Halloween Solar Storm Nearing Heliopause

PipianJ writes "Various sources are reporting that NASA has been tracking the Halloween solar storms of last year as they head towards the end of the solar system and the beginning of interstellar space, the heliopause, in the near future. In related news, scientists now believe that it was solar storms that ripped water from Mars, causing it to be the dry barren wasteland it is today."

Comments

How Exactly

[GiveMeLinux]

(for the astronomers in the crowd) ...would the solar storms "rip" all the water from the planet, and then where would it all go?

Re:How Exactly

[akincisor]

Mars has very little atmosphere, and almost no protection from radiation. This renders the surface open to bombardment, and thanks to low gravity and low magnetism, the atmosphere leaks away into space. The article states that the water that might have been on mars 'boiled off' due to solar radiation.

Re:How Exactly

[SeanTobin]

The theory is fairly simple. You have a planet with little or no magnetic field to deflect the solar wind. Add to that a relatively weak gravatational field to keep the gasses stuck to the planet and you have this situation..

Water vapor ends up in the upper atmosphere. High speed solar wind strikes the atmosphere and carries it away. This results in lower atmospheric pressure leading to an increased amount of liquid water turing to vapor and being carried away as well.

As far as where it would go, its generally carried "out" in the direction of the solar wind.

Re:How Exactly

[myowntrueself]

I suspect that Mars *did* once have a magnetic field. My guess is that some really *big* impact caused sufficient vulcanism to blow enough magma out to sap the energy from the core and stop the magneto.

Once that was gone it would have been a matter of time before the solar wind removed the atmosphere and water.

Re:How Exactly

[Detritus]

My astronomy professor believed that the basic problem was the low mass of Mars. This resulted in a high surface/volume ratio compared to the Earth, causing Mars to cool off more quickly and the interior of the planet solidified, shutting off its magnetic field. Combined with a lower escape velocity, this allowed most of the atmosphere to leak out into space and be stripped away by the solar wind.

Re:How Exactly

[Graff]

I suspect that Mars *did* once have a magnetic field. My guess is that some really *big* impact caused sufficient vulcanism to blow enough magma out to sap the energy from the core and stop the magneto.

One of the theories is that since Mars is smaller than Earth it may have cooled off faster. Since the magnetic field of a planet is generated by the spinning of the core if a planet were to cool sufficiently the core would slow down (the speeds of the core and the crust would begin to match) and thus the magnetic field would weaken.

This theory is supported by the fact that there is little or no tectonic activity currently occurring on Mars, although there certainly has been tectonic activity in the past.

Re:How Exactly

[orthogonal]

(for the astronomers in the crowd) ...would the solar storms "rip" all the water from the planet, and then where would it all go?

"Solar storms". That's what they want you to believe.

But the Fremen know it was the giant Sandworms.

Re:How Exactly

[proj_2501]

your sig makes me giggle.

mostly because in the days when i had a 'free kevin' sticker on my car, somebody asked me if she could have a kevin.

Re:How Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that low mass resulted in high surface to volume ratio? Is the soil/ground on mars lighter than on earth? I am confused please explained

Re:How Exactly

[ars]

The volume of a sphere is: 4/3 Pi r^3
The surface area of a sphere is: 4 Pi r^2

So the volume of a sphere goes up as it's radius (width) to the power of 3, but the area only goes up with the power of 2. So the volume increases much much faster then the area does.

Ex:

^1 | ^2 | ^3
5 | 25 | 125
10 2 times as much | 100 4 times as much | 1000 8 times as much
15 3 times as much | 225 9 times as much | 3375 27 times as much

As you can see from my little chart, to the power of 3 grows way way faster then ^2 does. Power of two grew from 4 times as much as the first entry to 9 times as much, but power of 3 grew from 8 to 27 times as much as the first entry.

Re:How Exactly

[Bi()hazard]

This is due to differences in how Mars formed. Irregularities in the field of primordial gas present in the solar system before the formation of planets occurred in such a way that the Earth arose from a hard metallic core rotating quickly, but Mars formed from a less dense and dynamic clump of matter. As a result the Earth has a spinning metallic core that generates a powerful magnetosphere and keeps the planet's mantle heated and molten, but Mars cooled long ago and has little magnetism.

Mars, without a magnetic field to deflect harmful cosmic rays, saw its atmosphere and water irradiated. It is commonly known that molecules bombarded by high energy rays change energy states and often ionize. Earth's thick and magnetically protected atmosphere stayed safe below a thin layer of ozone that absorbs incoming UV radiation , but the inner atmosphere of Mars would become the equivalent of one huge ozone layer, reaching the surface. Ozone is a dangerous chemical capable of reacting with other substances on the surface much like nail polish remover acts on its target.

Soon Mars was reduced to a collection of high energy ionized gases over a rock surface, and an intense greenhouse effect set it. Think about your breathing-while you manually breathe in and out, carefully controlling your respiratory process in order to avoid suffocating, air that has already been processed builds up and creates pressure for release. The oxygen rich air goes down easy, but the used air wants to come out. It's the same for a planet-the remaining gases on Mars heated and energized until they escaped the planet's gravitational pull. Over millions of years this process stripped Mars of all water and organic substances, leaving it the barren wasteland it is today.

To remedy this during a terraforming process, it would be necessary to either constantly produce a fresh supply of oxygen to replace that which is lost, or inject the core with enough metallic matter to reach critical mass and build up the same type of core found within the Earth. Some far-out proposals suggest engineering a collision between Mars and one of its moons, such as Phobos or Deimos, in order to increase mass and introduce energy into the core.

Re:How Exactly

[eathan13]

Over 3.5 billion years, there's kind of a gradual erosion of this water.

In that kind of timeframe, pigs might fly...

Given a lack of atmosphere and magnetosphere, Mars' water just might depart as well.

It sounds plausible...

Re:How Exactly

[master_p]

But did water form on Mars in the first place ? It would take millions of years for water to be formed...during all that time, the solar winds would have not allowed water to be formed.

Maybe Mars had water and a thick atmosphere...then a planetary event (like a strike with a huge asteroid) ripped its atmosphere apart, and then water "evaporated".

Re:How Exactly

[DylanQuixote]

Some far-out proposals suggest engineering a collision between Mars and one of its moons, such as Phobos or Deimos, in order to increase mass and introduce energy into the core.

Truely far out, as I believe phobos and deimos much less massive than mars.

if my calculations are right, 59 billion phoboses would equal about one mars.
. and it would take 286 billion deimoses to equal one mars. they're really insignificant moons.

Re:How Exactly

[niktemadur]

Here's another likely culprit for the lack of a magnetic field/shield: Earth has a HUGE satellite, the Moon, whereas Mars has two tiny, potato-shaped asteroidlets, Phobos and Deimos.

It is the interaction between Earth and Moon that creates the magnetic shield we have.

First off, we have tidal interaction, which gives Earth nice strong tugs, maintaining a molten state underneath us, thereby creating/enhancing a magnetic field. As to why the Moon is not molten inside, its' origins and composition will have something to do with it.

Secondly, the interplay between two large celestial bodies (Earth-Moon is technically a double planet, as is Pluto-Charon) expands and supercharges a magnetic field way beyond what it would be if a celestial body was alone. I read somewhere, sometime, that Earth-Moon has a magnetic field a hundred times stronger than it would be if Earth was a lone sphere.

Straightforward enough: no Moon, no shielding for Earth, for various reasons. Jupiter's moon Europa is cozily nestled inside its' host planet Jupiter, as well as Titan in Saturn; this is what another reason that makes them the most plausible life-sustaining places in our Solar System (other than Earth, of course).

I ignore the situation on Mercury and Venus, but whatever it is, solar winds and radiation, at those short distances, might cut through anything like Kevlar-busting bullets. On Mars, it will be like a regular bullet cutting through paper.

Re:How Exactly

[niktemadur]

Hmmm. Interesting hypothesis on the second paragraph, but there are some crucial facts to consider. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

A strike with a huge asteroid did not happen, because we would be able to see the scar of the impact, especially on the surface of a planet that is geologically dead. Mars has no processes to erase a feature of this magnitude.

Furthermore, the Earth was also impacted, very early in its' existence, by a gigantic mass, planet-sized in fact, that ripped the Moon out of what is now a huge hole we now call the Pacific Ocean.
And yet, here we are.

So no, my guess is that Mars did not lose its' athmosphere and water via one single, devastating impact.

