Slashdot Mirror


Solar Wind Rips Up Martian Atmosphere

IHateEverybody writes "Scientists have found evidence that the solar wind is ripping off chunks of the Martian atmosphere, which could possibly explain why Mars has such a thin atmosphere today. The chunks are being ripped up along 'magnetic umbrellas,' which are bubbles of magnetic fields which rise from the ground and extend above the Martian atmosphere. This is surprising because scientists previously thought that these magnetic umbrellas protected the Martian atmosphere. Now it looks like exactly the opposite might be true."

101 comments

  1. bad news for earth? by Bizzeh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if this is possible on mars, what different properties does earth have to stop our atmosphear from one day just disapearing?

    1. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A magnetic field.

    2. Re:bad news for earth? by X-acious · · Score: 0

      Not being too specific, the metals in the Earth's core create a magnetic field which shields against the solar wind, among other things. That same magnetic field has been getting weaker though...

    3. Re:bad news for earth? by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I understand it, the Earth's magnetic field is healthy and extends up past the bulk of our atmosphere. The pushing from the solar wind deforms our atmosphere, but any ripples or other magnetic eddies are considerably smaller and that possible "ripping" of an Earth eddy would take place pretty far above the planet. I might guess that the Earth's magnetic field is consistent enough to prevent any large eddies from forming in the first place.

    4. Re:bad news for earth? by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would say that you are correct. The article is saying that the SMALL LIMITED mag fields on Mars allows, even encourages, the ripping. Our field encompasses the entire planet and prevents. I have wondered if the moon acting on our core is what makes it spin. As such, it would seem that pushing a large asteroid (perhaps ceres) around Mars would re-start its core spinning. Of course, that tech is out of our reach for a while, and we do not have enough data to know if something like that would work.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:bad news for earth? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a small loss of atmosphere anyway from other factors. Still, the atmosphere is slowly regenerated by the combination of gaseous emissions (like from volcanoes) and their conversion to life sustaining gases by low order life forms (plankton or something like that). Those emissions are slowing down because the Earth is cooling down but the loss of atmosphere (by natural causes) is way beyond our foreseeable future (maybe more than the lifespan of the Earth).

      --
      ics
    6. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As such, it would seem that pushing a large asteroid (perhaps ceres) around Mars would re-start its core spinning.

      No. Mars' core is solid, not liquid (like Earth's), so it can't spin, even if you put a large asteroid in orbit.

    7. Re:bad news for earth? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
    8. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good link, TheLink!

      The meat of the article says

      'Scientists have not until now had any firm evidence whether the core of Mars was solid or liquid, though they had suspected it would be at least partly liquid, and they knew it was mostly iron. The new study finds that at least the outer portion of the core is indeed molten, making it similar to the cores of Earth and Venus.'

    9. Re:bad news for earth? by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're correct. Earth's protective magnetic field is generated by the molten iron core. When the planets were created, they all had the same molten core, but over time, they solidify. It takes longer in bigger planets because the core is bigger (duh). In Earth, the outer core remains molten while the inner core has solidified. Likewise, Venus, being a relatively big rocky planet also has an atmosphere that's protected by its magnetic field (hence the clouds on it surface). Mercury and Mars are smaller, their cores are likely less molten, so their magnetic fields are weaker and therefore they have no atmosphere. Eventually, Earth's core will also solidify so the atmosphere will get ripped away from here too.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    10. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Earth's magnetic field strength is significantly higher is due to the dynamo effect of the rotation and the molten material. So part of the key if maintaining such a relatively higher planetary magnetic flux is to ensure the Earth's molten material does not cool down and solidify. So in essence, geothermal energy may be a pernicious renewable energy method.

    11. Re:bad news for earth? by sabernet · · Score: 1

      I wonder what effect any potential polar reversal would have?

      From what I understand, the time interval between when N becomes S and S becomes N is still unknown. I wonder how long the interval would have to be for the eventual polar reversal of Earth to cause any serious effects to our atmosphere(aside from seeing armies of confused foul migrating North for the winter).

