4] | 27 km high | >600 km dia | |
[5] | 27 km above base | 600 km dia | |
[6] | 27 km above datum | ||
[7] | 27 km above datum | ||
[8] | 26 km above base | 500 km dia | |
[9] | 25 km above base | 800 km dia | |
[10] | 25 km high | 700 km dia | |
[11] | 25 km above base | 624 km dia | |
[12] | 25 km above base | 600 km dia | |
[13] | 25 km above base | 550 km dia | |
[14] | <25 km above base | 600 km dia | |
[15] | 25 km above datum | ||
[16] | 24 km above base (to caldera?) | 550 km diameter | 2.4-2.8 km deep caldera |
[17] | 24 km above base | >500 km dia | |
[18] | 24 km high | 480 km dia | |
[19] | 24 km above datum | ||
[20] | 22 ±1 km above base | ||
[21] | 22 km above base | ||
[22] | 21.618 km high | ||
[23] | 21 km high | 600 km dia | |
[24] | 21 km high | 600 km dia |
The bit about Olympus standing "in a two-kilometre-deep depression" is wrong - see the topo map o' Mars - though it makes a difference if you measure the "height from the base" on the east or west side. -- wwoods 08:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
In the style of the Wikipedia:Million pool, in which participants attempt to name the day on which the English Wikipedia reaches one million articles, I suggest we all place bets on the timing of the first ascent of Olympus Mons, so that future generations of Wikipedians will be able to laugh at our comically inaccurate predictions. The competition closes to new entries on the day the first manned mission reaches Mars. Nearest person wins eternal fame and a Mars Bar. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the moment, I'm not putting in a guess. However, I feel I might add that it is highly unlikely that NASA will have the first manned mission to Mars be on Olympus Mons. SkepticBanner ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WHY IS THERE A CLIMBING SECTION IN THIS PAGE? can someone delete the section about the aliens and humans that climbed the mountain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.122.177 ( talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
According to charts like these [25] at Olympus mon's peak the atmospheric pressure is 1/60 average Martian surface pressure and that high altitude cloud cover is still possible, thus Olympus mons is still within the Martian atmosphere. Despite the Martian average atmospheric pressure being .006th our’s, the much lower gravity at mars allows it’s atmosphere to extend much higher. -- BerserkerBen 03:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Look, entries for Venus, Neptune, and many of the other planets all have sections for their appearence in science fiction and films. It is not unreasonable that the exosquad entry be in this article. I have shortened it to a mere sentence. Please stop editing it out.
It says Error:Out of range
Yaohua2000 09:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Since we havent observed any mountains outside the solar system wouldnt it be just as accurate to describe it as the largest known mountain or largest in the known universe or something like that?
World Traveller, I recall you opposed the In Fiction section of this article when I initially added it some months ago, but you relented and it's done nothing but grow since then with further additions from other users, which is an indication this is an area of interest. I don't think outright deleting it was appropriate. As I noted before, virtually every article on a major body of space (all the planets, basicly) has a section on its presense in Fiction. As perhaps the single most notable feature of any solar object, Olympus Mons also should be deserving of this acknowledgement. As the various entries show, Olympus Mons is a popular setting in various fictions.
If you are truly vehemently opposed to the section, then a compromise would be a seperate article. Most of the planetary bodies have seperate articles for their presense in Fiction, because they are usually quite large entries ( Mars, especially). Olympus Mons' In Fiction section is not even half as large as any of the planet's In Fiction entries, but a seperate article could be created. However, I do not think it's necessary to seperate. Elijya 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have some issues with the following factoids given in the text:
The atmospheric pressure at the top is about 2% that of average Martian surface pressure
if one were to stand on the highest point of its summit, the slope of the volcano would extend all the way to the horizon
Are there some references to back up these assertions? Thanks! :-) — RJH ( talk) 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the following data points are seen as questionable: height and diameter, horizon and the atmospheric data. If we could get citations for these data points, preferably from NASA or another space agency, that would be great. K e rowyn Leave a note 22:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I don't understand why it is written in the article that from the top of Olympus Mons, you can only see as far as 3 km, when the article cited as reference 4 [Martian Volcanoes on HST Images] [27]... explains that:
"Second, if this same person stood at the top of Olympus Mons (88704 ft) we would find that he or she could see a lot further to the horizon, some 265 miles away, if nothing was in the way"
P.S. Even from the the base of the volcano you could see the first 50 miles of the volcano!!