Re:How Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is the moron who gave this a +5 Informative? This is nothing but a giant morass of misinformation and total nonsense, deserving - at best - a +1 Eco-parody.

As a result the Earth has a spinning metallic core that generates a powerful magnetosphere and keeps the planet's mantle heated and molten, but Mars cooled long ago and has little magnetism.

This is - at best - a guess. The truth is we don't really know why our magnetosphere is stronger than Mars', or even why it exists! We also have no reason to think Mars cooled earlier than the Earth.

Mars, without a magnetic field to deflect harmful cosmic rays, saw its atmosphere and water irradiated. It is commonly known that molecules bombarded by high energy rays change energy states and often ionize. Earth's thick and magnetically protected atmosphere stayed safe below a thin layer of ozone that absorbs incoming UV radiation , but the inner atmosphere of Mars would become the equivalent of one huge ozone layer, reaching the surface. Ozone is a dangerous chemical capable of reacting with other substances on the surface much like nail polish remover acts on its target.

UV has absolutely nothing to do with solar storms, and most certainly cannot be described as "high energy". Even more, there just is no way in the world that UV would cause ionization - that's plain impossible.

Ozone is nothing but oxygen, albeit in a different molecular form. It reacts with everything, just like oxygen does (ever heard of rust)?

Soon Mars was reduced to a collection of high energy ionized gases over a rock surface, and an intense greenhouse effect set it.

What is connection between ionised gases and the green-house effect?

Simple home experiment: touch a neon lamp with your hand. You'll discover it is cool.

Think about your breathing-while you manually breathe in and out, carefully controlling your respiratory process in order to avoid suffocating, air that has already been processed builds up and creates pressure for release. The oxygen rich air goes down easy, but the used air wants to come out.

You breath manually? That's an achievement - I usually breath orally.

Breathing is a para-sympathic reaction to the concentration of CO2; you could breath pure N2 gas just as easily, though you would die shortly due to lack of oxygen. However, the breathing process would be comfortable.

It's the same for a planet-the remaining gases on Mars heated and energized until they escaped the planet's gravitational pull. Over millions of years this process stripped Mars of all water and organic substances, leaving it the barren wasteland it is today.

Is a hot/"energised" (whatever that means) gas lighter than other kinds? Why should it escape a gravitational field?

To remedy this during a terraforming process, it would be necessary to either constantly produce a fresh supply of oxygen to replace that which is lost, or inject the core with enough metallic matter to reach critical mass and build up the same type of core found within the Earth. Some far-out proposals suggest engineering a collision between Mars and one of its moons, such as Phobos or Deimos, in order to increase mass and introduce energy into the core.

Unlike our Moon, the Mars satellites are of negligible mass when compared to the planet itself, and thus crashing them into the planet (even if we could) would not add significantly to its mass. How crashing something into a planet would "introduce energy into the core" is a total mystery. Where would you take enough metal (planet, or at least asteroid sized) is an open question, and how would you "inject" it into the core is an interesting exercise.

Re:How Exactly

[swv3752]

One plan would call for bombarding Mars with asteroids or maybe Jovian moons. The better plan is to airbake some ice asteroids through Mars's atmosphere. That will have three effects. Increase the amount of heat in the atmosphere, add water, and a byproduct is that some of the water will breakdown into hydrogen and oxygen.

Re:How Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been playing way too much SimEarth.

Re:How Exactly

[Captain Nitpick]

if my calculations are right, 59 billion phoboses would equal about one mars.
. and it would take 286 billion deimoses to equal one mars. they're really insignificant moons.

I think you've got a decimal wrong there, I get 59 million Phoboses and 286 million Deimoses.

But that wasn't my point.

In comparison, it would take about 81 of Earth's moons to equal the mass of the Earth.

Re:How Exactly

[iwadasn]

There's more too it than that...

The primary difference is in the masses. The Earth is much more massive, so it has more gravity. That allows it to keep more gasses in its atmosphere. O2 for instance would easily get escape velocity on mars and leak out. So mars's atmosphere leaked out due to low gravity, this is the first step in the problem.

Secondly, the earth (by virtue of being heavier) has a lower surface area to volume ratio. So it loses heat slower with time. That is why our core is still molten. Mars probably had a molten core at one time, but it cooled off, and that was the end.

In addition, because the earth was heavier it got more heat from collisions (due to greater gravity) to begin with. So we not only keep heat more efficiently, we also started with more heat per unit of volume.

Also, much of the earth's heat is believed to be produced by the decay of radioactive elements, once again the lower surface are to volume (mass actually) ratio helps to keep that heat in, which keeps our core molten.

The liquid core that the earth still has (Venus has one too) produces the magnetic field. Our gravity is greater so most of the atmosphere can't escape, and thus we're relatively radiation hardened. In addition, the oxygen in the atmosphere (formed by primitive life) efficiently captures hydrogen (to form water) and thus keeps the hydrogen from leaking out. The solar winds deliver additional hydrogen (nicely funnelled into the poles) that replaces anything that was lost.

There really is a lot to it, but the basic factors are...

1) The earth is larger, so the core is still hot and we keep our atmosphere. Hot core generates magnetic shielding.

2) The earth has lots of oxygen (due to life), which traps hydrogen and keeps the surface cool because it is not a greenhouse gas. Oxygen also produces ozone that adds extra shielding. Mars is too light to keep oxygen even if we did generate it to begin with.

Re:How Exactly

[mwood]

Actually, Astro tripped over a chain and pulled the plug on one of the big canals, causing all the water to run down the drain. "I was carrying Cadet Manning over my shoulder at the time and couldn't see clearly," explained Cadet Astro. "I'm really sorry."

Re:How Exactly

[shokk]

Secondly, the earth (by virtue of being heavier) has a lower surface area to volume ratio

Isn't the ratio of surface area to volume for a sphere a constant, i.e., both dependent on the diameter? Did you mean "surface area to mass ratio"?

volume =(4/3) [pi] r^{3}

surface area = 4 [pi] r^{2} (a derivative of the volume)

Nothing there indicating it will change due to the contents being heavier.

Re:How Exactly

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

I think the confusion is due to using mass and volume in the same sentence. The two are related by density, but I don't think mass has anything to do with his reasoning. I think that he was basically saying that Mars is a lot smaller than Earth, so it has more SA per V.

A good analogy is with mammals. Small mammals have a very high SA/V so they lose heat very quickly (so they need a high metabolism to keep their body temp up). Large mammals, like elephants, have a much lower SA/V so they need special adaptations to release heat (like their large ears).

I believe that the SA/V argument is somewhat independent, but not mutually exclusive, of the density of the metal core/magnetic field argument. (Although a cooler Mars could lead to a solidified core.)

Re:How Exactly

[iwadasn]

Slight misstatement. If you assume that the density is about the same (fairly reasonable), then the mass is proportional to the volume. A heavier planet has a larger volume (once again, since earth and mars are both rocky planets), and thus a lower surface area to volume ratio.

So the surface area to volume ratio is...

S/V = 3/r

but (if the densities are the same) (4/3)[pi]r^3 = M

and thus r = ((3/4[pi])M)^1/3

And thus S/V = 1 / (M/4[pi])^1/3

and this decreases with increasing mass, though not that quickly.

Re:How Exactly

[cluckshot]

This also causes a few cosmological problems with the whole theory of how the planets etc formed. Since your numbers determine the rate of dissipation of energy from the planet and deminish the rate of accreation of material from space we find a few curious facts.

All planets substantially smaller than Earth are "Evaporating" into space. It is quite impossible for a planet the mass of the earth to have developed from a smaller planet like mars. The process doesn't work! In order to form an "Earth" you essentially must start with an object about the current mass. This leaves us with a cosmological question as to how such a body would be formed in the first place. The small to large process just does not happen well.

This is best illustrated with the Comets evaporating on each pass and raises the question of how Asteroids developed. How does one get a sold iron meteor from a dust and gas cloud?

Re:How Exactly

[cluckshot]

The question of how the water formed on the surface of Mars in the first place and how it left the planet are not shrouded in the funky current theories but in pretty well determined facts.

First the water did not leave mars entirely and secondly what did leave left because of a basic law of physics. The molecular spin net mass velocity of water is above the escape velocity of mars. This means several things. A Orbit may be prescribed about any ray extending from the center of mass of an object and if a mass spins about that ray faster than the excape velocity of the two mass system, the object leaves. This means water leaves without having to be pushed by the solar wind. It means that any liquid water on mars will leave and forget the terraforming because it will fail on this account. This velocity is below ecape velocity on earth.