    12. Re:bad news for earth? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be slightly more specific, the magnetic field of Earth has been oscillating all the time, even disappearing for some time on numerous occasions. And Earth's atmosphere is still here, so perhaps we do not have to worry too much about this (as for radiation effects on living beings including humans, however, that might be an entirely different question).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:bad news for earth? by fredrik70 · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, we know for a fact it occured quie a few times before, and our atmosphere is still here.

      Wikipedia describes it quite well:

      "Because the magnetic field has never been observed to reverse by humans with instrumentation, and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal. Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, Homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions. A possible explanation is that the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles even in the absence of the Earth's normal magnetic field [8].

      Although the inspection of past reversals does not indicate biological extinctions, present society with its reliance on electricity and electromagnetic effects (e.g. radio, satellite communications) may be vulnerable to technological disruptions in the event of a full field reversal."

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    14. Re:bad news for earth? by krnpimpsta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say that you are correct. The article is saying that the SMALL LIMITED mag fields on Mars allows, even encourages, the ripping. Our field encompasses the entire planet and prevents. I have wondered if the moon acting on our core is what makes it spin. As such, it would seem that pushing a large asteroid (perhaps ceres) around Mars would re-start its core spinning. Of course, that tech is out of our reach for a while, and we do not have enough data to know if something like that would work.

      Putting a satellite around Mars.. hmmm.. maybe we should put two in orbit, and call them Phobos and Deimos. ;)

      --

      New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

    15. Re:bad news for earth? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

      There is no good or bad, only properties.

    16. Re:bad news for earth? by Ornedan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha. Ha.
      Phobos and Deimos have mass, relative to Mars, of jack and shit. Mars/Eris relative mass would at least be in the same (decimal) order of magnitude as Earth/Moon.

    17. Re:bad news for earth? by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 4, Funny

      A new study concludes that the core of Mars is the consistency of the syrupy goop found inside chocolate-covered fruit candy.

      Apparently, Jello pudding does not actually make for a good planetary core.

    18. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Geothermal energy doesn't reach nearly far enough into the planet to have any effect on the temperature of the core. Even the deepest hole on earth, which is in Russia, if I remember right, is something like 15 miles deep. While that sounds like a really deep hole, if the earth were and egg, 15 miles wouldn't even have broken through the shell yet. At that minuscule distance, no amount of extracted heat would have any effect on the core.

      The core of the earth is likely never going to cool, even if we install geothermal energy in every house and building on the planet. Between friction heating (from tidal forces) and nuclear heating, the core has remained molten for 4.5 billion years or so, and will remain molten for at least a few billion more, which is far beyond an amount ever worth worrying about.

    19. Re:bad news for earth? by IvyKing · · Score: 1
      As others have pointed out, the Earth's magnetic dipole field extends well past the atmosphere, so the reconnection events take place in vacuum, not the upper atmosphere as on Mars.

      The other reason that Venus and Earth have substantial atmospheres is that the gravitational fields for Earth and Venus are stronger than for Mars (or Mercury). The result is the escape velocity is much higher and atoms are much less likely to escape Earth's gravity than Mars' gravity.

    20. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venus is roughly the same size as the Earth. However, it has no intrinsic magnetic field. The solar wind interacts directly with its ionosphere/atmosphere, similar to Mars. There are many differences between the solar wind interactions at the two bodies and many similarities. It is a interesting field and one of much study. Titan is another object where the incident plasma (usually Saturn's magnetospheric plasma but sometimes the solar wind) interacts directly with its ionosphere/atmosphere. Another example are comets.

    21. Re:bad news for earth? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is a small loss of [Earth] atmosphere anyway from other factors. Still, the atmosphere is slowly regenerated by the combination of gaseous emissions...

      Save the Earth, eat a burrito!
           

    22. Re:bad news for earth? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Venus is roughly the same size as the Earth. However, it has no intrinsic magnetic field.

      Oddly, Venus' atmosphere is much thicker than ours. Although it has a molten core, it still has a very weak magnetic field. The leading theory is that Earth's magnetic field is somehow helped by plate tectonics, which generally doesn't happen on Venus. Plate tectonics may help molten fluids circulate to help run the magnetic dynamo. A lessor theory is that our moon plays a role. It may be a combo. It's still an open issue.
             

