9. Martian Civilization

Here we'll mention some of the other speculations about intelligent life on Mars, besides those connected with the Cydonia Complex.

We'll start with the canals.

The canals of Mars were first observed by the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaperelli in 1877. He called them 'canali,' which in Italian denotes any type of water channel, artificial or natural. But in his drawings, at least, an artifact-like nature was undeniable: The canals were straight lines which crisscrossed the surface of Mars like a net of slender taut threads.

Schiaperelli's work attracted the notice of a prominent Bostonian named Percival Lowell, who became so intrigued with the prospect of intelligent life on Mars that he halted his successful business career to become an amateur astronomer, building a world-class observatory in pursuit of his interests. At his observatory site in Flagstaff, Arizona, in the late spring of 1894, Lowell first trained his 24-inch-wide lens refractor telescope on Mars. He was not disappointed. He saw canals everywhere.

This was back in the nineteenth century, before space probe observations made intelligent life on Mars incompatible with the theory of evolution. As a nineteenth century evolutionist, Lowell felt comfortable in believing that Mars was the smaller but older brother of Earth. Since it was smaller, its surface mantle cooled off sooner, giving it a head start in the evolutionary road to civilization. Lowell thought the Martians were millions of years more civilized than Earth humanity.

Meanwhile, just as deserts were growing on Earth, the entire surface of Mars had long since become desert. To cultivate the land, the Martians had to pump irrigation water from the polar ice caps down to the more temperate regions. The canals were the irrigation waterways.

Lowell thought that the actual waterways were too slender to be seen from Earth, and were probably covered anyway to reduce evaporation. So what we saw as canals were not water but 'greenbelts' of vegetation on lands adjacent to the pipelines. This explained how the observed canals could wax and wane, thicken and double, with the change of seasons.

Lowell's observatory staff concurred with him on these observations. This staff included first-class astronomers who made major contributions to the field of astronomy -- men such as E.C. Slipher, who discovered the galactic red shift, and Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet Pluto. Lowell Observatory continues to this day as a highly-respected member of the astronomical community. In spite of all this, the modern consensus is that the canals were simply wishful thinking, an optical illusion at best.

The barren moonscape craters revealed by Mariner 4 effectively killed off Lowell's Mars in the scientific imagination -- although one of that space probe's photographs contains a 'lineament' which matches the path of one of his canals.[1] For the most part, the canals are banished from contemporary astronomical discussion. Perhaps they were imaginary to begin with. Or perhaps the water is better sealed, so that only the greenbelts are no more.

Long before Viking 1 photographed Cydonia, the tiny moons of Mars were associated with the possibility of intelligent life. Back in the 1940s, radar observations indicated the inner Martian moon, Phobos, was gradually losing altitude. The most likely cause for the momentum loss was air resistance. Given measured values for atmospheric density and orbital decay rate, it was possible to calculate the density of the moon itself. I.S. Shklovskii, a Russian space scientist, performed this calculation, and determined that Phobos had a density so low that it must be hollow.

Yet, how could a moon be hollow? Unable to come up with a plausible natural explanation, Shklovskii suggested Phobos might be an artificial space station, constructed millions of years ago by a now-extinct but once technologically-advanced Martian race.[2] Shortly after this, new radar measurements were made. Phobos wasn't decaying as fast as thought, it was announced -- which meant Phobos wasn't hollow. Which meant it wasn't artificial.

In the late 1970s, the Viking space probes confirmed a density for both Phobos and Deimos of about twice that of water -- which is very low, but far too high for a 'hollow moon.' Moreover, the space probes returned close-up photographs of the moons, revealing irregular faces covered with jumbled rocks and scarred with craters; everything looks as natural as can be.

So the question of artificial moons is dead. Or is it?

More recent radar observations confirm the 1940s measurements. Phobos is accelerating rapidly toward the Martian surface, and will crash within the evolutionarily-brief span of forty million years.[3] The deceleration is attributed to tidal forces rather than air resistance -- and that is quite possibly true. But it is interesting to observe that, almost immediately after Shklovskii advanced his theory, debunkers shot it down with false claims -- just as the Face on Mars was to be erroneously dismissed a decade or so later. That sort of thing seems to happen a lot with Mars.

