From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Mars is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Mars is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Mars is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
WikiProject Solar System / Mars (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mars (marked as Top-importance).
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Mars:

Please update to reflect the success of India lower down the article in the Exploration section as the one of the countries to have sent a mission and also the first Asian country and the first to achieve orbit on first mission - you have identified the satellite in the initial paragraphs but not in the exploration body where the additional detail might best be inserted.

Please update highest temperature on Mars. While the conservative figures quoted are from Nasa, there are other Nasa sites especialy rover site which quotes much higher numbers. Would somebody please further research and update. A quote from nasa rover source at :

Change min-max surface temperature. Min is -153 °C and the max is 20 °C according to NASA. Source: (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Any chance that Fahrenheit temps could also be included on right hand chart??

Incorrect conversion of summer max temps in S. Hemisphere : 30C <--> 54F which is correct?

Both are correct. This is a temperature DIFFERENCE, not an absolute temperature. Boardhead (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Aluminum" really? Step it up America.

The 47-year cycle of Mars was observed by the Ancients[edit]

The 47-year cycle of Mars: after 47 years - 22 synodic periods of 780 days each - Mars returns to the same position among the stars and is in the same relationship to the Earth and Sun. The ancient Mesopotamians discovered this cycle. [1]

Closest approaches - correction request[edit]

Under 7. Views - Closest approaches is says:

"The last Mars opposition occurred on April 8, 2014 at a distance of about 180 million km." ref[194]

According to reference [194] the distance is 0.621 AU which equals about 93 million km not 180.

Pls. correct. to "93 million Km." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The source shows 0.621 AU (92,900,000 km; 57,700,000 mi). Yes check.svg Done

Ouch, one of our Orbital dynamics Jedi stepped into that one on 14 June 2014. -- Kheider (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015[edit]

I wanted to request to make a slight change in tone regarding how frequently pressure and temperature conditions allow for liquid water on Mars.

The landers since viking routinely (meaning on a daily basis) measure pressures above 800 Pascal, and temperatures above the freezing point of water. The article as written implies that this only happens rarely.

The triple point of water is at a pressure of about 611 Pascals. Over a 100 sol period in 2008, the Phoenix lander recorded an average pressure of about 857 Pa. In 1976, the Viking lander recorded pressures over 700 Pa. The Curiosity probe which landed in 2012 often measures pressures as high as 1000 Pa with temperatures above 0C at the same time.

In fact, in most places where probes have landed, the pressure is consistently above the triple point. For example, Phoenix typically measures pressure above 800 Pa, and the most recent rover, Curiosity (MSL) routinely measures pressures between 700 and 1000 Pa. Thus, liquid water is possible whenever the temperature crosses 0 Celcius, which occurs on a daily basis during Spring and Summer days.

Now, I know this type of edit must be done carefully to avoid creating a tone that implies that liquid water is abundant.

For example the section on hydrology opens with:

"Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars due to low atmospheric pressure, which is about 100 times thinner than Earth's,[61] except at the lowest elevations for short periods."

Perhaps a better way to start this section might be:

"Liquid water can exist on the surface of Mars. The triple point of water is 611 Pa, and the pressure on Mars is frequently above this, especially at lower elevations. However, Mars is very dry, so even when pressure and temperatures allow for liquid water, it is rarely present..."

This is a subtle point that I think should be addressed...

The lander data from JPL...[1] confirms that liquid water can occur frequently.

TomEdBrennan (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 17:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are several recent published articles that claim that liquid water occurs on Mars. Mostly based on orbital photography of frequent changes in water-flow gullies:


Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).



Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).




Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That's not an on-wiki discussion that has achieved a consensus to implement your requested changes. Please do what we've asked instead. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^ <html><head></head><body>
      title={Recurring Slope Lineae: Evidence for Present-Day Flowing Water on Mars?},
      author={McEwen, A and Byrne, S and Dundas, C and Mattson, S and Murchie, S and Ojha, L and Schaefer, E and Thomas, N and Wray, J},
      booktitle={European Planetary Science Congress 2012},
  3. ^ <html><head></head><body>
      title={Metastability of liquid water on Mars},
      author={Hecht, Michael H},
  4. ^ <html><head></head><body>
      title={On the possibility of liquid water on present-day Mars},
      author={Haberle, Robert M and McKay, Christopher P and Schaeffer, James and Cabrol, Nathalie A and Grin, Edmon A and Zent, Aaron P and Quinn, Richard},
      journal={Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991--2012)},
      publisher={Wiley Online Library}
  5. ^ <html><head></head><body>
      title={A closer look at water-related geologic activity on Mars},
      author={McEwen, AS and Hansen, CJ and Delamere, WA and Eliason, EM and Herkenhoff, KE and Keszthelyi, L and Gulick, VC and Kirk, RL and Mellon, MT and Grant, JA and others},
      publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science}
  6. ^ <html><head></head><body>
      title={Recent gullies on Mars and the source of liquid water},
      author={Mellon, Michael T and Phillips, Roger J},
      journal={Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991--2012)},
      publisher={Wiley Online Library}
  7. ^ <html><head></head><body>
      title={Recent climate cycles on Mars: Stratigraphic relationships between multiple generations of gullies and the latitude dependent mantle},
      author={Dickson, James L and Head, James W and Goudge, Timothy A and Barbieri, Lindsay},