This is a serious mistake.... huge as the biggest mountain in the Solar system.
-- 193.231.140.68 23:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Mihai
The 'citation required' tags are maddening sometimes. For example: Olympus Mons is a big as Arizona, but a statement that you can only see it properly from space is regarded as 'needing citation'. Surely a moment's thought would suggest the statement is obviously true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.46.64.159 ( talk) 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Is the leading image of Olympus Mons in the article the best that we can do? It's a bit of a sideways glance at the mountain. An overhead view of the entire mountain (or the caldera) might be better. Or am I just wanting something that we don't have? Cheers, -- Plumbago 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A full-profile pic (taken from an orbiting spacecraft off above the horizon, one imagines) would be a good addition to this article. Anyone know where/if one is? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:
mars is a bar, not a planet, tit
ps: i love jesus
I took out the geohack link (replaced with non hotlinked coordinates), as it seems useless. All the resources on geohack are for Earth, not Mars. The point gets plotted in the middle of the North Pacific. I've looked at articles for a few other features on the moon and Mars, and didn't see any coordinates hotlinked. If there is a good resource for Martian/Lunar maps, hotlinked coordinates would be a nice feature, but I don't know where to link to. 192.104.39.2 ( talk) 16:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Nix Olympica ("Snows of Olympus"). Nix meaning snow, I gather? Which language would that be in? Stefansquintet ( talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Geology of Mars and Volcanism on Mars articles. If no one minds, I'd like to do some relatively minor edits on this article to make it a little more consistent with mine. Schaffman ( talk) 12:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If no one objects, I recommend placing location information in a second paragraph in the intro block before TOC. This keeps the more detailed info separate from the general. Schaffman ( talk) 11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's beleived to have begun in Hesperian times, but its bulk is probably Amazonian. No sense quibbling here, though. BTW: Amazonian is a period, not an epoch; there's a difference. Schaffman ( talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The references are outdated and based on pre- MOLA estimates. The actual elevation (Plescia, 2004) is 21 km. Schaffman ( talk) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the volcano is 21 km above datum (zero elevation). The mean surface level can (and probably is) different. This needs to be fixed. Dang, I just want to make a few changes and all these other quibbling things pop up. Schaffman ( talk) 13:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
They are six nested calderas. To me, pit crater implies something else. I think we should use dimensions and terminolgy given by Carr (2006), p. 51. Schaffman ( talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The escarpment is actually up to 8 km high because the plains along the base are 2 km below datum (elevation -2 km) in places (Carr, 2006). Schaffman ( talk) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is strictly true. Why not just say "average slope is less than 5 degrees."? Schaffman ( talk) 16:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right. Let's just say the average slope is 5 degrees. I have a reference. Schaffman ( talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt you could see the opposite rim. Even if you're just talking about seeing the floor of the caldera 80 km away, it's still a confusing comment. If we even need to address this topic at all, I'd recommend just saying that from the surrounding plains, one could see the basal escapment of the volcano. A 5-mile high cliff is pretty impressive in itself ! Schaffman ( talk) 15:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is this paragraph necessary? Schaffman ( talk) 16:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
An occasional misconception by whom? I'd delete this statement. Schaffman ( talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I calculate 12% using a scale height of 10 km. This would make the average pressure at the top of Oympus Mons about 0.72 mbar (72 pa), if the zero elevation pressure is taken as 6 mbar. Schaffman ( talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a recent reference for this. According to my reference (Zurek et al., 1992 in Mars; Kieffer et al. Eds.) this statement is false. The Viking infrared imaging spectrometer (IRIS) and the Infrared Thermal Mapper (IRTM) showed that the orographic clouds over Tharsis are composed of micron-sized water-ice particles (p. 860). Schaffman ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This photo is of the scarp face of a normal fault on the flank of the volcano, not the basal escarpment. Because of the potential for confusion I recommend deleting it. Schaffman ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think the evidence for glacial activity is closer to the mountain, on the northwest side at the base of the escarpment. The way this is written now sounds like the aureole itself is a glacial landform, which it is not commonly thought to be (to my knowledge). Schaffman ( talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