A large part of the water on mars simply went into the structure of the planet. This is the process sucking up Earth's ocean at the moment. It probably accounts for most of the "losses." It is the process of Cement formation.

I know it isn't sexy but these are well determined processess and they do show evidence of having happened.

The big question of how the water got there in the first place is really cute. It could not have been transported in by meteor strike because of the loss to escape of water and heat of impact. It had to have been present there from the start. This means that Mars was somewhere else and move here and warmed up. This also fits with the escape of water matter because the process requires HEAT from the sun to do the work. You figure out how to make a body with the ice to warm up somewhere else. I don't know! I suspect a few things but I don't know.

Re:How Exactly

[Graff]

All planets substantially smaller than Earth are "Evaporating" into space. It is quite impossible for a planet the mass of the earth to have developed from a smaller planet like mars. The process doesn't work! In order to form an "Earth" you essentially must start with an object about the current mass. This leaves us with a cosmological question as to how such a body would be formed in the first place. The small to large process just does not happen well.

Different environment, different effects.

Remember that it took some time for the center of our solar system to gather enough material into a dense enough package for the solar furnace of our Sun to ignite. Until then there were a lot of clumps of material building up and gathering into what would eventually become the planets. Once the Sun ignited the solar wind blew away most of the lighter elements but many of those clumps were dense enough and had high enough local gravity to retain a significant fraction of the material around them.

This sort of process is still occurring in places where solar winds are too weak to blast apart an object which is being built up.

Also, it's not likely that the "loose" material was swept out of the solar system all at once. It probably took billions of years for this to happen and it is still continuing to this day. It's quite possible for a planet like Earth to have aggregated from smaller bits of material and then slowly lose them over the course of billions of years to eventually become like Mars is now.

Re:How Exactly

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Does this mean Mt Olympus is an extinct volcano- if Mars is cooled off and geologically dead, then there wouldn't be any new molten magma?

Re:How Exactly

[corsican]

Until then there were a lot of clumps of material building up and gathering into what would eventually become the planets.

Now, this is the part I have trouble with, and is the same objection raised by the grandparent. Clumps do not "build up" or "gather" unless they start out with enough mass to begin the process. This is why the asteroid belt is not slowly forming into a planet, and the rings of Saturn are not forming into another moon.

This sort of process is still occurring in places where solar winds are too weak to blast apart an object which is being built up.

Where, exactly, is this process still occurring?

It's quite possible for a planet like Earth to have aggregated from smaller bits of material and then slowly lose them over the course of billions of years to eventually become like Mars is now.

Are you suggesting that a planet the size of earth will evaporate, becoming smaller? So first, it gathers all this material, then for some unknown reason starts losing it? What is the mechanism for the reversal?

This kind of thinking shakes my faith in scientists.

Re:How Exactly

[Zeriel]

I would guess the mechanism for whether a planet accumulates or sheds material is dependent on the amount/type of material already in the surrounding space.

In a dust cloud, I'd expect to see material accumulate around even relatively small bodies. OTOH, in a large open system like the asteroid belt, there's just no way.

Actually, it seems like it'd be based on the differential between the largest and smallest masses--a cloud of dust may not coalesce, but a cloud of dust with some big rocks will eventually be a thinner cloud of dust with bigger rocks.

Re:How Exactly

[hesiod]

> if Mars is cooled off and geologically dead

I'm just guessing here, but I think it is cooling off, and not quite geologically dead yet, but cool enough to start losing its gasses.

Re:How Exactly

[Graff]

Are you suggesting that a planet the size of earth will evaporate, becoming smaller? So first, it gathers all this material, then for some unknown reason starts losing it? What is the mechanism for the reversal?

This kind of thinking shakes my faith in scientists.

Don't blame the scientists for the difficulty that you are having with these concepts. Instead read more of their papers and source material and perhaps you will see what they are talking about.

The universe is not a place with evenly distributed material and perfectly omnidirectional forces. There are flaws in any gas cloud and this leads to eddies and whorls. Some of these are larger than others and thus trap more material. The larger ones coalesce into larger astronomical objects and the smaller ones tend to form smaller objects.

This form of aggregation occurs on all scales. Microscopic particles of dust can accrete into large clumps, large bodies can become larger or smaller depending on their environment. You can see this accretion in the rings of Saturn where it is likely that the bands are forming from interactions between the material that the rings is composed of. There is also good evidence that it is occuring in nebula

When the loose material is blown away from an astronomical object the amount left behind will depend on a lot of factors such as the amount and type of atoms that were in the gas cloud, the size of the gas cloud, the motion of the gas cloud, the size of the newly formed sun, etc.

Re:How Exactly

[Eideewt]

What is connection between ionised gases and the green-house effect?

Simple home experiment: touch a neon lamp with your hand. You'll discover it is cool.

Where's the connection between these two statements?

Re:How Exactly

[teridon]

The better plan is to airbake some ice asteroids through Mars's atmosphere

And where, exactly, are you getting these magic ice asteroids? Your arse?

Hmm... I bet when Iceman gets clogged up, he shoots ice asteroids out his arse.

Re:How Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

There are billions available in the Oort cloud. Suitable Von Neumann machines could reach and then build locally machinery to turn the comets' own material into propulsion mass. You could drop millions of such objects onto Mars over a relatively short period.

Re:How Exactly

[ahodgson]

Earth will eventually lose its volatiles, but it's hardly going to shrink. The vast majority of the mass, plus the tons of crap that hit earth daily, will still be here when the Sun goes nova.

Re:How Exactly

[swv3752]

Besides the Oort cloud there is also the Asteroid belt. Not all the asteroids in the Belt will be suitable, but there will be a fair number. Plus, there are the rings of Saturn and Jupiter.

Re:How Exactly

[Mycroft_VIII]

Relatively short, I suspect, is not relative to human lifespans.
This sounds likes a few hundreds years to me, though I'd welcome a more accurate estimate by someone who's studied this proposal.
I rather like the idea though, just wish we could have it done by about year after next maybee as late as 2010.
Or perhaps find a good way to extend my lifespan so I'm likely to have a chance to visit a terraformed mars. Well there is always cryonics I suppose.

Mycroft

Re:How Exactly

[ultranova]

And where, exactly, are you getting these magic ice asteroids? Your arse?

From space, more specifically from the Asteroid Belt, of course. Why would you search asteroids from anyones arse ? Hmm... On second thought, I don't want to know.

AFAIK most comets are basically water ice with some dirt mixed in.

Re:How Exactly

[ultranova]

Who is the moron who gave this a +5 Informative? This is nothing but a giant morass of misinformation and total nonsense, deserving - at best - a +1 Eco-parody.

When in doubt, make a personal attack.

As a result the Earth has a spinning metallic core that generates a powerful magnetosphere and keeps the planet's mantle heated and molten, but Mars cooled long ago and has little magnetism.

This is - at best - a guess. The truth is we don't really know why our magnetosphere is stronger than Mars', or even why it exists! We also have no reason to think Mars cooled earlier than the Earth.

Actually, by observing the propagation of sound waves (created, for example, by earthquakes) through the Earth's core it's possible to determine it's composition.

Of course this still lefts a lot of room for errors, but it makes those guesses educated guessess, which is a lot better than just plain old guesses.

Even more, there just is no way in the world that UV would cause ionization - that's plain impossible.

The reason that ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer is that it does indeed cause ionization. If this ionization happens in an important part of an important control molecule (such as the DNA), shit will happen.

If UV couldn't ionize, it would be impossible to get sunburn (or skin cancer) from it.

Ozone is nothing but oxygen, albeit in a different molecular form. It reacts with everything, just like oxygen does (ever heard of rust)?

Ozone has different molecular composition than "normal" oxygen, and thus has different chemical properties.

Soon Mars was reduced to a collection of high energy ionized gases over a rock surface, and an intense greenhouse effect set it.

What is connection between ionised gases and the green-house effect?

Simple home experiment: touch a neon lamp with your hand. You'll discover it is cool.

Please explain the relevance of this experiment to subject at hand ?

Is a hot/"energised" (whatever that means) gas lighter than other kinds? Why should it escape a gravitational field?

By "energised" the original poster propably meant ionized. Ionization often breaks molecular bonds, and each individual piece of, say, a water molecule is of course lighter than a whole water molecule. And heat of course is just movement of the molecules/atoms, so hotter gas is more likely to contain molecules whose speed exceeds the planets escape velocity than cold gas.