Lead image[edit]

Viking 1 Orbiter (Global Mars; 1998) (57mb TIF-file)
Viking 1 Orbiter (Syrtis Major; 1980-A)
Viking 1 Orbiter (Valles Marineris; 1980-B)
Viking 1 composite (Valles Marineris; 1980-C)
Hubble image 2
Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) composite image
Mars - Viking OrbiterMars - Viking Orbiter
Mars - Viking OrbiterMars - Viking Orbiter
Mars - Hubble2Mars - MGS
Comparison: Different Views of Mars (from top left):

Okay, this section is long overdue. Looks like we have three candidates for lead image: a composite from MGS data, an image from the Rosetta flyby, and an image from Hubble (all pictured at right). Let's all say which one we prefer and give our reasoning to try to reach a consensus on this.

For me, the most important criterion that planet lead images should be judged by is likeness to life. I believe that the average Wikipedia reader expects the lead image to depict the planet as it would actually appear and that to show it any other way would be misleading. For this reason, I object to using the MGS composite as the lead image. It is by far the most detailed, but it bears little resemblance to what Mars actually looks like from the perspective shown in the image. Essentially, it is a creative way to display images taken from low orbit, from which perspective the surface looks very different than from the distant perspective artificially shown in the composite image. Look around the edges, especially in the polar regions, and you can see very clear artifacts from the wrapping of flat, low-altitude images onto a sphere. It would be fine to use this image elsewhere in the article, but I think the lead should show the planet as it actually appears.

In accordance with "likeness to life", my first choice is the Rosetta flyby image, a single capture from a spacecraft in the vicinity of Mars. I strongly prefer that the image be used as it was originally posted, without the "enhanced" color processing, which makes the picture look prettier but less true-color and thus less accurate. The ESA website has the "enhanced" color image labeled as true-color, so I stand corrected. I understand that this image also has potential copyright issues, and I of course do not support it if those are not resolved.