    23. Re:bad news for earth? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      if this is possible on mars, what different properties does earth have to stop our atmosphear from one day just disapearing?

      Our solid, healthy, and reliable financial institutions.
             

    24. Re:bad news for earth? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I know you're joking but I am a little pedantic and have to say that the gases you would provide that way would not be helpful. They are not useful for life and very hard to convert back in life supporting gases.

      --
      ics
    25. Re:bad news for earth? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A factor contributing to its weak magnetic field is probably that Venus rotates very slowly (its day is 243 earth days).

    26. Re:bad news for earth? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Methane hater!

    27. Re:bad news for earth? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      And people in the Artic thought their night was long.

    28. Re:bad news for earth? by swjpilot · · Score: 1

      We just need to build our own DeathStar and park it in Mars Orbit

    29. Re:bad news for earth? by DavidKlemke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It might also be worth mentioning that Venus' rotation is also retrograde:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion

      Now this might not be a factor in itself but whatever caused Venus to spin slowly in the opposite direction to everything else in the solar system probably had some effect on its magnetic field as well.

    30. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no good or bad, only properties.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

      Something about this doesn't match up.

    31. Re:bad news for earth? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're saying Earth has its own set of deflector shields, and Mars doesn't? Awesome!

      When we get to Mars we should try to reverse the polarity of Mars' atmosphere. That will fix things. Or maybe a tachyon burst from the deflector dish!

    32. Re:bad news for earth? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      I was referring to natural phenomenon, not people.

      Although, at some point human behaviour may be totally explained and then we'd have to ask is there good and bad with people, or just input -> predictable processing -> output. Not that I'm wishing for that.

    33. Re:bad news for earth? by Power_Pentode · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plate tectonics may help molten fluids circulate to help run the magnetic dynamo. A lessor theory is that our moon plays a role. It may be a combo. It's still an open issue

      I've always suspected that the Earth's strong dynamo was due to the differential rotational speed of core and the crust - caused by the Moon continually slowing down the crust from tidal forces. This continual stirring also results in plate tectonics. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it :)

    34. Re:bad news for earth? by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      We just need to build our own DeathStar and destroy Mars

      Fixed

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    35. Re:bad news for earth? by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      Well, _I_ got it, anyway. :-)

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    36. Re:bad news for earth? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Are we not closer to the sun then Mars is...
      maybe the distance to the sun makes a diff...either it shields from the solar winds, or maybe the sun's flares actually destroy any solar wind, or even yet, the fact that there is heat from the sun at that temperature ...cooks the solar winds to change its make up once it reaches earth so that it is not as devastating???

    37. Re:bad news for earth? by Natetheinfamous · · Score: 1

      Actually, that would make it worse. The sun is the source of solar winds, so our closer proximity means that the particle density of solar winds are greater where we are than at mars. The sun's flares do not "cook" and neutralize the solar wind, but instead, solar flares and Coronal Mass Ejections add even more highly energetic and heavier particles into the solar wind, causing greater hazards to earth (particularly to communications satellites, electrical grids, and astronauts). For more information, check wikipedia next time.

      --
      "To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." - Thomas A. Edison
    38. Re:bad news for earth? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Earth's protective magnetic field is generated by the molten iron core.

      Actually, the pressure keeps it solid. What's molten is the mantle between the core and the surface.

      When the planets were created, they all had the same molten core, but over time, they solidify.

      From what I've understood, Earth's heart of iron is actually an iron asteroid/planetoid which collided with proto-Earth. That would make it likely unique within our solar system.

      Likewise, Venus, being a relatively big rocky planet also has an atmosphere that's protected by its magnetic field (hence the clouds on it surface).

      According to Wikipedia: Venus's magnetosphere is too weak to protect the atmosphere from cosmic radiation.

      Eventually, Earth's core will also solidify so the atmosphere will get ripped away from here too.