A topic of recent research on Olympus Mons is the role of "volcanic speading" in creating its unique morphology. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203175343.htm. The subject also has astrobiological implications, so I'd like to briefly introduce it in this article. Schaffman ( talk) 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Finished geology discussion except for edits and adding references here and there. Schaffman ( talk) 17:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Surely it's the tallest known volcano in the Universe, not just the Solar System. 82.46.49.194 ( talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This was recently changed to collapsed craters, which I think is less correct: a caldera is a crater created when a magma chamber collapses, not a crater (formed in some unspecified way) which has itself collapsed. — Tamfang ( talk) 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with this article that I'm not sure how to fix.
First, the lead says that Olympus Mons became the tallest mountain on any world after the discovery of Rheasilvia Mons. That doesn't make sense. How did discovering a shorter mountain make Olympus Mons suddenly the tallest?
Second, the info box says Olympus Mons was discovered by Mariner 9, but the lead says it was known much earlier.
Suggestions? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Re: Description. The article mentions the soil composition as measured by rovers that roamed and climbed Olympus Mons. Which rovers? When? I am unaware of any rover missions anywhere near Olympus Mons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.132.48 ( talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all- I'm just reading this article before giving a Mars show and I'm brushing up on my mars knowledge. I noticed that the last section about possible impact origin seems to have been written by one individual. Scientific merit aside, it appears to be an angry rant trying to discredit the volcanic theory above, not a discussion about the merits of each theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.102.13 ( talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
″It stands almost three times as tall as Mount Everest's height above sea level."
IMHO, "nearly 22 km" isn't really "almost three times" 8848 m. Nearly 22000 m isn't even 2.5 times 8840 m (22120 m), so one can hardly round up to 3. Hence, I think it would be more correct to say "almost 2.5 times as high".--
91.89.231.229 (
talk) 15:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"The typical atmospheric pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is 72 pascal, about 12% of the average Martian surface pressure of 600 pascal." But the accompanying comparison table states 0.03kPa i.e. 30Pa, less than half this figure. Accompanying cite states "Standard Pressure Profiles measured by MGS Radio Science team at 27 km (17 mi) range from approx 30 to 50 pascals". Which is correct? -- 114.77.41.5 ( talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all- I'm just reading this article before giving a Mars show and I'm brushing up on my mars knowledge. I noticed that the last section about possible impact origin seems to have been written by one individual. Scientific merit aside, it appears to be an angry rant trying to discredit the volcanic theory above, not a discussion about the merits of each theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.102.13 ( talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed all the text from this section of the article, except the first paragraph. GeoWriter ( talk) 14:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this entire section. It is a fringe idea not supported in the scientific literature and not taken seriously (if it is even known about) by the scientific community-see all presented work on martian volcanism at the recent Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. The sole source (several paragraphs from Hamilton's 2015 book chapter "Terrestrial planets fractionated synchronously with accretion, but Earth progressed through subsequent internally dynamic stages whereas Venus and Mars have been inert for more than 4 billion years") argues that ALL martian volcanoes are impact-generated, so it would belong on Volcanology of Mars if it wasn't such a fringe idea. Hamilton argues that Alba, Arsia, Pavonis, and Ascraeus are all formed from bolides, based on no evidence other than his personal objection to mantle plumes on Earth. Hamilton continues to argue that other features identified as lava flows in the southern highlands are in fact "mud volcanoes", also with no evidence other than his personal opinion. The only source (Hamilton 2015) is cited by two articles (as per Google Scholar), neither of which is related to martian volcanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammorgan2 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The following excerpt is extremely confusing:
The extraordinary size of Olympus Mons is likely because Mars lacks mobile tectonic plates. Unlike on Earth, the crust of Mars remains fixed over a stationary hotspot, and a volcano can continue to discharge lava until it reaches an enormous height.[16]
The height is limited because of gravity and plasticity of rocks. The higher a volcano/mountain, the higher the pressure at its base. When this pressure reaches the plasticity limit of the rock involved, the volcano cannot go further up. Gravity on Mars is about 2.6 times smaller than on Earth, which explains why the highest volcano is about 2.6 times higher than the highest volcano/mountain on Earth.