My second choice is the Hubble image. As a telescopic image, it is not as preferable as one actually taken in the vicinity of Mars, but it is still truer to life than the MGS composite. If the color of the Rosetta image is not changed back to the original or if the copyright issues prove unresolvable, this is my first choice. A2soup (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for posting - I *entirely* agree with you - the preferred image would be the "Mars ESA Rosetta image" - But - the ESA copyright policy is problematic for Wikipedia use and such images are generally speedily deleted (User:Huntster has a lot of experience with such ESA images on Wikipedia and may be helpful in this instance as well I would think) - my second choice would also be the "Mars Hubble image" - seems this image may be the most popular on Wikipedia: see "Local English usage" and "Global usage" - in any case - Thanks again for posting - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The Hubble image is, by far, of the lowest quality, so is not option. The Rosetta image, in its current high-resolution version but back in true color, is a good option IMO. Else, the MGS image is a basically equally fine IMO. --JorisvS (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The Rosetta image is absolutely a no-go. The image is by the OSIRIS instrument operated by the Max Planck Institute, and those images are not released under a free license like the NAVCAM images are. Note that it comes from Let me go look around and see if there are any other images that would suffice for the infobox. I personally don't see an issue with using the Hubble image despite its size. It may be the best real representative image of the planet. Huntster (t @ c) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the source of the Rosetta image, it looks like the current version is actually directly from the ESA website. A2soup (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I was referring to the original image uploaded. Regardless, still an OSIRIS image and not freely licensed. Huntster (t @ c) 23:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The HST image is of low quality compared to the other two. The MGS is a composite, so what? Composites are very common in order to get high-resolution images of astronomical objects, which could not have been acquired at a large enough distance to image the entire object. --JorisvS (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
For sure, global composites from low-altitude images are definitely useful for presenting detailed information on global geography. The problem is that they don't accurately represent what the planet looks like, which I think should be the priority for the infobox to avoid misleading readers. To give a more dramatic but equivalent example, this lovely high-resolution radar composite of Venus is not in the infobox. It shows much more information than the infobox image, but misrepresents what Venus actually looks like. So it goes in the section about Venus's surface, which I think is also the proper place for the MGS composite in this article. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a) a radar image, and b) has less than 100% coverage. This means it is totally different from what it would look like in the visual. What are the biggest differences with how Mars would have looked at the time, exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It would have looked much more like the Rosetta and Hubble images, which resemble each other but not the MGS composite. So, as far as I can tell, the biggest differences are that surface geography would have been much less visible, the poles would have had larger apparent white regions, and the poles would have had fewer projection artifacts. Also, "at that time" doesn't mean much here, since the MGS images were taken over a significant time span. A2soup (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the Rosetta image at right as it is not acceptable, and replaced it with another Hubble image for consideration ("Hubble image 2"). While, again, not of the highest resolution, I like that it shows acceptable surface texture and polar ice, and I suppose atmosphere on the limbs. As for the composite image, while it may be of higher resolution, it simply It doesn't feel like a natural, or classicly recognizable, representation of Mars. I just don't know that I could give it my vote. Huntster (t @ c) 04:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There must be other ones out there, one's that have less distortion than the MGS image, but have been made from orbit (and hence less fuzzy than the HST images). --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes - the new "Hubble2 image" seems *entirely* ok with me as well - seems to be a higher resolution than the "Hubble1 image" (over three times? => 1600x1600/"Hubble2 image" vs 500x500/"Hubble1 image") and nearly the same resolution (only 1/3 less?) of the "MGS image" (at 2400x2400) - also - the "Hubble2 image" seems very popular on Wikipedia (see global usage) - the "Hubble2 image" seems an *excellent* replacement for the "present MGS image" imo - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely better, but still fuzzy at places and what are the bluish areas (in both Hubble images)? What about the classic by Viking 1, any problems with it? --JorisvS (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Viking 1 image" seems much better to me than the "MGS image" - but the "Hubble2 image" still seems the best to me atm - (fwiw, User:Joannebogdan rates the images as follows: "Hubble2 image/best" => "MGS image" => Hubble1 image" => "Viking 1 image") - hope this all helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
So what make the HST2 image better? --JorisvS (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
To me - the "Hubble2 image" seems more real; the others, less real (more unreal?) - (fwiw - User:Joannebogdan notes => the "Hubble2 image" has a "unique and a distinctive quality - and - is more memorable than the others") - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
More "real", but why? Is it the colors, that there are ice caps or these bluish clouds (or whatever they are), that the features are less sharp, or something else? --JorisvS (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the question - Yes - just an overall impression - perhaps the color(s) as noted - or the familiar look (to me) of Mars over the years - more importantly - the "Hubble2 image" seems best to me atm imo - opinions from others are welcome also of course - Thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have found a different version of the Viking 1 image, with the colors more vivid[2]. What's your impression of that? --JorisvS (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The "new Viking 1 image" seems better to me than the "old Viking 1 image" - to me atm - my present rating: "Hubble2 image/best" => "new Viking 1 image" => "old Viking 1 image" => "Hubble1 image" => "MGS image" - please understand, I'm somewhat flexible with all this - I see good material in *all* the images - other opinions welcome of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - a possible "compromise" suggestion *might* be the newly created multiple four-images presentation (or some variant of course) posted above - In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I like "Hubble image 2" a lot. It is my first choice, followed by Hubble image 1, followed by both composites, which I disagree with equally. The Rosetta image would be my first choice if not for the copyright issues.
The problem with the Viking composite is, like the MGS composite but not as egregiously, it just doesn't accurately represent what Mars looks like from the perspective artificially shown. This is obvious by comparing it to the Hubble images and the (now sadly removed) Rosetta image, which were actually taken from a distant perspective and show much less surface topography, something that I suspect is an effect of the atmosphere. So, to reiterate my initial point, presenting low-altitude images from a distant perspective simply misrepresents how Mars actually looks and is therefore misleading. That is my main problem with such composites, at least of atmospheric bodies. The color of the Viking composite is also a bit wonky, something that is not fixed by tweaking it photoshop. Also, projection artifacts are still present at the edges and poles, as in the MGS composite.
I disagree with a 4-image compromise-- the unused images can go elsewhere in the article, and no other astronomical object has a combined lead image since it just isn't aesthetically pleasing. I say we wait for a few more comments, then go with the consensus. I'll post a link to this discussion over at WikiProject Solar System to get some more participation. A2soup (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes - agreed for my part - no problem whatsoever - should note, however, that a multiple-images lead (in this instance, five images) is on at least one astronomical object article at the following => "Dwarf planet" - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant that there is no article for a particular astronomical object with a combined lead image. Dwarf planet and planet are classes of astronomical objects, so it makes more sense to have a combined image there. Thanks for clarifying the point, though. A2soup (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Additionally, I think using a combined image makes the individual planet images too small in the infobox to be of use. Huntster (t @ c) 03:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