      Unlikely. In the end, solar wind is pretty weak and Earth is a lot bigger than Mars, and thus has far stronger gravity, strong enough to keep the atmosphere bound to the planet.

      Besides, according to Wikipedia, the core is at around 7000 degree Kelvin right now, and keeps getting heated by radioactive decay of isotopes with half-life period of over a billion years. Given this, it would take until long after the Sun turns into a red giant for Earth to become geologically dead.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    39. Re:bad news for earth? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      But unlike a cooking pot which if you slow burn would evaporate with no sign of actual activity, wher as a full boil, would bring the cook pot to show signs of bubbling, the environment of a planet, could then be meant to have more humidity quicker, within its lifespan, where as for a short while
      say a few hundred thousand years, have sustainable life because of that humidity condensed from boiling effect....however a slow burn would just evaporate slowly the water, never to give it enough "activity" to produce evolving life, and therefor be worse off in the long run, this is not something they teach you on wiki or in school.

    40. Re:bad news for earth? by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

      Actually, a number of studies have shown that a methane rich environment is conducive to the creation of primitive amino acids.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    41. Re:bad news for earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plate Tectonics occurs on Venus, the problem is that the planet is so hot that any existing plates are very soft so the process is vastly different.

      Venus may be a good example of a planet dominated by plume theory where the mantle bubbles through the surface and cools, but gravity slowly pulls things down flat again over millions of years.

      One theory for molten core is that our planet contains radioactive materials that are still slowly decaying. The formation of the planets in a sense dictated the eventual makeup of every planet. The inner planets were rocky due to the majority of gasses being blown out past the asteroid belt to the point the gas giants were able to form.

      Gas giants are to me are failed stars vs rocky planets. If they were allowed to gather enough mass this could have been a binary system.

      Tatooine anyone.

  2. At least.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least it's not ripping up Uranus.

    1. Re:At least.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least it's not ripping up Uranus.

      I'm sorry, AC, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2007 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

      It's now called Urectum.

    2. Re:At least.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will happen in 2620 you insensitive clod

    3. Re:At least.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you're not a proctologist.

    4. Re:At least.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure next reply will contain goatse.

    5. Re:At least.. by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      goatse.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  3. at least... by Pharago · · Score: 3, Interesting

    at least we may know what to fix if we *ever* were to terraform that big red rock

    1. Re:at least... by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Where is that goatse link when you need it?

  4. Re:Holy crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Actually, no, I don't.

  5. Re:Holy crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is purely political.

  6. But what about the "how" part . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or do we just leave that as an extra credit exercise for the students?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not certain it's actually necessary to fix it. The atmosphere would be stripped away on a timescale of millions of years. If you're capable of terraforming Mars to begin with, you're capable of replacing lost air faster than the Sun can strip it away. It's probably cheaper to do that than to rig up some enormous artificial magnetic shield.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, rigging up some enourmouse artificial magnetic shield has another side benefit: It protects you from the charged particles in the solar wind. Humans don't react well to massive doses of radiation in the form of energetic alpha, beta, and protons.

    3. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno, the 3rd and 4th arm are great and come in handy all the time, but on the downside my 2nd head is WAYYY to talkative.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    4. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nice, thick atmosphere does the same.

    5. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is that you, Zaphod Beeblebrox? Wait, no, sorry, my mistake. You mentioned four arms.

    6. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He maybe got an extra extra-arm so he can play the harmonica while skiboxing?

    7. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the 3rd and 4th arm are great and come in handy all the time, but on the downside my 2nd head is WAYYY too talkative.

      But you have plenty of arms to sock it in the mouths.
               

    8. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is that you, Zaphod Beeblebrox?"

      Yeah, well, that's a very sweet thought, AC, but do you really think it's wise under the circumstances? I mean here he is on the run and everything, he must have the police of half the Galaxy after him by now, and he stops to post on slashdot. Okay, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?

    9. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      but on the downside my 2nd head is WAYYY to talkative.

      ...And can't spell.

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
    10. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Total Recall quote of the day.

