You Create the Caption
The Daily "140" Insight

You Couldn't Make This Up Dept: "Why is Mars' Moon Phobos Hollow?"

Phobos-mars-enhanced Mars' Moon Phobos has been analyzed as being one-third hollow according to European Space Agency reports, which has triggered some wild and utterly fascinating rumors and speculation that we've featured below.

From "The Phobos Blog" -- published on March 25th: General , Science 25 March, 2010 17:21 

Radio science result from 2008 Phobos Flyby now accepted for publication:

We report independent results from two subgroups of the Mars Express Radio Science (MaRS) team who independently analyzed Mars Express (MEX) radio tracking data for the purpose of determining consistently the gravitational attraction of the moon Phobos on the MEX spacecraft, and hence the mass of Phobos. We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids. When applied to various hypotheses bearing on the origin of Phobos, these results are inconsistent with the proposition that Phobos is a captured asteroid. 

For a Martian moon that is demonstrably "1/3 hollow" ... as measured by two totally independent space programs, and separated by ~20 years ... under any likely astrophysical formation scenario cannot exist as just a "natural" moon. The MARSIS radar imaging experiment -- according to "inside" ESA sources recounted "a Phobos' interior filled with 'cavernous, geometric rooms ... right-angle walls ... and floors -- detectable via the semi-regular 'structure of the returning, interior radar echoes ...' as they were impressed upon the reflected MARSIS signals ....'"

MARSIS was physically seeing (via this radar) a three-dimensional, totally artificial, interior world ... within Phobos; and a "reflection void interior geometry" ... which correlated eerily with the earlier (lower-resolution) Phobos "interior gravity tracking data ...." No natural "space rock" could possibly possess such an enormous range of "natural radar absorbers and reflectors"; nothing "natural" could reflect (or absorb) EM energy that way across so many orders of magnitude.

In other words -- the MARSIS radar reflections officially published on the official ESA Phobos website... contained explicit scientific data, from multiple perspectives, which strongly "supported the idea that this is what radar echoes would look like, coming back from inside 'a huge ... geometric ... hollow spaceship'

In fact, they were the primary source of the decidedly "internal, 3-D geometric-looking" radar signature.

The concurrence of all three of these independent Mars Express experiments -- "imaging" ... "internal mass distribution" (tracking) ... and "internal radar imaging" --  now agreed that "the interior of Phobos is 'partially hollow ... with internal, geometric "voids" inside it ....'" Meaning that- Phobos is artificial.



Not some sort of huge space geode? Straight to spaceships?

Care to elaborate?

Obviously God's buddy Jake is responsible for this.

Plenty of room for all the demons of hell. Where's my shotgun?

Your link is a website run by Richard C. Hoagland a HACK conspiracy theorist.

"Richard C. Hoagland (born April 25, 1945) is an American author and a proponent of various conspiracy theories about NASA, lost alien civilizations on the Moon and on Mars and other related topics. Claims from his personal biography[1] and publication[2] include having been curator for a science museum in Springfield Massachusetts at age 19 in the mid-60s.[3] Hoagland does not have any scientific training.

His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret. He has advocated his ideas in two published books, several videotapes,[4][5][6] lectures,[7] interviews,[8][9] and press conferences.[10] His views have never been published in peer-reviewed journals[11]. Hoagland has been labeled by James Oberg of The Space Review and Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy as a conspiracy theorist and fringe thinker.[12][13]"


In fact, science fiction writers have been making up this very story for almost a century now. It is a "rubble pile" conglomeration with a couple billion years of impacts to create a few tens of meters of debris on the surface to smooth it over. Anything more than that is the fervent desires of the observer manifesting themselves in errant pattern recognition.

I REALLY wish this were true - but if wishes were horses we'd all be eatin' steak.

"fervent desires of the observer manifesting themselves in errant pattern recognition."

Them's some mighty big words there, cow rustler.

I mean I agree with what you say, the way you say it just makes me giggle.

The geometric interior can easily be attributed to crystal formation. It is probably a big geode. And the radar 'defenses', I see no reason for them not to exist naturally. This universe carries many unusual and low probability phenomena that exceed this one.