The first sentence of the excerpt is OK, though, and the reference given [16] is not wrong, but it simply says:
Mars does not have plate tectonics, which causes the magma to build a volcano in one location making Olympus Mons so large.
In summary: "so large" is OK; "so high" is wrong. 130.79.10.22 ( talk) 09:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Venezia Friulano this is mostly directed at you, since you recently erased the part of the intro that clarified this point.
Olympus Mons is the tallest known volcano in the solar system, and it'll probably keep that title. However, if "largest" is judged by either area or volume, it is not the largest nor even close to the largest known volcano in the solar system. The largest by either of those metrics is Alba Mons, which is 2700 km wide at its widest, compared to Olympus at about 600 km. Pele and Tvashtar on Io, Leviathan on Triton, and Theia on Venus are all also distinctly larger than Olympus. This is not an exhaustive list, but you should have no trouble verifying that all of these are significantly larger than Olympus Mons.
The older version of the intro explained this in detail. I would like to revert to that version. Destrucules ( talk) 03:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It is telling that you are using articles and not scientific sources. That Olympus Mons is the "largest" volcano in the solar system is a popular misconception, not the scientific consensus. In scientific publications, Olympus Mons is referred to as the tallest mountain on Mars and as one of the largest, but it is not referred to as the largest volcano on Mars, let alone in the greater solar system. Here are some examples:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.12.020
https://doi.org/10.1038/309432a0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.003
It is very easy to verify that in terms of area, Olympus Mons is not close to being the largest volcano in the solar system. That is already a degree of ambiguity that needs to be addressed. Volume estimates are much harder to come by for a variety of reasons, but Alba Mons appears to be more voluminous than Olympus.
As much as we might wish otherwise, misconceptions about science have existed for centuries and will continue to exist long into the future. Even scientists are not always immune from repeating popular misconceptions. In these cases, it is not sufficient to trust short articles aimed at inspiring the public. It is necessary to find publications from scientists working closely and directly with the relevant material. In this case it is very clear that these publications contradict what is expressed in those popular articles. Destrucules ( talk) 19:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
References
The article currently says "Similarly, an observer near the summit would be unaware of standing on a very high mountain, as the slope of the volcano would extend far beyond the horizon, a mere 3 kilometers away."
and references
this source. Unless I'm missing something, that website does not say this: the 3 kilometres is for the view from the base ("First, if we were 6 feet tall and stood at the base of Olympus Mons we would then be able to see the horizon some 2.19 miles away"), and the figure from the summit is the much more respectable 265 miles = 426 km ("if this same person stood at the top of Olympus Mons (88704 ft) we would find that he or she could see a lot further to the horizon, some 265 miles away, if nothing was in the way").