      Benny: [to Mary, the three-breasted hooker] Baby, you make me wish I had three hands.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the loss of air is only one side-effect of the lack of magnetic field. The Earth's magnetic field offers signifigant protection from cosmic radiation that is very harmful to complex life as we know it.

      For an example of a planet that has managed to maintain (replenish faster than loss) an atmosphere without a magnetic field, see Venus.

    12. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Humans don't react well to massive doses of radiation in the form of energetic alpha, beta, and protons.

      That's what an atmosphere is for. Even if the earth's magnetic field vanished today, we'd be fine, as the atmosphere works to scatter high-energy radiation. After all, during magnetic field inversions, it's not like all life on earth spontaneously went extinct.

    13. Re:But what about the "how" part . . . ? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, here's a citation to support my assertion.

  7. incoming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    climate change troll in 5, 4, 3,...

  8. Man by Caboosian · · Score: 0

    That Sol guy is a total dick.

    1. Re:Man by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      Really :)

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
  9. Implications and Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming everything the article suggests is correct, could this be a natural proof-of-concept example of a magnetic sail?

    We don't (as far as I know) have the technology to test magnetic sails on our own, but it seems we may have been lent a giant laboratory far beyond our means in the form of Mars' peculiar magnetic fields.

  10. Bad news for martian colony by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    "Oh no! Look, Billy! The sky is breaking apart!"

    1. Re:Bad news for martian colony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we can look forward to welcoming masses of refugees from Mars?
       
      Gives a new meaning to the phrase 'illegal alien'.

  11. perhaps bad news for us... by stwf · · Score: 1

    Well might not the end result of this be that Mars was once exactly like us?

    When you look at how long mankind has to evacuate the planet it seems this could shorten that time quite a bit. The core of the earth will cool long before the sun goes red dwarf.

    Maybe we should be looking into terraforming Venus.

    1. Re:perhaps bad news for us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, no. The increasing heat of the sun will boil away the oceans within a billion or so years.

    2. Re:perhaps bad news for us... by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      The core of the earth will cool long before the sun goes red dwarf.

      I think you mean red giant (red dwarf is a main stage star - our sun is a yellow dwarf that will eventually become red giant then a white dwarf).

      Either way, the core of the Earth should be molten well past that event. Increasing temperatures (from various factors - both man made global warming but also the sun emits more and more heat as time goes on) are a far more serious concern than the atmosphere blowing away.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:perhaps bad news for us... by IHateEverybody · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well might not the end result of this be that Mars was once exactly like us?

      When you look at how long mankind has to evacuate the planet it seems this could shorten that time quite a bit. The core of the earth will cool long before the sun goes red dwarf.

      Maybe we should be looking into terraforming Venus.

      Most scientists think that Mars was once a lot more like Earth in that it had flowing, a thicker atmosphere, and possibly life.

      The sun won't go "red dwarf," it will turn into a red giant and will almost certainly swallow up Venus before it runs out of fuel and turns into a white dwarf. Long before any of that happens, the sun will have gotten hot enough to boil away Earth's oceans. The most common figures that I've seen is something like a 500 million to a billion years before the sun boils the oceans and makes Earth uninhabitable and five billion years before it turns into a red giant and swallows up Mercury and Venus. So we do have some time before we need to move.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  12. but it would have to explain non-magnetic Venus by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Venus has 10,000 time the atmosphere of Mars and 90 times the earth. Yet no magnetic field protection and a ten times strong solar wind at that distance (r-squared divergence).
    For all three planets, the planetary outgassing ratye from the interior is not well known and could be a factor in replenishment.

    1. Re:but it would have to explain non-magnetic Venus by largesnike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well actually, we know that Venus was catastophically resurfaced a few hundred million years ago, because impact craters are evenly distributed accross the surface (according to the Magellan data), so the parts of the surface are all the same age. The outgassing from such an enormous event, is likely to be the current atmosphere, which the sun has been gradually eroding ever since.

      --
      "Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
  13. Ob. Spaceballs reference by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

    We have a large shield around our planet, which has a special, secret password. No one can ever strip aweay our atmosphere, no matter how much they suck or blow.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Ob. Spaceballs reference by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      We have a large shield around our planet, which has a special, secret password. No one can ever strip aweay our atmosphere, no matter how much they suck or blow.