But why does the Hubble2 image look unsharp—look especially at the south polar region? And why does it end so abruptly at the edges, as if the pixels are not area-averaged of what's actually there? --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The abrupt ending at the edges is because the absolutely black background was added in post-processing-- I imagine that the background that was acquired was nowhere near so neat. As for the unsharpness, well, the whole image is kind of unsharp because of the limits of Hubble's resolution. Now I miss the Rosetta image even more; it has neither of these problems :( A2soup (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem I have with the Hubble2 image, especially the latter. It is not of the resolution it pretends to be. And doesn't this contribute to the fuzziness of the surface features? --JorisvS (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I do wish that the Hubble images had better resolution, but I still prefer them to low-altitude composites for reasons I have already talked about too much and won't go over again. The Rosetta image is really ideal-- it's beautiful and we all seem to agree on it. The ESA copyright policy states: "Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, software, material or services, in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorization" (emphasis mine). Since Emily Lakdawalla uses OSIRIS images on her blog regularly, and I can't find any contact info for the OSIRIS team directly, I'm going to email her about how we might go about getting permission to use the image. I'll update here with the results. A2soup (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Remember, it isn't a matter of getting permission for us to use the images. That's just a matter of fair use, which is what Emily is operating under. We must use freely licensed images because, even if they're not the best of the best, other comparable freely licensed images of Mars exist in spades. Unless ESA specifically releases that image under their CC license, it won't be usable. Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. I was digging through the copyright policies today (for the first time) and concluded as much. I was holding out hope that perhaps we could we could work something special out given written permission from ESA. You have to wonder what they gain from being so much more restrictive than NASA.
(removed comment proposing non-free images here) A2soup (talk) 12:03 am, Today (UTC−6)
Sorry, but I've removed those MOM images. I hate to be blunt, but here's a quick tip: never ever ever believe anything relating to copyright on the website. They play ridiculously fast and loose with it, oftentimes ignoring copyright altogether as if they believe all space agencies operate like NASA. For example, this image is from Venera 9, which is covered under then-Soviet/now-Russian copyright law, yet they claim an employee named Ted Stryk owns copyright and has released it under CC-by-nc-sa-3.0. Absolutely absurd and not exactly legal. Back to MOM images, the ISRO has retained copyright over images produced by MOM, just like ESA (normally) does, just like Roscosmos does, just like JAXA does, etc etc. Huntster (t @ c) 06:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Dang, I was so excited to apply my new copyright knowledge too... A2soup (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ADDED NEW MARS IMAGES => added new "Voyager 1 Orbiter - (1980)" images above for possible consideration as follows => File:PlanetMars-VallesMarineris-VikingOrbiter-1980.jpg - and - File:PlanetMars-SyrtisMajor-VikingOrbiter-1980.jpg - may have ok resolution (and ok colors? & related) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