And while the Viking spacecraft mass detector measurements did indicate the moons of Mars are not balloons, their density value of twice that of water is only half that of Mars itself -- a surprisingly low value indeed. The internal structure of the moons has been referred to as 'more marshmallow than rock.'[4] The moons might be composed of volcanic porous rock, but an alternative speculation, raising the ghost of Shklovskii's theory, is that there are huge cavities inside both moons, taking up perhaps half the interior of each.

More peculiar than the moons' composition are their orbital positions. Science journalist John Noble Wilford describes these peculiarities:

If it came much closer to Mars, the planet's gravitational forces would tear Phobos asunder. The orbit of Phobos thus lies precariously close to what is known as the Roche limit for Mars. This is a theoretical boundary, the critical distance inside which tidal disruption would keep any swarm of interplanetary debris from collecting to form a single body or would disintegrate any existing object. The orbit of Deimos is also unusual. Deimos is near the outer limit for an object to be orbiting Mars; beyond that limit, the planet's gravity would be too weak to hold on to the moon.[5]

Phobos is as close to Mars as a moon can be, and Deimos is as far away as a moon can be. Is this clinging to extremes an accident of nature -- or due to intent?

If we were Martians interested in space travel, we could do no better than to build refueling depots for our spaceships at precisely the locations where Phobos and Deimos are found. Starting from the ground, a chemically-fueled space shuttle would blast off from a spaceport at the equator of Mars, heading east to add planetary rotational speed to its velocity. Its fuel tanks nearly empty from the struggle out of the Martian atmosphere, the shuttle would dock with Phobos -- which, if it had been in a higher orbit, would have been out of the shuttle's reach. Since Phobos could not have been any lower without crashing into Mars, its orbit is optimally placed.

At Phobos, the passengers would transfer aboard a transorbital ferry. This would be a ship designed solely for orbital transfer flights between one moon and the other, using fuel extracted from the interiors of the moons for propulsion. The transorbital ferry would be like the atmospheric shuttle in some respects, but shorn of the aerodynamic surfaces, landing gear, heat shielding, and high-thrust engines, thus economizing the mass and saving fuel. Just as the atmospheric shuttle is adapted for the trip from surface to low orbit, the transorbital ferry is adapted for journies between Phobos and Deimos.

Arriving at Deimos, the transorbital ferry finds anchored the great interplanetary space liners. These giant ships would be equipped with the heavy shielding, nuclear engines, living quarters, and supplies needed for the long voyages between planets. Dragging all of their mass in and out of the Martian planetary gravity field would be expensive in both time and fuel, so it would be very useful to moor and refuel these ships in an orbit out at the edge of the Martian gravity well, where lighter and faster-accelerating vehicles such as the transorbital ferry could bring passengers out to them.

Deimos happens to be located in the ideal orbit for such a moorage installation, as far away from Mars as it can be without breaking free and floating away from the planet. This three-vehicle concept of atmospheric shuttles, transorbital ferries, and interplanetary space liners would be an optimal usage of spacecraft technology. It does require two orbital refueling depots, placed where Phobos and Deimos actually are. If on some future day humans should colonize Mars, they could do no better than to build space stations exactly where the Martian moons already are. Space program leaders of the former Soviet Union actually had plans to establish bases on the two moons as prelude to Martian surface exploration; as one report says: "These two 'natural space stations' may prove indispensable in the conquest of Mars."[6]

The moons are not merely indispensable, they are ideal. Their orbital altitudes are ideal. They orbit over the equator, enabling space ships to take advantage of planetary rotational velocity -- which is ideal. They orbit in the same direction, the direction of planetary rotation -- which is ideal. Their orbits are almost perfectly circular -- which is ideal. Their composition includes hydrogen -- the ideal spaceship fuel. What evolutionary laws of mutation and natural selection caused the martian moons to mimic intelligent design?