82.18.206.157 (
talk) 10:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Olympus Mons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The intro describes Olympus Mons as second to Earth's Tamu Massif and Vesta's Rheasilvia in size and height, but both of those articles give figures that they are smaller than Olympus Mons. Craig Butz ( talk) 17:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Height of Olympus Mons is given in this article as 27 km, but was given as 25 km in the [[Mars (planet) article. I have adjusted to make both articles read the same. BUT there is no mention of how these different heights are calculated. As there is no " sea level" on Mars, as there is no sea of free water, what height datum is used? On Mars is the height above mean surface level used or is the height based on elevation above surrounding landscape? I understand Olympus Mons sits in a depression 2 km below mean surface level - this would account for the 2 km discrepancy between the articles. -- kiwiinapanic 09:18 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
My copy of The New Atlas of the Universe lists the height as 25 km above surface level. -- Dante Alighieri 10:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
So - how big is Olympus Mons?! I found a variety of answers:
[1] | 29 km above base | 600 km diameter | |
[2] | 29 km high | 500 km dia | |
[3] | 27 km high | 700 km dia | |
[4] | 27 km high | >600 km dia | |
[5] | 27 km above base | 600 km dia | |
[6] | 27 km above datum | ||
[7] | 27 km above datum | ||
[8] | 26 km above base | 500 km dia | |
[9] | 25 km above base | 800 km dia | |
[10] | 25 km high | 700 km dia | |
[11] | 25 km above base | 624 km dia | |
[12] | 25 km above base | 600 km dia | |
[13] | 25 km above base | 550 km dia | |
[14] | <25 km above base | 600 km dia | |
[15] | 25 km above datum | ||
[16] | 24 km above base (to caldera?) | 550 km diameter | 2.4-2.8 km deep caldera |
[17] | 24 km above base | >500 km dia | |
[18] | 24 km high | 480 km dia | |
[19] | 24 km above datum | ||
[20] | 22 ±1 km above base | ||
[21] | 22 km above base | ||
[22] | 21.618 km high | ||
[23] | 21 km high | 600 km dia | |
[24] | 21 km high | 600 km dia |
The bit about Olympus standing "in a two-kilometre-deep depression" is wrong - see the topo map o' Mars - though it makes a difference if you measure the "height from the base" on the east or west side. -- wwoods 08:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
In the style of the Wikipedia:Million pool, in which participants attempt to name the day on which the English Wikipedia reaches one million articles, I suggest we all place bets on the timing of the first ascent of Olympus Mons, so that future generations of Wikipedians will be able to laugh at our comically inaccurate predictions. The competition closes to new entries on the day the first manned mission reaches Mars. Nearest person wins eternal fame and a Mars Bar. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the moment, I'm not putting in a guess. However, I feel I might add that it is highly unlikely that NASA will have the first manned mission to Mars be on Olympus Mons. SkepticBanner ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WHY IS THERE A CLIMBING SECTION IN THIS PAGE? can someone delete the section about the aliens and humans that climbed the mountain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.122.177 ( talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
According to charts like these [25] at Olympus mon's peak the atmospheric pressure is 1/60 average Martian surface pressure and that high altitude cloud cover is still possible, thus Olympus mons is still within the Martian atmosphere. Despite the Martian average atmospheric pressure being .006th our’s, the much lower gravity at mars allows it’s atmosphere to extend much higher. -- BerserkerBen 03:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Look, entries for Venus, Neptune, and many of the other planets all have sections for their appearence in science fiction and films. It is not unreasonable that the exosquad entry be in this article. I have shortened it to a mere sentence. Please stop editing it out.
It says Error:Out of range
Yaohua2000 09:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Since we havent observed any mountains outside the solar system wouldnt it be just as accurate to describe it as the largest known mountain or largest in the known universe or something like that?
World Traveller, I recall you opposed the In Fiction section of this article when I initially added it some months ago, but you relented and it's done nothing but grow since then with further additions from other users, which is an indication this is an area of interest. I don't think outright deleting it was appropriate. As I noted before, virtually every article on a major body of space (all the planets, basicly) has a section on its presense in Fiction. As perhaps the single most notable feature of any solar object, Olympus Mons also should be deserving of this acknowledgement. As the various entries show, Olympus Mons is a popular setting in various fictions.