BEST Resolution image of *all* images considered seems to be the "Viking 1 Orbiter (1980-A) - Syrtis Major" image (at 41294x4194/8.59mb) - see => File:PlanetMars-SyrtisMajor-VikingOrbiter-1980.jpg - seems this "Viking 1 Orbiter (1980-A) - Syrtis Major" image has even *better resolution* than the ESO Rosetta Mars image (at 2205x2205/1.22mb) - Enjoy! ;) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
NEW - HIGHEST Resolution(?) image (6787x6787/57.35mb - TIF-File) (Global Mars; Viking 1 Orbiter; 1998) of *all* images added for possible consideration => File:PIA00198-Mars-Viking1-1998.tif - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- we do not want the highest resolution images / largest file size. (50 MB for a pathetically blurry Viking image?) Pity the poor readers with slow internet connections. What we want is the most representative image. I like the Rosetta image, if we can get it, except that someone "enhanced" the color. Maybe revert to true color? (Pending copyright clearance.) Hubble2 and VikingSyrtis are also lovely. The problem with the latter, though, is that the atmosphere has been cropped off. As s.o. commented above, the lead image should clearly show the atmosphere of Mars.
The Rosetta img has the additional advantage, besides showing the atmosphere, of clearly differentiating the cratered southern highlands and the dusty plains of the northern lowlands. That's all we could want in a lead img. If we can't manage the copyright issue, then Hubble2 is the clear choice. VikingSyrtis should definitely be used in the text, though. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes - agreed - actual "resolution" on the "1998 TIF-File" image could be better - also Yes - the "VikingSyrtis" image and/or "Hubble2" image are *entirely* ok with me as well atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
These are my thoughts exactly, kwami. I would only note that the redder version of the Rosetta image is actually closer to true color (red, green, and blue filters) than the browner version, which the ESA website describes as using near-UV, green, and near-IR filters. So the color is actually not "enhanced" (as the uploader stated) so much as taken through different filters that yield a more lifelike result. The Viking Syrtis is definitely the best composite yet, but it's still got the inevitable polar projection artifacts plus some wonky color (black? really?). A2soup (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If we could get ESA to change the Rosetta image's copyright, that would be ideal. Note that they have done that with the images of Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko, which we can now use on Wikipedia. --JorisvS (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes - agreed - at the moment, the Rosetta copyright re the "Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko" image seems to refer only to images taken by the Rosetta "NAVCAM" system - and not, unfortunately, by the Rosetta "OSIRIS" system - which seems to have taken the "Rosetta Mars" image - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My email to Emily Lakdawalla got passed to someone at the ESA who basically said as much, that OSIRIS images are unlikely to be freely licensed anytime soon. Apparently, ESA doesn't even own the rights to the OSIRIS images, so it's out of their hands. OSIRIS rights belong to the principal investigators for that instrument, so while the Rosetta NAVCAM images (rights belong to ESA) have indeed been freely licensed, OSIRIS images have not. It's a pity. A2soup (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, rules out Rosetta for now. Can we all agree on Hubble2, then, as the most lifelike photo with an atmosphere? — kwami (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The Hubble image has its own set of drawbacks. It is too bad that none of the images seems to have none. --JorisvS (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, it is a shame that the best image is non-free, but that's what we have to work with. For this subject matter, between an image that is lower quality but highly representative of reality, and one that is higher quality but not "real", I'd go with the highly representative one every time. Huntster (t @ c) 02:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - For now at least - updated the lede image to the Hubble2 image - most seem to agree this image may be the best available at the moment - and sufficiently ok for the Mars article - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Sent an EMail to ESA re the "Rosetta Mars" image as follows:

From: "Dr. Dennis Bogdan" <drbogdan at>
To: spaceinimages at, media at, scitech.editorial at
Cc: joannebogdan at, drbogdan at
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:23:29 -0500
Subject: QUESTION: Can Copyright Permission Be Granted To Wikipedia To Use A Particular ESA MARS Image In The MARS Wikipedia Article?

QUESTION: Is there any possible way to obtain the copyright permission needed for Wikipedia to use a favored ESA Rosetta spacecraft (OSIRIS?) image of the planet MARS in the MARS Wikipedia article?

DETAILS: On behalf of several Wikipedia editors, we would like to use a particular ESA image ( please see => ) of the planet MARS in the MARS Wikipedia article ( at the following => ) - this particular MARS image ( of several NASA images considered ) ( please see => ) is currently favored by Wikipedia editors. Seems we would require copyright permission from ESA that may be compatible with Wikipedia copyright requirements ( please see => ).

Thanking you in advance for your reply,
Dr. Dennis Bogdan

| Dr Dennis Bogdan * Computer DataPro Consulting
| drbogdan at * drbogdan at

May (or may not) receive an answer - but at least an effort was made - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


if anyone wants to use the ROSETTA Mars image...

Go upload it yourself.

Also make sure it has sufficient copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWhistleGag (talkcontribs) 02:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

TheWhistleGag: As has been explained, the Rosetta image of Mars was taken using its OSIRIS instrument, images from which are not freely licensed. So no, others may not upload it themselves. Huntster (t @ c) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Then just use something from NASA, please. And something not from Hubble.

Once Mars had more water than Earth's Arctic ocean[edit]

According to research Mars planet had more water than The Earth's Arctic ocean. NASA scientist are wondering why this much water left the planet. Details have been explained here:

-- Mansour JE MansourJE (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that has already been included in the article, along with an explanation that this is by no means absolutely fact. Also, Mjesfahani, please add your signature to the end of your post, not the beginning. I've done this for you. Thank you. Huntster (t @ c) 08:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)