Lighter gas (one made of lighter particles) escapes gravitational pull easier than heavy in the same temperature simply because temperature is determined by the average kinetic energy of particles in the gas, and to achieve the same kinetic energy lighter particles have to go faster than heavy ones.

Where would you take enough metal (planet, or at least asteroid sized) is an open question, and how would you "inject" it into the core is an interesting exercise.

A big enough asteroid would penetrate rock untill it reached the core; such a cataclysm would, of course, shatter the surface of the planet and explode whatever atmosphere it had left into outer space. Why this would make Mars any more hospitable is a mystery to me too.

Re:How Exactly

[teridon]

From space, more specifically from the Asteroid Belt, of course. Those are made of ice, all of a sudden? Since when? This page seems to say otherwise?

Even if they were made of ice -- how did you plan on making these crash into Mars? More magic arse-rockets? How much energy is it going to take to go to the asteroid belt (more than it takes to get to Mars, unless you want to take 5 years getting there...). Then how much to slow down the 'roid enough to make it go towards Mars?

AFAIK most comets are basically water ice with some dirt mixed in.

Who said anything about comets? Are you going to go to the Oort cloud and bring them back? WTF?! If you've got that much energy then just do whatever you're going to do directly on Mars. Don't use it on some fantastically stupid plan to bring comets from outside the solar system.

Re:How Exactly

[rtb61]

I prefer the idea that mars was a moon and it's planet got knocked out, tossing mars into it's current orbit with a new surface coat and an insufficient atmosphere drawn from it's original planet (which deteriorated over time), and with some of the remaining debries going into the asteroid belt.

Makes you wonder...

[bensagenius]

Are we next?

Re:Makes you wonder...

[brunokummel]

i don't think so, i mean our magnetic field is much stronger than mars. Mag fields
I think the most risk we have is to loose a "few" satellites, and some increase in skin cancer..but nothing as drastic as loosing all the water and life on earth.

Unless of course you're talking about the end of the Sun and the solar system. When then the Sun will expand to the size of Vennus turning Earth into a new Mercury.
but then again not to worry that will not happen on the next 5 billion years from now and we will have extinct ourselve until there =P

AAAHHHH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better train some more terranaughts fast!

The Sun

[AnomalyConcept]

This is very interesting, and nicely complements the information from the latest (not sure which month) National Geographic, which featured a lengthy section about the Sun. One can only imagine what impact future solar storms will have on the Earth (or even other planets, if/when we expand), as we use more and more electronic devices. I imagine the effects would be devastating to be caught in one of these storms while in outer space. Poor satellites.

Re:maybe...

[attemptedgoalie]

The article states that we have a Magnetosphere, Mars doesn't.

That is our protection. Over 3.5 million years, without that protection, it's POSSIBLE that the water was blown off of Mars.

Re:maybe...

[mark-t]

Earth has a stronger gravity to compensate. Also, it would not suprise me in the slightest if the Earth's magnetic field somehow assisted in the matter.

Wrong link in article

[lingqi]

go here for cool animations.

The End?

[The_Real_Nire]

The END of the solar system?!!

We're doomed!!!!!

oh just kidding, slashdot has been boring lately and you know it.

Re:The End?

[Anonymous Coward]

But do you run Linux? And can u imagine a Beowulf cluster of Solar Storms in Soviet-Russia, you bored, inappropriately-modded Insenstive CLOD!??!?

(When bored, resort to memes. Someone might just mod you funny and save your karma-whoring ass...On the other hand....)

Re:maybe...

[mark-t]

Very poor science here, I'm afraid. If this were the explanation, Earth, being about 30% closer to the sun than Mars is, would be hit by, on average, even more solar storms than Mars is, and would have had its atmosphere ripped away that much sooner.

The reasons are because of the Earth's magnetic field and stronger gravitational pull.

Re:maybe...

[DShard]

Oddly enough a recent nova discussed this as a sidenote about magnetic pole reversals of the earth. The discussed that eventually the earths magnetic field would disappear as a result of the process, which would last 300 years. During this we would have a constant, global aurora.

They discussed to a good length that the failure of magnetosphere of mars had stripped it of its atmosphere and water.

Since I got rid of cable I have honestly rediscovered why Public broadcasting is great, as I would have never found this degree of depth on discovery channel.

Solar Storms Destroyed Mars?

[Illbay]

"Scientists now believe that it was solar storms that ripped water from Mars, causing it to be the dry barren wasteland it is today."

Nah. It was socialism.

Before the socialist revolution there, it was a verdant paradise, and the playground of the solar system's wealthy.

Now, it's Cuba without the palm trees.

The Martians are hoping and praying that the NASA landers are harbingers of the new "Yanqui" economy.

Re:Solar Storms Destroyed Mars?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was NOT Socialism. It was George Bush, you non-sentient CLOD! He thought that Mars being the God of War was responsible for 9/11, so he included it in the Axis of Evil, i.e. Mars' rotational axis is evil, and that's why he stripped it of its atmosphere. He may not have found WMDs there, but he's trying, God Bless Him, and all Republican Americans.

Re:Solar Storms Destroyed Mars?

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Red planet indeed.

Re:Solar Storms Destroyed Mars?

[Dwonis]

Being a non-USian, I'm curious: didn't the Democrats also vote to invade Iraq?

[OT] Re:maybe...

[Mick Ohrberg]

While Nova is a very very good show, I have found several on the Science channel (fmr. Discovery Science) that are very good as well. Also - I need to start listening to Science Friday on NPR.

Re:So says Ebay

[ebay]

Man, everyone makes fun of my handle.. Even in IRC =[

Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[bigsteve@dstc]

Remember the Green / Blue Mars novels by Kim Stanley Robinson where they create an atmosphere on Mars? Well it looks like it wouldn't be viable without also finding a way to generate an Earth-like magnetic field.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Surazal]

Long-term, I suppose this is correct. However, providing it is possible to create an atmosphere, it should also be possible to maintain one as well. Radiation would always be a problem, atmosphere or no atmosphere. It makes you realize how convenient magnetic fields are at shielding radiation.

But who knows? Maybe it's easier to terraform Venus, though there's that slow rotation period to worry about. Anyone have any guesses on how to speed up a planet? ;^)

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Jardine]

Anyone have any guesses on how to speed up a planet? ;^)

Hit it with another planet of course. Or you could hit it with something smaller than a planet but moving faster.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Biogenesis]

Just host a million man LAN party at each pole and force everyone to use unshielded computer monitors, the magnetic field from all the electron beam deflector coils just might do it.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[bigsteve@dstc]

Anyone for a game of Intergalactic Billiards? :-)

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Graff]

Remember the Green / Blue Mars novels by Kim Stanley Robinson where they create an atmosphere on Mars? Well it looks like it wouldn't be viable without also finding a way to generate an Earth-like magnetic field.

Not necessarily true. Yes, eventually Mars will lose most of its terraformed atmosphere and it will return to the state that it is currently in but that could take millions of years. We can certainly generate a ton more atmosphere than Mars loses and we can do so for a good, long time.

Not only that but if we were really innovative we would redirect a few comets or similar objects into a close orbit around Mars, releasing them onto the planet in a planned manner and further bulking up the atmosphere. This may be a bit beyond our current technology but we should be able to do it fairly soon.

By the time we are ready to terraform Mars we will almost definitely be able to do so.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[lingqi]

Erm, Venus has no magneto sphere either, you know.

That said, since it does sport a huge iron core maybe if we spun the planet the magnetic field would come along too. Though it would be interesting to see what effect would it have on the earth's magneto sphere (magnetic tidal forces?). It would suck if earth's magneto sphere disappeared because of it.

Though maybe we can send a team of crackpots to detonate some nukes in the core. Oh gosh that was a terrible movie. but hey! maybe we can do that for venus!

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[barawn]

Hit it with another planet of course.

What planet could possibly be perfect for this?

((mass of Earth minus mass of Venus) plus mass of Mars) divided by mass of the moon = 23.7379076

(In a collision between Venus and Mars sufficient to impart enough angular momentum to Venus to make Earth's day, it's quite likely that only a Moon-sized object would form.)

It's a bit curious that the two nearest neighbors of Earth-Moon system could likely create another Earth-Moon system almost exactly. Bizarre.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[raodin]

In the last couple astro/geo classes I've taken, I was told the current theory on how the moon was created is a Mars sized planet colliding with the Earth. Hmmm...

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Surazal]

Erm, Venus has no magneto sphere either, you know.

Serves me for not looking up the specific facts.