I was excited about this till I learned its a Hoagland site being referenced. However, I have been under the impression that Hoagland worked at NASA in some capacity (media related?). I think he would have to elucidate his "inside" contacts from ESA to be convincing. I love the giant geode hypothesis; but the question remains - did they detect geomatric rooms? There is no reason why an asteroid could not have voids - can they not be like big smushy snowballs etc.?

Obviously you can make this stuff up, since the source is Richard Hoagland's website. C'mon Daily Galaxy, how about real news from reliable sources instead of sensationalized drivel.

I'd like to point out, along with agreeing with everyone else's valid points about why the conclusions jumped to in this article are most likely just full of beans, that technically speaking "~20 years" can refer to any span of time that isn't twenty years, from the probably intended implication of 18 or 19 years, to 21 years, to 1 or 1,000 years. ~20 years can be a valid way to describe the amount of time they (the article writers) want us to believe passed between the two studies they are using to support this craziness, to what ever time actually passed between them (maybe 6 months, maybe 19 years; who knows), to the amount of time since Rome controlled France.

Which is fitting, I guess, since given that "moon"'s name, it was probably the Romans that built it, to store the Atlanteans they had cryogenically frozen in anticipation of the Great Alignment when they could all rule again.


Eon ... nuff said.

The Daily Galaxy embraces this kind of junk “science.” That's why you'al R here. I remember decades ago the same thing was said about our moon: that it 'rang' hollow when objects collided with it. Nothing since though.....NASA keeping this a big secret?

Haters gonna hate.

So Mars moon is a big Malteser then.

So, I guess Buzz Aldrin is full of it as well. He did after all say there is an artificial monolith on Phobos during a C-span interview...if this is true than there must be more to the story that we call life. No proof that religion driven by faith is correct. No proof that evolution is correct, (missing link). All kinds of off-world references from ancient history. Recent scientific discovery of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens gene mixes. Birds use quantum entanglement to navigate. All coincidence I'm sure...

I thought radar worked only in an atmosphere?


to BORG: I just checked them. So what? I see just a huge rock.

I'm disappointed this article was published here. I thought The Daily Gakaxy was better than this.

First of all, Buzz Aldrin never said there was a "artificial monolith" on Phobos. He said that there is a unique monolith on the surface. Fans of the Arthur C. Clarke's "Odyssey" series make the mistake that a monolith by definition is artificial. It is not. Mountains for example are actually a type of Monolith. They can be 100% natural.

Next, comes the interpretation of data. While Hoagland makes a good presentation, his interpretations are simply inaccurate. Any planetary scientist will tell you that. But they are all liars though, right Richard?

Olivier Witasse, a senior member of ESA was asked about Hoagland's claims, and says that they are not true. That nobody within ESA feels that Phobos is artificial, and that hollow is not an accurate description. He said that Phobos is more porous then hollow. Kind of like a sponge. And porous rocks are quite natural as well.

You can listen to that interview here:

The Universe has many, wonderful things to teach us. So many, that we do not need to waste our time on nonsense such as this. It will go away though. As everything Hoagland does, this will just be another forgotten piece of nonsense as is Hoagland's other works.

After Obama said that going back to the moon is not a priority for us, Hoagland said that it was a good call and that we should go to Phobos first.... but what about the moon? Does Richard C Hoagland now have no interest in the glass domes and artificial structures he says are all over the moon? If he truly believed these objects where all over the surface, then why no interest in going there to retrieve them now?

It's the Cathedral Terra, A.K.A. Super Galaxy Dai-Gurren.


Either Chouginga Dai-Gurren or the colony ship UESC Marathon.

Why is there no information on the ESA site about the results of the gravity measurements? If there are geometric hollows inside, why can I not find this information on any official sites? I don't believe it is a spaceship, a geode quite possibly, but if so Phobos is not formed by any commonly accepted process. This would lend credence to the idea of an electrically formed object, which would add support to the idea that all those 'craters' are not craters, but electrical discharge machining excavations.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)