From an evolutionary viewpoint, the moons are difficult to explain. Their dark-albedo composition does not fit in with evolutionary ideas about being formed with Mars, but instead matches the carbonaceous asteroids found in the Asteroid Belt that orbits the Sun just beyond the orbit of Mars.[7] Because of this, most scientists assume that the moons are asteroids 'captured' by Martian gravity. However, this generates improbabilities with orbital mechanics. The orbits of asteroids from the Belt should match the orbital inclination of the Belt, not the axial tilt of the planet Mars. Each asteroid-moon is equally likely to have been captured into a retrograde orbit, against the planetary rotation, and there is only one chance in four that both would end up orbiting Mars in the same direction as planetary rotation. Orbital mechanics predicts captured asteroids will have highly eccentric orbits, but the orbits of the moons are nearly perfect circles.

Overall, then, in terms of six factors -- composition, number, position, orbital inclination, orbital direction, and orbital circularity -- the moons of Mars match the ideal requirements for Martian space stations. And yet all are improbabilities for nature to provide.

And yet, what about those natural-looking surfaces? Beyond suggesting that it's camoflague, is there a rational explanation that harmonizes natural appearance with artificial origin?

There is. For even if the moons are artificial, the Martians would still have to get the material from a natural source. And the most likely place is: the Asteroid Belt. The moons can be both natural and artificial. They can be natural asteroids -- artificially captured by the Martians.

Artificial asteroid capture has long been a part of speculative space science literature. Science writer T. A. Heppenheimer writes,

Can asteroids be retrieved, transported to Earth orbit to be mined for their valuable water and carbon? In 1964 Dandridge Cole and D.W. Cox wrote a prophetic book, Islands in Space. They proposed that asteroids be used as resource mines, hollowed out or otherwise processed in order to build space colonies.[8]

But -- how are asteroids to be 'retrieved?' One possibility is . . . by detonating nuclear bombs! The same blast that can destroy a city on Earth could also be used safely in the weightless vastness of space as an engineering tool to move a city-sized asteroid. The concept of propulsion by nuclear explosion is closer to science fact than we might imagine. Saul and Benjamin Adelman, astrophysicist and science writer respectively, write:

The first serious starship study was Project Orion, which began as a spaceship for solar system exploration. Orion, a giant spaceship, was to be built with then-existing technology. It would be propelled by atom bombs. Conceived in 1955 by Stanley Ulam, it received little attention until 1958, after the Soviet Union had beaten the United States to opening the Space Age by launching its first Sputnik.[9]

The earliest Project Orion designs called for a 400-foot-long ship where atom bombs would explode behind a heavily-shielded pusher plate, which in turn would be attached to the ship by recoil-absorbing springs. Theodore T. Taylor, the physicist who was the project's design team leader, even conceived of scaling up to a Super-Orion starship that would be a mile in diameter![10]

Over shorter distances such as interplanetary hops, it would be practical to employ atomic bombs to move entire asteroids. Engineer G. Harry Stine writes,

But we don't need spaceships in which to move chunks of planetoid iron. We can move mile-diameter planetoids if we wish. Give one a gentle shove in the right direction with a rocket motor. You don't have to shove it very hard with a lot of thrust if you've got a long-duration rocket engine to work with. Likewise, you can punch it very suddenly with a small nuclear bomb. It doesn't make any difference how you do it so long as you change its velocity by only a few hundred feet per second in the right direction at the right time. Several hundred days later, it shows up where you want it -- in the Earth-Moon system, or anywhere else. Another application of thrust slows it up and puts it in any orbit that you want so that you can work on it.[11]

This idea of deflecting the orbital paths of asteroids with nuclear explosives has also been suggested as a means of preventing major meteor impacts on Earthbound cities. Geologist Jon Erickson writes about this in his ominously-titled book, Target Earth!, but warns, "However, precautions must be taken so that the detonations do not break up the asteroid. What otherwise would have been a single bullet striking Earth might turn into buckshot, which would greatly aggravate its effects and cause considerably more damage."[12]

This danger would cause us to wonder why the Martians would intentionally bring such a risk upon their planet. But perhaps they sought a way around the danger. Perhaps they used nuclear bombs to push the asteroid from the Asteroid Belt into high orbit around Mars -- but thereafter, they would doubtlessly want to use a more delicate technique for easing the asteroids closer to the surface of their world.