If you are truly vehemently opposed to the section, then a compromise would be a seperate article. Most of the planetary bodies have seperate articles for their presense in Fiction, because they are usually quite large entries ( Mars, especially). Olympus Mons' In Fiction section is not even half as large as any of the planet's In Fiction entries, but a seperate article could be created. However, I do not think it's necessary to seperate. Elijya 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have some issues with the following factoids given in the text:
The atmospheric pressure at the top is about 2% that of average Martian surface pressure
if one were to stand on the highest point of its summit, the slope of the volcano would extend all the way to the horizon
Are there some references to back up these assertions? Thanks! :-) — RJH ( talk) 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the following data points are seen as questionable: height and diameter, horizon and the atmospheric data. If we could get citations for these data points, preferably from NASA or another space agency, that would be great. K e rowyn Leave a note 22:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I don't understand why it is written in the article that from the top of Olympus Mons, you can only see as far as 3 km, when the article cited as reference 4 [Martian Volcanoes on HST Images] [27]... explains that:
"Second, if this same person stood at the top of Olympus Mons (88704 ft) we would find that he or she could see a lot further to the horizon, some 265 miles away, if nothing was in the way"
P.S. Even from the the base of the volcano you could see the first 50 miles of the volcano!!
This is a serious mistake.... huge as the biggest mountain in the Solar system.
-- 193.231.140.68 23:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Mihai
The 'citation required' tags are maddening sometimes. For example: Olympus Mons is a big as Arizona, but a statement that you can only see it properly from space is regarded as 'needing citation'. Surely a moment's thought would suggest the statement is obviously true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.46.64.159 ( talk) 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Is the leading image of Olympus Mons in the article the best that we can do? It's a bit of a sideways glance at the mountain. An overhead view of the entire mountain (or the caldera) might be better. Or am I just wanting something that we don't have? Cheers, -- Plumbago 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A full-profile pic (taken from an orbiting spacecraft off above the horizon, one imagines) would be a good addition to this article. Anyone know where/if one is? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:
mars is a bar, not a planet, tit
ps: i love jesus
I took out the geohack link (replaced with non hotlinked coordinates), as it seems useless. All the resources on geohack are for Earth, not Mars. The point gets plotted in the middle of the North Pacific. I've looked at articles for a few other features on the moon and Mars, and didn't see any coordinates hotlinked. If there is a good resource for Martian/Lunar maps, hotlinked coordinates would be a nice feature, but I don't know where to link to. 192.104.39.2 ( talk) 16:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Nix Olympica ("Snows of Olympus"). Nix meaning snow, I gather? Which language would that be in? Stefansquintet ( talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Geology of Mars and Volcanism on Mars articles. If no one minds, I'd like to do some relatively minor edits on this article to make it a little more consistent with mine. Schaffman ( talk) 12:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If no one objects, I recommend placing location information in a second paragraph in the intro block before TOC. This keeps the more detailed info separate from the general. Schaffman ( talk) 11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's beleived to have begun in Hesperian times, but its bulk is probably Amazonian. No sense quibbling here, though. BTW: Amazonian is a period, not an epoch; there's a difference. Schaffman ( talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The references are outdated and based on pre- MOLA estimates. The actual elevation (Plescia, 2004) is 21 km. Schaffman ( talk) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the volcano is 21 km above datum (zero elevation). The mean surface level can (and probably is) different. This needs to be fixed. Dang, I just want to make a few changes and all these other quibbling things pop up. Schaffman ( talk) 13:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
They are six nested calderas. To me, pit crater implies something else. I think we should use dimensions and terminolgy given by Carr (2006), p. 51. Schaffman ( talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The escarpment is actually up to 8 km high because the plains along the base are 2 km below datum (elevation -2 km) in places (Carr, 2006). Schaffman ( talk) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is strictly true. Why not just say "average slope is less than 5 degrees."? Schaffman ( talk) 16:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right. Let's just say the average slope is 5 degrees. I have a reference. Schaffman ( talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt you could see the opposite rim. Even if you're just talking about seeing the floor of the caldera 80 km away, it's still a confusing comment. If we even need to address this topic at all, I'd recommend just saying that from the surrounding plains, one could see the basal escapment of the volcano. A 5-mile high cliff is pretty impressive in itself ! Schaffman ( talk) 15:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is this paragraph necessary? Schaffman ( talk) 16:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