Link for explaining Venus's lack of a magnetosphere (it's pretty self-explanatory):
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/p ersonnel/russell/pap ers/venus_mag/

The supposition by this article claims that Earth kept its magnetic bubble due to "stirring" of the core (most likely due to tidal forces from not having a tidal-locked rotation period, I would guess).

So, increasing the rotation would be just the key I would think to introducing a magetic field. Of course, someone here also said that a small planet colliding with that planet would be the trick to increasing its rotation. Since the entire planet would be converted to magma as a result of that collision, I think that would be the perfect solution to creating a good magnetoshpere (thanks to the trusty dynamo effect).

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Tumbleweed]

Ooooor, we could call upon the services of the mighty Superman!

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. Large body redirection (comets and asteroids) would be a useful ability to develop. Not only could the earth be protected, but they could be used as resources -- turn a threat into an asset.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[syukton]

I thought there'd be nuclear-powered robots with lasers melting the sand into giant greenhouses first. Greenhouses where we'd grow plants protected from bad radiation and solar storms. We could pump in CO2 from the existing atmosphere to stimulate their growth, venting some of the produced oxygen into a living area for a future manned mission.

"ready" is a question of vision. Nuclear robots, lasers, giant greenhouses, autonomous processes, it's all uncharted territory but there's nothing stopping us from going there besides our own lack of innovation.

Screw the X-prize, I want to see which corporation is first to get a billboard on the moon, and after that, which corporation is first to get to mars. That'll be some fun times, right there.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[dargaud]

Okay, stupid question, particularly coming from a (rusty) electrical engineer, but would it be possible to generate a sufficiant magnetic field with a simple (supraconducting) wire running around the equator ? Or two smaller wires circling each pole ? How much power would be necessary to do that ?

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Just host a million man LAN party at each pole and force everyone to use unshielded computer monitors, the magnetic field from all the electron beam deflector coils just might do it.

Nah, just arrange all of those pasty white reflective nerds into a solar sail.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but remember all the superconductors currently feasible operate at temperatures far lower than the equitorial martian climate. Mars is cold, but not that cold! The poles would be less of a strech, especially in winter, but to maintain the proper temperature would add a great deal of extra effort and energy.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[rctay]

All you probably need to do is heat the core to decrease viscosity and increase the spin. Where you're going to get that much energy I have know idea.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[cens0r]

I'd have to wager if we became capable of putting a superconducter all along the surface of mars at the equator, our technology would be advanced enough so powering it would not be a problem at all.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to wager if we became capable of putting a superconducter all along the surface of mars at the equator, our technology would be advanced enough so powering it would not be a problem at all.

True, but isn't that the type of assumption made in Star Trek? The phyics of getting to orbit didn't change, they just have energy sources so advanced that you can take joy-rides in shuttlecraft on a whim. My point wasn't it is theoretically impossible, just that in the forseeable future it would be very difficult and maybe "practially impossible" (if you get my drift).

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Graff]

Screw the X-prize, I want to see which corporation is first to get a billboard on the moon, and after that, which corporation is first to get to mars. That'll be some fun times, right there.

The first one will probably be some evil madman who wants to write his name on the Moon so it can be seen from Earth. He'll probably get stopped but henchmen will still manage to write "CHA" in large letters across the near side of the Moon.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[Thuktun]

supraconducting

That would be an insulator, wouldn't it?

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Let settle for 200 million years and serve...

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[EvilTwinSkippy]

In a word: no.

Magnetic feilds are generated by the movement of electrical current. When current moves along a wire, a magnetic field is generated perpendicular to that wire. When you make a tube of wire, the normals overlap in a away that produced a magnetic field of a specific direction, and only if you use alternating current.

It's the winds in the wire, and the changes in the direction of the current, that produce a magnetic field, not the distance.

What a superconductor buys you is the ability to reflect magnetic fields.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[dargaud]

Yes, but if you have a loop of wire around the equator with a current running on it, the resulting magnetic field is perpendicular to the plane of the circle. In other words, in the proper North-South direction. Granted, what is important is the distribution of that field outside of the loop, in the atmosphere or above and I don't know what shape it would take with a big stone (Mars) inside the loop.

Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong

[dragons_flight]

The Earth's magnetic field is maintained by dynamo processes that dissipate about 1 TW of power.

Re:maybe...

[WarMonkey]

Actually, it's entirely valid science. Solar storms are, in fact, asymmetrical in how they spew forth from the sun. I did not say that magnetism and gravity did not play a role in withstanding them. Whether you know it or not, you are assuming that every solar storm is equally damaging, which is not the case.

Re:Magnetic Field

[Commander Trollco]

Yes, the magnetic field does deflect a lot of solar radiation.
Warning: blatant oversimplification!

Much of the solar flux comes in the form of charged particles, such as Hydrogen ions and electrons. Electrically charged particles are deflected by magnetic fields. Thus, a major portion of the solar wind does not reach the surface of Earth. To find out more, here is a helpful link.

Soo..

[Anonymous Coward]

..if the solar storms blew away water from mars upper atmosphere during a long period of time, which led to the drying of mars oceans, the same (but maybe in a lesser extent) should have happend to earth.

Because of earths higher gravity, denser atmosphere and our magnetic field this effect might not at all have been that big, but over the billions of years it has probably made a noticeable decrease in earths oceans too?

If we take a look at Venus, a planet we believe had as much water as earth in the past, we find that it has no water either - and no magnetic field but it has about the same gravity as earth and a denser atmosphere => it is quite likely that a magnetic field is much more important for a planet to keep its water, than its atmosphere and/or gravity.

However, as I understand, during the period (several hundreds of years or more?) which the earths magnetic field changes polarity, which happends regularly, we have no magnetic "shield" and together with my statement that denser atmosphere and higher gravity than mars does not matter that much, earth should during this time also have lost some water in the same way as Mars/Venus?

So what am I shooting at here? Well I think it is an interesting question wether we (planet earth) had more water 5 billion years ago, or if it is largely unchanged? Maybe earth was totally covered in water? Maybe we will only have half as much, or no, water in 5 billion years? Or is earth in fact increasing its water-mass by sucking up comets? Are there any such data/measurements?

Maybe if we have such measurements from periods during which we had no magnetic field - we might be able to calculate the effects of solarwinds and thereby maybe evaluate this new Mars-theory plus maybe calculate wether earth might suffer the same destiny as Venus and Mars.

(I think it is quite sad that we are surrounded by all these planets that once was easily terraformable but now they are all "dead". ..and we are next) :(

Re:Soo..

[barawn]

..if the solar storms blew away water from mars upper atmosphere during a long period of time, which led to the drying of mars oceans, the same (but maybe in a lesser extent) should have happend to earth.


Mars has no magnetic field. Its core cooled off tremendously faster than Earth's, and so the magnetic field froze out.

Earth, being more massive, also has a much smaller scale height, so that liquid water vapor extends to much smaller heights. Combine those two and the water vapor loss rate for Earth is tremendously less.

Until the output of the Sun increases in a few hundred million years, the water cycle is stable. (Yes, a couple hundred million years - Earth will be out of the habitable zone *before* the Sun goes red giant).


(I think it is quite sad that we are surrounded by all these planets that once was easily terraformable but now they are all "dead". ..and we are next) :(

Well, yes - life requires energy, and the Sun is burning through it at an utterly incredible rate. Eventually it has to run out.

Of course, that's several hundred million years from now, and if we're still stuck on this planet by then, we deserve to go extinct.

If we really want a couple more, we could always move Venus out to Mars's orbit, and have Mars smash into it. Poof! Instant new Earth.

Re:Soo..

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was closer to a billion. I'd be quite surprised if mankind lasted that long.

Re:Soo..

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason Venus has no magnetic field is because it doesn't really spin very fast. One Venus day, which is 243 Earth days; is longer than its year.

The earth's magnetic field flips every 100,000 years or so.

I'm not sure that 'dead' is the right term for these planets. Most theories I've heard believe that Venus, Earth, and Mars were very similar in their atmostpheric makeup. No one is sure just how Venus ended up with it's rotational speed, but many believe that at one time Venus was struck by some object which not only stopped it's rotation, but actually caused it to reverse and now rotates extremely slow. Venus just happened to be at the right location where carbon dioxide was released into the air at higher volume which caused a runaway greenhouse effect making it hotter than mercury. With Mars there was a different set of issues. You had a planet made up of lighter materials and less gravity. Mars happened to be far enough from the sun that carbon dioxide was absorbed into the soil. The atmosphere it had probably evaporated over time.