      Is the combination 12345?

    2. Re:Ob. Spaceballs reference by IHateEverybody · · Score: 3, Funny

      We have a large shield around our planet, which has a special, secret password. No one can ever strip aweay our atmosphere, no matter how much they suck or blow.

      Is the combination 12345?

      Hey! I have the same combination on my luggage.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  14. Hmmmm.... by yusing · · Score: 1

    So, Mars' magnetic umbrellas are sort of like credit swap derivatives, then???

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  15. Depends on how large a field you want. by jd · · Score: 1, Interesting

    People are exposed to 2.5 tesla magnetic fields in conventional MRIs, and there are MRIs that go up to 9.3 tesla (even though that's a bit beyond what the FDA approves). There are scanners for animals that go up to 12 tesla. Even the least of these is well beyond anything the Earth generates. Clearly, however, magnetic fields are not as dangerous as has been assumed. At least, within reasonable limits.

    This is a localized magnetic field, however. If you were to set up a Faraday cage, so that you were enclosed in a uniform magnetic field, you shouldn't ever detect it. A totally uniform field has zero effect on anything inside that region of uniformity. This would offer some interesting possibilities, as it would be a great deal cheaper to rig up a Faraday cage of some given internal volume than a totally pressurized dome of equal internal volume. The rest of the air would be breathable, and short exposure to the localized fields outside should be no more hazardous than short exposure to the magnetic fields in an MRI, and simpler forms of life (plants, for example) should be safe enough, allowing you to place the terraforming mechanism outside the inhabitable zone.

    There is another option, however. It is radioactive material that keeps the Earth's core as hot as it is. We have plenty of such material we desperately want to get rid of. Provided you could find a method of getting the nuclear waste into the Martial core, there should be more than enough by now to strengthen and stabilize the natural magnetic field to usable levels for longer than we'd ever care about. Getting it there would be a problem and a half - mechanical drilling would be impossible and relying on maintaining a sub-critical mass to achieve the "China Syndrome" long enough to nuclear drill through would at best risk landing you with a supervolcano in your lap. However, I'm going to call that an "implementation detail" and not worry about it.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Depends on how large a field you want. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. You need a magnetic field. It deflects the ionized particles in the solar wind. I'm Not implying that humans can't do fine in a magnetic field. Im Am implying that humans won't do well when continuously exposed to rads of radiation. By the way, you don't need a particularly strong magnetic field. You just need a large one.

    2. Re:Depends on how large a field you want. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if you combined all the "nuclear waste" we have ever generated, and implanted it into Mars' core, it would have negligeable affect.

  16. Re:Holy crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Modding actually does something?

  17. It gets worse. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It is carbonaceous. IOW, it does not have the ability to interact with Mars VIA magnetic pull. The moon can do that on us.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  18. Just who are these people?! by mi · · Score: 1

    scientists previously thought that these magnetic umbrellas protected the Martian atmosphere. Now it looks like exactly the opposite might be true

    Just who are these people, who get to keep their jobs and reputations after such "predictions"?

    What else are they predicting now? (Other than climate change, that is?)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Just who are these people?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just who are these people, who get to keep their jobs and reputations after such "predictions"?

      They have a word for people who predict things and then discover their predictions are wrong:

      "Scientists."

      I suggest you do a bit of reading on what the Scientific Method is and how it works before you post fucktarded rhetorical questions like this in public.

    2. Re:Just who are these people?! by mi · · Score: 1

      I suggest you do a bit of reading on what the Scientific Method is and how it works

      Thanks a lot for your suggestion! Could you, please, post some reading-recommendations then?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  19. sraM by mmwithpeanuts · · Score: 1

    We have not made a complete observation to know for sure what is transpiring with these bubbles. Mars is a somewhat fickle planeta, where magnetism may be weak in most areas, yet strong in some 'small' pockets, fluctuating. Also the mysteries of its two moons and their interactions with their parent planet. Life is not the only interesting thing we will discover about Mars. This is one strange planet!