An occasional misconception by whom? I'd delete this statement. Schaffman ( talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I calculate 12% using a scale height of 10 km. This would make the average pressure at the top of Oympus Mons about 0.72 mbar (72 pa), if the zero elevation pressure is taken as 6 mbar. Schaffman ( talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a recent reference for this. According to my reference (Zurek et al., 1992 in Mars; Kieffer et al. Eds.) this statement is false. The Viking infrared imaging spectrometer (IRIS) and the Infrared Thermal Mapper (IRTM) showed that the orographic clouds over Tharsis are composed of micron-sized water-ice particles (p. 860). Schaffman ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This photo is of the scarp face of a normal fault on the flank of the volcano, not the basal escarpment. Because of the potential for confusion I recommend deleting it. Schaffman ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think the evidence for glacial activity is closer to the mountain, on the northwest side at the base of the escarpment. The way this is written now sounds like the aureole itself is a glacial landform, which it is not commonly thought to be (to my knowledge). Schaffman ( talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
A topic of recent research on Olympus Mons is the role of "volcanic speading" in creating its unique morphology. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203175343.htm. The subject also has astrobiological implications, so I'd like to briefly introduce it in this article. Schaffman ( talk) 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Finished geology discussion except for edits and adding references here and there. Schaffman ( talk) 17:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Surely it's the tallest known volcano in the Universe, not just the Solar System. 82.46.49.194 ( talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This was recently changed to collapsed craters, which I think is less correct: a caldera is a crater created when a magma chamber collapses, not a crater (formed in some unspecified way) which has itself collapsed. — Tamfang ( talk) 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with this article that I'm not sure how to fix.
First, the lead says that Olympus Mons became the tallest mountain on any world after the discovery of Rheasilvia Mons. That doesn't make sense. How did discovering a shorter mountain make Olympus Mons suddenly the tallest?
Second, the info box says Olympus Mons was discovered by Mariner 9, but the lead says it was known much earlier.
Suggestions? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Re: Description. The article mentions the soil composition as measured by rovers that roamed and climbed Olympus Mons. Which rovers? When? I am unaware of any rover missions anywhere near Olympus Mons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.132.48 ( talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all- I'm just reading this article before giving a Mars show and I'm brushing up on my mars knowledge. I noticed that the last section about possible impact origin seems to have been written by one individual. Scientific merit aside, it appears to be an angry rant trying to discredit the volcanic theory above, not a discussion about the merits of each theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.102.13 ( talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
″It stands almost three times as tall as Mount Everest's height above sea level."
IMHO, "nearly 22 km" isn't really "almost three times" 8848 m. Nearly 22000 m isn't even 2.5 times 8840 m (22120 m), so one can hardly round up to 3. Hence, I think it would be more correct to say "almost 2.5 times as high".--
91.89.231.229 (
talk) 15:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"The typical atmospheric pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is 72 pascal, about 12% of the average Martian surface pressure of 600 pascal." But the accompanying comparison table states 0.03kPa i.e. 30Pa, less than half this figure. Accompanying cite states "Standard Pressure Profiles measured by MGS Radio Science team at 27 km (17 mi) range from approx 30 to 50 pascals". Which is correct? -- 114.77.41.5 ( talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all- I'm just reading this article before giving a Mars show and I'm brushing up on my mars knowledge. I noticed that the last section about possible impact origin seems to have been written by one individual. Scientific merit aside, it appears to be an angry rant trying to discredit the volcanic theory above, not a discussion about the merits of each theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.102.13 ( talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed all the text from this section of the article, except the first paragraph. GeoWriter ( talk) 14:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this entire section. It is a fringe idea not