It seams like the Earth just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The fact that we really don't know a whole lot about what happened to the Earth despite the fact that we live here shows a lot at how mysterious the past of the solar system is. You are right that we're probably next. Looking at the craters on planets, and how some planets like Venus and Uranus have drastically altered rotations (Uranus being on it's side now), it's pretty safe to assume that catastrophic events are pretty much a given throught the life of a planet. Wheither we get hit next is probably up to chance but you never know.

Re:Soo..

[hesiod]

> we could always move Venus out to Mars's orbit, and have Mars smash into it. Poof! Instant new Earth.

That's a very interesting use of the word "instant." I believe It would take hundreds of years for it to solidify again after becoming a ball of molten rock. Two planets colliding cause a little bit of friction...

However, I like the point of your comment, it would be pretty cool to start smashing planets together & see what happens. We might want to test it outside our own solar system first, though. Or at least not with the two nearest planets, one of which would have to cross Earth's orbit.

Re:Soo..

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I prefer the idea of making a fleet of massive spacecraft out of asteroid material, and then setting off to explore the rest of the Universe, albeit slowly.

You don't really mind the journey to another solar system taking 40,000 years if you bring the rest of your civilization with you.

Re:Soo..

[barawn]

That's a very interesting use of the word "instant." I believe It would take hundreds of years for it to solidify again after becoming a ball of molten rock. Two planets colliding cause a little bit of friction...

Millions of years, more likely!

But as we've got hundreds of millions of years left, as long as we get to it in the next few million years, we should be fine. :)

(I thought it was a more interesting use of the word "Poof".)

Re:Soo..

[hesiod]

> Millions of years, more likely!

I figured I was underestimating a lot, but didn't want to make wildly inaccurate statements. Guess I did anyway :)

> (I thought it was a more interesting use of the word "Poof".)

pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...ooooo...oooofff f. ..

Re:Soo..

[RobertB-DC]

we could always move Venus out to Mars's orbit, and have Mars smash into it. Poof! Instant new Earth.

"Hey, it worked for me!" -God

Not Solar Storms At All

[Nom du Keyboard]

They think it was solar storms. I think it was patents. The Martians kept granting more and more ridiculous software patents until someone was allowed to patent water. And that person then collected it all up and that was the end of Mars as they knew it.

Re:Not Solar Storms At All

[hesiod]

> And that person then collected it all up and that was the end of Mars as they knew it.

Chapter 2: "Hey, where'd all this water come from," says Earth

Re:maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very poor argument here, I'm afraid. Just because Earth is 30% closer to the Sun than Mars doesn't mean that Earth gets "hit by, on average, even more solar storms."

Even if it did get "hit", the reasons our atmosphere hasn't been "ripped" from our planet is because of our planet's stronger gravitational field.

Even so... interesting how our planet is just the right size(to produce the gravitional field that is neccessary), and just the right distance from the Sun (to produce the right amount of heat and warmth) for Humanity.

what Chaos!

Re:maybe...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Over 3.5 million years,

Uh, don't you mean billion?

Re:maybe...

[WarMonkey]

shut the fuck up newb. when did you get your slashdot account? yesterday? you're a fucking douchebag. you don't know what you're talking about.

Well there's a well reasoned post if I ever saw one. :)

Clearly

[tcd004]

we need to take out the Sun as soon as possible!

That menace!

Re:Clearly

[Anonymous Coward]

"we need to take out the Sun as soon as possible!"

Yes, and replace it with safe, clean nuclear energy!

Re:Clearly

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

On top of that terrorists are undoubtedly planning to use prayer to increase the output of the sun to burn away all infidels.

We cannot allow a Sun Worship Gap!!!

Re:Clearly

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, the CIA has reported that it is highly likely that there are WMDs on the Sun. "The Sun is Hot. I mean like Real Hot. Apparently, there's some kind of fusion going on there, like what you would see in a Hydrogen bomb" said the Director of the CIA. Film at 11.

Re:Clearly

[DiscoOnTheSide]

WASHINGTON, DC- Homeland Security official Tom Ridge came out publicly today to raise the alert level to red. "We have detailed information that the al-queda terrorist network plans to fly the sun into the white house. We will not allow this to happen. I mean, if anyone is gonna use the sun as a weapon, you can damn sure it's going to be us. In case of a solar attack, you can protect yourself with duct tape and sunscreen."

Re:Clearly

[mwood]

"For centuries Mankind has dreamed of destroying the sun." -- Montgomery Burns

Re:Clearly

[hesiod]

> clean nuclear energy!

Hey, that's nukular, pal! Only terrorists use the word "nuclear," especially when planning their next attack!

Oh noes!

[homeobocks]

A solar storm on Halloween? That means that the planets will align, causing a gravitational pull that would draw in solar wind, detonating in the centre of the earth, forcing red hot maaagma outwards, erupting every volcano in the world!

Oh, great.

[attemptedgoalie]

So he doesn't RTFA, and you give *ME* shit?

Good catch. :-)

mars solar storm movie

[infonick]

Were you disappointed by the movie not working? Two errors were in the link.

This is the working link,

And here's a link to the movie itself.

Re:maybe...

[John Courtland]

What sort of strikes me odd is that the polar reveral has happened at least ONCE since humanoids evolved (I think 700,000yrs ago). This means we somehow survived the first time, and other shit survived before us. I wonder what'll happen?

in other news...

[laserbeak]

so does this mean mars could have pre-desolate factors, like oil, water etc. underneath the surface? because if it has oil, tell G. bush Jr. and we'll be invadi.. exploring mars in no time! :)

Re:in other news...

[Paulrothrock]

Not exploring, LIBERATING!

oh well

[flacco]

In related news, scientists now believe that it was solar storms that ripped water from Mars, causing it to be the dry barren wasteland it is today.

damn! i was hoping to blame microsoft.

Re:oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, friend, where facts are no impediment to Microsoft-blaming!

Re:oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Microsoft, you non-sentient CLOD!
I have it from the most authoritative source.
The CIA's report on Iraqi WMDs.
*ducks (and covers head)*

In related news...

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

Halloween Solar Storm Nearing Heliopause

In related news, universe discovered to have hot flashes and missing matter.

(ba da bish!)

Next Cosmo: Male scientists say universe is growing at a steady rate with Heliopause. Female scientists disagree and say male scientists are lazy and don't help clean around the observatory and to just shut the hell up anyway. Also in issue: newborn discovers milky way.

(ba da bish!)

Hey hey! I'm here all week, just like the veal.

Re:In related news...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I think you have been observing Uranus for too long.

Voyager?!

[troon]

Radio disturbances caused by that interaction then might be picked up by the Voyager craft, giving scientists their first measurement of where the edge really is.

What? We're still receiving data from the Voyagers?!

Sweet.

Re:Voyager?!

[QuantumJedi]

Yes we are still receiving stuff from the voyager craft I remember reading a paper about it rcently in Nature. A link to the abstract is here It may not be as pretty as the pictures we got from the outer planets but I find it amazing that such old technology can still help us do science despite the fact that it is so far away it warps your mind trying to think about it. I wonder how long the voyager craft will stay operational or what kind of computer hardware/software it used. I guess a google search could tell me but I don't have time for that now.

Re:Voyager?!

[JosKarith]

Well yeah - it doesn't get hit by a meteorite, sucked through a wormhole and spat out near a machine civilisation that repair it and send it back to find The Creator for a good few years yet :)

Re:Voyager?!

[niktemadur]

Hell, yeah! I believe that Voyager is doing its' most important work RIGHT NOW. After the Neptune flyby, the planetary science teams packed up and left, and a new crew of solar and interstellar scientists took over the lab, to remain there until Voyager's batteries run out, in the year 2020.

As we speak, Voyager 1 is more than twice the distance from the Sun to Neptune, maybe even three times as much. Voyager 2 is lagging behind a bit. Whatever the exact distance, the Voyager Twins are alive, well, and broadcasting from the very edge of the Solar System.

First, a bit of definition: a Solar or Interstellar Wind is not really wind, but particles travelling through space at great speeds. Our own Solar Winds zoom away from the Sun at about a million mph; it is poetically referred to as a Supersonic wind.

Solar winds race outward like an expanding bubble. Interstellar winds bombard us from all directions. There is a high-turbulence zone where these winds clash head-on; very little penetrates either in or out. This zone is called the Heliopause, where Solar Winds slow down from Supersonic to a hundred thousand mph. During a Solar Maximum, when our winds push the hardest, the Heliopause expands in area. Conversely, during a Solar Minimum, the Heliopause deflates.