Such an alternative technique for asteroid movement does exist. Heppenheimer explains how Cole and Cox thought of doing the job:

Their preferred transport technique was the mass-driver. As a means for launching lunar payloads, the mass-driver was already old; it had been proposed by Arthur C. Clarke about 1950. What Cole and Cox proposed was that it serve as a new type of rocket, or reaction engine. Fitted to an asteroid, it would eject chunks of matter taken from the asteroid itself. The asteroid thus would slowly be consumed as it would wend its way earthward.[13]

Electrical power for the mass driver comes from a nuclear plant or an array of solar power cells. The power is used to sequentially charge electromagnets on a track, their magnetism accelerating a bucket of material -- 'reaction mass.' This material can be composed of ordinary rocks or dust, it doesn't matter. Newton's Third Law of Motion -- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction -- pushes the mass driver forward as the reaction mass is accelerated backward. At the end of the track, the material is released from the bucket. Once emptied, the bucket is then decelerated on the remaining length of track, and brought back to the beginning for another load. A whole series of buckets can keep the system under constant acceleration.

A mass driver propulsion system would be expensive to build. But it has advantages, too: the exhaust velocity is very high, and the propellant is literally 'dirt cheap.'

The Martians could have refined fuel from the Belt and brought it back to orbital stations aboard space tankers, but atomic bombs and mass drivers are more efficient. Whole asteroids full of fuel can be brought back at once. An expedition would be sent out to find a candidate asteroid. Nuclear charges are attached and detonated, one at a time, deflecting the asteroid toward Mars high orbit. Upon arrival, the asteroid is slowed down into high Mars orbit by more nuclear blasts.

That's fine for Deimos. But Phobos must come closer to Mars, and nuclear blasts afford too much risk of fragmentation. A mass driver is used for its orbital placement. On Phobos, evidence for this two-phase operation might be in plain sight. One side of Phobos is dominated by a large crater named Stickney. This crater is so large that it is a wonder that the moon did not break up from the blast that created it. Was this blast due to a meteor impact? If so, the presence of blast rubble around the crater's rim is curious -- the momentum of a high-velocity meteor impact should have thrown the blast debris clear off the moon. On the other hand, the blast rubble around Stickney is consistent with an atomic bomb 'nudging' operation, in which the last few detonations would be low-yield explosions that would be too weak to throw all the rubble they created clear of the detonation site.

The mere presence of a crater the size of Stickney is in agreement with the use of atomic bombs for moving an asteroid; the presence of rubble around the crater rim also fits in with the idea.

Phobos is remarkably lacking in dust, as if its surface had been swept clean. If a mass driver were used to push the moon, then this dust would have been used for 'reaction mass.' Phobos is also gouged with mysterious grooves that resemble a strip- mining operation. If the mass-driver required additional reaction mass, then strip-mining would have been used after the dust was gone.

For Phobos, grooves, blast crater, and missing surface dust are all scientific mysteries.

Deimos has no grooves or blast crater, yet plenty of dust. This is consistent with the artificial-capture hypothesis if we assume one thing: Phobos and Deimos were once part of the same asteroid, brought from the Belt to high Martian orbit in one piece. Phobos is the part of the parent asteroid where the nuclear charges were detonated. Once in high Martian orbit, the parent asteroid was split in two. The parts became Phobos and Deimos. The part we call Deimos was left in high Martian orbit. The part we call Phobos was brought to low orbit by mass driver.

The nuclear detonations were used on Phobos; Deimos merely went along for the ride. Thus, Phobos would have a blast crater and Deimos would not. And the mass driver was used on Phobos but not Deimos. Thus, Phobos would be clean of dust and have grooves, and Deimos would be the opposite.

The Making of the Martian Moons

It makes more sense that the Martians would try to capture two asteroids with one expedition. The details seem to confirm capture in all respects. The greatest mystery about the placement of the Martian moons is not how, but why.