supported in the scientific literature and not taken seriously (if it is even known about) by the scientific community-see all presented work on martian volcanism at the recent Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. The sole source (several paragraphs from Hamilton's 2015 book chapter "Terrestrial planets fractionated synchronously with accretion, but Earth progressed through subsequent internally dynamic stages whereas Venus and Mars have been inert for more than 4 billion years") argues that ALL martian volcanoes are impact-generated, so it would belong on Volcanology of Mars if it wasn't such a fringe idea. Hamilton argues that Alba, Arsia, Pavonis, and Ascraeus are all formed from bolides, based on no evidence other than his personal objection to mantle plumes on Earth. Hamilton continues to argue that other features identified as lava flows in the southern highlands are in fact "mud volcanoes", also with no evidence other than his personal opinion. The only source (Hamilton 2015) is cited by two articles (as per Google Scholar), neither of which is related to martian volcanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammorgan2 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The following excerpt is extremely confusing:
The extraordinary size of Olympus Mons is likely because Mars lacks mobile tectonic plates. Unlike on Earth, the crust of Mars remains fixed over a stationary hotspot, and a volcano can continue to discharge lava until it reaches an enormous height.[16]
The height is limited because of gravity and plasticity of rocks. The higher a volcano/mountain, the higher the pressure at its base. When this pressure reaches the plasticity limit of the rock involved, the volcano cannot go further up. Gravity on Mars is about 2.6 times smaller than on Earth, which explains why the highest volcano is about 2.6 times higher than the highest volcano/mountain on Earth.
The first sentence of the excerpt is OK, though, and the reference given [16] is not wrong, but it simply says:
Mars does not have plate tectonics, which causes the magma to build a volcano in one location making Olympus Mons so large.
In summary: "so large" is OK; "so high" is wrong. 130.79.10.22 ( talk) 09:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Venezia Friulano this is mostly directed at you, since you recently erased the part of the intro that clarified this point.
Olympus Mons is the tallest known volcano in the solar system, and it'll probably keep that title. However, if "largest" is judged by either area or volume, it is not the largest nor even close to the largest known volcano in the solar system. The largest by either of those metrics is Alba Mons, which is 2700 km wide at its widest, compared to Olympus at about 600 km. Pele and Tvashtar on Io, Leviathan on Triton, and Theia on Venus are all also distinctly larger than Olympus. This is not an exhaustive list, but you should have no trouble verifying that all of these are significantly larger than Olympus Mons.
The older version of the intro explained this in detail. I would like to revert to that version. Destrucules ( talk) 03:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It is telling that you are using articles and not scientific sources. That Olympus Mons is the "largest" volcano in the solar system is a popular misconception, not the scientific consensus. In scientific publications, Olympus Mons is referred to as the tallest mountain on Mars and as one of the largest, but it is not referred to as the largest volcano on Mars, let alone in the greater solar system. Here are some examples:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.12.020
https://doi.org/10.1038/309432a0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.003
It is very easy to verify that in terms of area, Olympus Mons is not close to being the largest volcano in the solar system. That is already a degree of ambiguity that needs to be addressed. Volume estimates are much harder to come by for a variety of reasons, but Alba Mons appears to be more voluminous than Olympus.
As much as we might wish otherwise, misconceptions about science have existed for centuries and will continue to exist long into the future. Even scientists are not always immune from repeating popular misconceptions. In these cases, it is not sufficient to trust short articles aimed at inspiring the public. It is necessary to find publications from scientists working closely and directly with the relevant material. In this case it is very clear that these publications contradict what is expressed in those popular articles. Destrucules ( talk) 19:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
References
The article currently says "Similarly, an observer near the summit would be unaware of standing on a very high mountain, as the slope of the volcano would extend far beyond the horizon, a mere 3 kilometers away."
and references
this source. Unless I'm missing something, that website does not say this: the 3 kilometres is for the view from the base ("First, if we were 6 feet tall and stood at the base of Olympus Mons we would then be able to see the horizon some 2.19 miles away"), and the figure from the summit is the much more respectable 265 miles = 426 km ("if this same person stood at the top of Olympus Mons (88704 ft) we would find that he or she could see a lot further to the horizon, some 265 miles away, if nothing was in the way").
82.18.206.157 (
talk) 10:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)