On August 1, 2002, Voyager 1 measured Solar Winds at a hundred thousand mph! However, eight months later, the winds went back up to Supersonic, and have remained that way. Voyager 2, lagging behind, has detected no change at any point in time.

What does this mean? Well, Voyager 1 left the direct influence of the Sun, then some months later the bubble expanded, and Voyager 1 is back under the influence.

This has been a source of controversy, since way too few interstellar particles were detected, according to what current theorists expected. But then again, we ARE in uncharted territory, aren't we?

Re:Voyager?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder what you mean by Supersonic Winds? What is the speed of sound in space? You seem to suggest that 100,000 mph is less than supersonic.

What are you talkin about, guy?

Re:Voyager?!

[sexylicious]

In space the matter is spread out much more than here on earth, which means the speed of sound through the various gases (mostly hydrogen, helium nuclei, electrons, and protons), is different. Since the gases are all spread out, the mean free paths between gas particles is pretty big. That means that your speed of sound is going to be greater.

But there is another catch!

Because the gases in space have a sigificant amount of charged particles, there is also a coupling effect between the electromagnetic field and the speed of sound. You essentially have TWO speeds of sound: one from the gas molecules bumping into each other; and one from the plasmadynamic interactions between the gas particles causing magnetosonic waves which have their own wave speed. The magnetosonic waves can only happen in a gas that is at least partially ionized.

The heliopause is a prime example of a magnetosonic shock. It's theorized to be pretty much a standing shock wave (standing still from our point of view). The heliopause should also have a sonic shock from the clashing of different materials at different speeds (two gas flows coming at each other). One gas will force the other gas to slow down; which forces the slowed-down-gas to form a shock.



In space, the speed of sound is REALLY big. 100 km/s is not an uncommon speed of sound. The magnetosonic waves should travel at speeds between the speed of sound and the speed of light. Magnetosonic wave speeds vary on how many ions exist in the gas, and on how much electromagnetic energy is transported through the gas.

Re:Voyager?!

[hesiod]

> a Solar or Interstellar Wind is not really wind, but particles travelling through space at great speeds

Please excuse my ignorance, but isn't that exactly what "normal" wind is? It's particles (molocules, mostly) flying around through space? Except in this case they keep being pulled towards Earth so that they appear to be part of it.

Re:Voyager?!

[niktemadur]

Let me think for a second...

Okay. At face value, it may seem the same, but I make a distinction between "earth" wind and "space" wind, because there are a few key differences.

Earth wind:
1. Is mainly composed of molecules.
2. Is fairly dense and travels through air, athmosphere.
3. Is caused by shifting and clashing air masses of varying temperature, which in turn is caused by a planet's rotation.

Space wind:
1. Is mainly composed of charged subatomic particles.
2. Is extremely diffuse and travels through a near-perfect vacuum.
3. Is caused by a star either ejecting mass or downright exploding.

There's another difference I was cooking up, but the phone rang and I lost my train of thought. But you get the general idea.

Perhaps Mars was First!

[uberdave]

Maybe the visitors went there first.

Re:Perhaps Mars was First!

[mwood]

After Planet Spaceball failed to take all of Druidia's air, they realized they were out of water too....

Re:maybe...

[eathan13]

Say cheese.

Got it, thanks!

Now I can add some stupid comment like "Link's been missing all this time" and use the pic as a lame comeback on message boards.

Tell you what, it sure beats that guy getting hit in the sac by a wiffle bat that just says "owned"...

Re:maybe...

[Hittite Creosote]

I wonder what'll happen?

Satellites will need to be more radiation hardened, people will wear more sunblock and cover up outdoors, a suntan becomes deeply unfashionable. Big hats and baggy clothes will be the fashion. Migrating birds and other animals that rely on the field are more likely to be confused, businesses will have to spend more money protecting sensitive equipment. Skin cancers rise.

But this is going to be a gradual thing, not a sudden shut off. The thing I'm dreading most is all the cranks and loons declaring it to be the Imminent End of the World.

Re:maybe...

[FireFury03]

The New Scientist recently did an article saying that when the Earth's magnetic field collapses the solar wind will generate a replacement magnetic field as it interacts with the upper atmosphere. Why didn't the same happen on Mars?

The water went into the ground..

[andersa]

There isn't concensus on where the water have gone, the only thing we know for sure is, there was a lot of water before, and there isn't now.

I work closely with the Mars scientists at Copenhagen University. They designed the magnets on the Mars Rovers. If you ask any one of those for their official oppinion on where the water went, most likely they will just say "erhhh?!", because really nobody has clue. Some calculations conclude that even with the weak magnetic field, the boiling off of water would not go fast enough for all the water to evaporate into space.

Most of the water may still be there, but hidden underground as permafrost.

Re:The water went into the ground..

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Duh. It was ejected into space.

Space is a giant vacuum. Material sucked up into space and carried away at speeds approaching that of the light tend to "disappear." It didn't really disappear, of course. It's either joined the mishmash of matter between solar systems, or has slowed down and joined the orbit of another.

Re:The water went into the ground..

[andersa]

I can't tell if you are joking or if you are serious, so let me reply as if not.

Duh. It was ejected into space.

Ejected? Like forcefully ejected in an explosive manner? No, definitely not.

On Earth the magnetic field deflects the ionized particles in the solar wind, forcing the particles to mostly fly past the Earth, but also to a smaller degree impact into the magnetic north and south poles causing aurora.

Space is a giant vacuum. Material sucked up into space and carried away at speeds approaching that of the light tend to "disappear."

As you can readily verify on spaceweather.com the solar wind travels at an average speed of around 300km/s, which is pretty far from the speed of lights 300000km/s.

And the atmosphere doesn't get "sucked" into space. There is vacuum around Earth too you know? Why doesn't Earth's atmosphere get sucked away?

When a planet has no magnetic field, the high impulse component of the solar wind blasts right into the atmosphere and blows off the outer layers little by little. It's just like those drier things in the rest room.

This is a great theory, except...

[Junior J. Junior III]

Except they discovered water on Mars. Apparently there's still quite a bit of it left there. It's not quite the dry place we thought it was.

Re:This is a great theory, except...

[sexylicious]

Antarctica has water on it. Yet it's considered one of the driest places on Earth.

Re:maybe...

[aurispector]

You reason like a creationist. The earth isn't the right size and distance from the sun so Humanity can exist. Humanity exists because the earth is the right size and distance from the sun. It's a fine point, but the essential one.

Re:maybe...

[emir]

I'm wondering a bit about how venus lost its water. If i remember correctly venus gravity field is comparable to earths but yet venus also lost its water due to lack of magnetic field. So what is protecting earth from loosing its water during shifting of poles?

Re:maybe...

[Silburn_Luke]

The magnetic field acting as a shield from the ionisation caused by... solar storms.

The stronger gravitational field meaning that the energy requirements to boil off water from the earth's atmosphere is much higher. The additional energy that is derived from ionisation caused by... solar storms.

Proximate and ultimate causes can both be correct you know and it'd be a very poor scientist who failed to recognise this.

Regards
Luke

Re:This is great

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure, ask the Americans for help. AGAIN! Go home and choke on a freedom-fry, you cheese-eating monkey. In Soviet Russia, the French invade YOU!

And I thought that was Americans who had freedom fries. Anyway they probably taste extra good with wketchup.
Good luck with your elections, morons!

Re:maybe...

[lobsterGun]

The Nova episode... ...stated that it wouldn't be so much that the Earths magnetic field was gone, it would be that the magnetic field was poorly aligned. In effect, the earth would have many smaller magnetic fields. (with the side affect of being able to see the Northern Lights nearly anywhere on the globe.) ...stated that there is geological evidence of a time where the magnetic field switched orientation over the course of just a few days. ...stated an estimate of an additional 100,000 cases of skin cancer per year until the magnetic field stabilizes - which could take up to 6000 years. ...migratory birds and sea creatures that use the magnetic nacigation would either adapt or go extinct.

so really, other than a jumpo in the skin cancer rate, the folks at Nova didn't really think there would a catastrophic affect.

Re:maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Planets with a magnetic field are protected from the solar wind by their magnetic field. Planets without a magnetic field, but with an atmosphere, are also protected (Venus is an example of this). Solar radiation ionises the upper atmosphere creating an electrically conducting plasma (the ionosphere). The solar wind's magnetic field moving past the planet induces ionospheric currents, which generate their own magnetic field, which cancels the solar wind's field. This means that if the Earth's field suddenly vanished tomorrow, we would still be shielded from the solar wind because we have a relatively dense atmosphere.

I am going to get slapped for this one but

[mpost4]

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

Yo ho, it's hot, the sun is not
A place where we could live
But here on Earth there'd be no life
Without the light it gives

We need its light
We need its heat
We need its energy
Without the sun, without a doubt
There'd be no you and me

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

The sun is hot

It is so hot that everything on it is a gas: iron, copper, aluminum, and many others.

The sun is large

If the sun were hollow, a million Earths could fit inside. And yet, the sun is only a middle-sized star.

The sun is far away

About 93 million miles away, and that's why it looks so small.

And even when it's out of sight
The sun shines night and day

The sun gives heat
The sun gives light
The sunlight that we see
The sunlight comes from our own sun's
Atomic energy

Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom-smashing machine. The heat and light of the sun come from the nuclear reactions of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and helium.

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where hydrogen is built into helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

Thanks "They might be giants" that was fun

Re:maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, BS. The overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that in fact the Earth was specifically created to support Humans. The conditions required for life are extremely specific. Do some real research and ask questions instead of assuming what you get through public media has any truth to it.

Obligatory TMBG

[WormholeFiend]

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where Hydrogen is built into Helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

The sun is hot, the sun is not
A place where we could live
But here on Earth there'd be no life
Without the light it gives

We need its light, we need its heat
The sun light that we seek
The sun light comes from our own sun's
Atomic energy

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where Hydrogen is built into Helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

The sun is hot...

The sun is so hot that everything on it is a gas
Aluminum, Copper, Iron, and many others

The sun is large...

If the sun were hollow, a million Earth's would fit inside
And yet, it is only a middle size star

The sun is far away...

About 93,000,000 miles away
And that's why it looks so small

But even when it's out of sight
The sun shines night and day

We need its heat, we need its light
The sun light that we seek
The sun light comes from our own sun's
Atomic energy

Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom smashing machine
The heat and light of the sun are caused by nuclear reactions between
Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Helium

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where Hydrogen is built into Helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

Re:maybe...

[iwadasn]

The magnetic field doesn't stop UV, which is what gives you skin cancer. It will have no effect on people living on the surface. Electronics on the surface however, could be a little more prone to general nastiness.

Re:maybe...

[mwood]

Many species will go extinct, and *every one of the extinctions will be blamed on human activity*.

Re:maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to be blunt not much, but don't get too worried. To put it in perspective, Venus's weak magnetosphere might be comparable to the Earth's during the "flip", but remember that this is only temporary. The few centuries of weakness in our magnetosphere is negligible compared to the amount of water that would have to be removed to noticably change the world-wide climate.

If it makes you feel better, Earth has been through this 40,000 cycle for many millions of years. Any water lost has most likely been replaced either by water vapor from volcanic erruptions or ice from meteorites and small comets that have struck the Earth.

Now our descendents may have some problems associated with the phenomena, but the oceans drying up won't be one of them. It would certainly increase the vulnerability of earth electronics to single event upsets, especially with the high density, fast, low voltage ICs common in consumer electronics. They might also have to deal with increased cancer rates due to more high energy particles reaching the surface.

Re:maybe...

[corsican]

Boy, that takes me back...7th grade science class, 1977. By 1990 we would all be wearing long-sleeved turtlenecks and big floppy hats outside all the time. Sunglasses, of course, as well as zinc oxide on all exposed skin surfaces.

Re:How Exactly - bogus information alert

[benj_e]

but Mars formed from a less dense and dynamic clump of matter. As a result the Earth has a spinning metallic core that generates a powerful magnetosphere and keeps the planet's mantle heated and molten, but Mars cooled long ago and has little magnetism.

Mars probably has a dense Fe core, but it has cooled. This is because it simply is too small, and cooled more rapidly than the Earth. People may not realize it, but the Earth is substantially larger than Mars.

but the inner atmosphere of Mars would become the equivalent of one huge ozone layer, reaching the surface. Ozone is a dangerous chemical capable of reacting with other substances on the surface much like nail polish remover acts on its target.

As has been pointed out, Ozone is simply O3. It is not a "dangerous" chemical. It does react with other elements, but is not like "nail polish remover".

Soon Mars was reduced to a collection of high energy ionized gases over a rock surface, and an intense greenhouse effect set it.

This is the worst - Mars has a very limited Greenhouse effect. An "intense" GHE would be Venus. btw, without the GHE on Earth, it'd be a big frozen wasteland.

Some far-out proposals suggest engineering a collision between Mars and one of its moons, such as Phobos or Deimos, in order to increase mass and introduce energy into the core.

As has been pointed out, Mars' moons simply have too little mass. Further, they have very little, relatively speaking, metal to add to a planetary core. It would take a pretty large planetesimal to add much to Mars, and the resulting collision would render the surface moltant for millions of years. Hardly a prescription for terraforming.

Re:maybe...

[mark-t]

That is irrellevant. I was not claiming that the parent's reasons were infactual, only invalid deductive reasoning. While the storms have indeed been asymmetrical, there is no actual reason to assume that Earth would have actually been subjected to fewer storms than Mars was except, perhaps the mere fact that we still have water here and Mars does not, and that can already be explained by another phenomenon.

Besides, in a probabilistic model, Earth _would_ get subjected to more intense solar storms, on average, than Mars would.

Re:maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, what are the odds? Out of 10^21 stars, we get the one with just the right planet! God must be behind this.

But seriously, how you can you say what you say with confidence? Creation is a terrible explanation.

go.com still exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember Disney paid the better part of a billion dollars for this portal and all they do now is repost ABC News articles now.

Eisner won't pull the plug...I have to assume he's the one that signed the check in the first place and can't own up to the realization that he was a dot com sucker.

-1, offtopic, i know, i know

Re:maybe...

[Zeriel]

Actually, I would say that the evidence supports no conclusion, Earth-created-for-humans or humans-evolved-to-fit-Earth.

Re:maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are reading way too much into symantics here. Zealousliness isn't confined to religons, have you checked yourself for it lately?

Re:maybe...

[hesiod]

> the solar wind will generate a replacement magnetic field as it interacts with the upper atmosphere. Why didn't the same happen on Mars?

Wild guess here. Perhaps it has to do with Mars being smaller than Earth, therefore a thinner atmosphere. The materials for the "replacement" have to come from somewhere, so if you have fewer materials to start with, you would incur a greater % loss.

Missed that one...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

My wife was having a baby. We were in and out of the hospital from about a week before the event till a week after.

That said, we did nickname our daughter space baby. Little did I know...

Well if she grows up to be some sort of supergenious I'll blame it on my genes anyway.

Re:Missed that one...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well if she grows up to be some sort of supergenious I'll blame it on my genes anyway.

Why? You can't spell genius.

Could Lose your gas in only a billion years...

[hyperventilate]

The important thing about Mars losing its water is the rms speed of a gas molecule compared to the escape velocity from the planet. When the former is more than about 1/6 of the latter, the gas will be lost in less than a billion years. The gas velocity depends on the temperature (which depends on the distance from the sun, and occassional blasts such as are being talked about), and the escape velocity depends on the planet's mass and radius. Even without solar storms, Mars can barely hold onto its water vapor.

Re:maybe...

[Rich0]

I'm not sure that sunblock will help - we're talking about high-energy particles after all. Maybe wearing lead plates would help block what the atmosphere misses.

In any case, the only real effects would be an increase in cancer and mutation rates. However, 95% of all cancer would probably still be after reproductive ages. If the life expenctancy of man dropped to 40 years (a HUGE drop when you think about it), it probably wouldn't affect population much at all. As long as everyone has kids in their early 20's they'd be old enough to care for themselves when mom and dad die of cancer. And we only need to hang in there for a couple of generations most likely.

Sure, people would start living a little more like animals in the very worst case, but certainly this wouldn't be the end of mankind.

And if people put lead shielding in the roofs of their homes and businesses that would probably cut down on the cancer rate remendously. A day at the beach won't kill anyone - it is where you sleep every night that matters a whole lot more!

Re:maybe...

[aurispector]

BS? Evidence? LOL! I guess all those fossils I dug out of the bottom of the Colorado river canyon in Arizona were put there by God because they looked cute!

Re:How Exactly - bogus information alert

[Anonymous Coward]

If you inhale a highish concentration of O3, it will eat holes through your lungs.