Slashdot Mirror


What Happened To the Martian Ocean and Magnetic Field? (theatlantic.com)

schwit1 writes with this story at The Atlantic that explores what may have destroyed the Martian atmosphere and ocean. The question of whether there is life on Mars is woven into a much larger thatch of mysteries. Among them: What happened to the ancient ocean that once covered a quarter of the planet's surface? And, relatedly, what made Mars's magnetosphere fade away? Why did a planet that may have looked something like Earth turn into a dry red husk? “We see magnetized rocks on the Mars surface,” said Bruce Banerdt, the principal investigator of the InSight mission to Mars, which is set to launch in March. “And so we know Mars had a magnetic field at one time, but it doesn't today. We would like to know the history—when that magnetic field started, when it may have shut down.”

142 comments

  1. It's cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ocean turned to frosty piss and sublimed away. The

    1. Re:It's cold by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Very sublime observation

  2. Isn't it widely accepted... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... that because of Mars' small size, it cooled faster, thus freezing its outer core and shutting down its dynamo? Isn't Venus the far greater mystery? Nearly the same size as Earth, yet no magnetic field and what appears to be occasional whole-crust overturn rather than plate tectonics? Isn't that the one we need to solve?

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    1. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      So the surface of Venus is over 460c. I would think, but do not know, that all that solar energy got absorbed into the crust combined with the exothermic reaction in it's core might be enough for rapid crust recycling? Or to ask the question: Just where does the majority of the energy come from that melts all that rock; the core or sun?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very little energy reaches the Venusian surface - Venus's albedo is twice that of Earth's, so most light gets reflected from the cloud deck, and what does enter gets quickly absorbed in the clouds and thick atmosphere. Also, the crust is not what drives a dynamo, the core does. Nuclear decay is what drives terrestrial planet cores, not solar input.

      Also I don't know what you mean by "rapid crust recycling", unless you mean Venus's global resurfacing events. But those only happen once every several hundred million years. And they take about 100 million years to complete, they're not rapid.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    3. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A common theory to explain Venus' slow and backwards rotation is that it suffered a large impact similar to the one that formed the Earth's moon, only in a direction counter to it's original rotation, so much that it put the brakes on Venus so hard that it's now slowly spinning in reverse.

      Also it's thought that Venus is simply too close to the Sun, there was a time when the Sun wasn't as bright and water may have been on the surface but as the sun matured the "goldilocks" zone shifted outwards and Venus got cooked.

    4. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Sir+Foxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... that because of Mars' small size, it cooled faster, thus freezing its outer core and shutting down its dynamo? Isn't Venus the far greater mystery? Nearly the same size as Earth, yet no magnetic field and what appears to be occasional whole-crust overturn rather than plate tectonics? Isn't that the one we need to solve?

      ... that because of Mars' small size, it cooled faster, thus freezing its outer core and shutting down its dynamo? Isn't Venus the far greater mystery? Nearly the same size as Earth, yet no magnetic field and what appears to be occasional whole-crust overturn rather than plate tectonics? Isn't that the one we need to solve?

      Well, I think they have Venus figured out. Basically it was like us early on, complete with oceans and land and magnetic field. Back in the beginning of the solar system, the sun was cooler than it is today. As it ages it grows hotter, like in the next 1 billion years the sun will be 10% hotter. Well, as it grew hotter back then, Venus's oceans started to evaporate into the atmosphere, and the H20 became lost to space. Leaving an ever growing thick atmosphere that held in the heat and increased the pressure on the surface. Being closer to sun, as it grew hotter, it also was moving closer to the edge of the habitable zone, which was moving outward as sun grew hotter. Without water on the surface anymore, plate tectonics stopped completely. When this happened, you no longer get a nice moderate release of volcanism, you get trememdous pressure building up and then released in huge amounts all at once probably every 400 million years that covers the planet in liquid hot magma. Also, it looks like Venus got hit hard by another proto planet that unlike what happened to the earth, which was a glancing blow at angle, Venus got hit straight on, slowing down it's spin a lot, It's one of(maybe the slowest), slowest spinning bodies in our solar system. I think you couple that with the lack of water to keep plate tectonics moving, you end up disrupting it's dynamo in the core and you have a very weak magnetic field now. The Earth is going to become Venus as the sun grows hotter and the habitable zone moves out further. It's a long time from now, but it will happen.

      --
      "I don't which is worse, that everyone has a price, or that the price is always so low"--Hobbes
    5. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Venus does have a weak magnetic field, but it's not generated in the core but in the atmosphere through collision with the solar wind:

      As on Earth, solar ultraviolet radiation removes electrons from the atoms and molecules in the upper atmosphere, creating a region of electrically charged gas known as the ionosphere. This ionised layer interacts with the solar wind and the magnetic field carried by the solar wind.

      During the continuous battle with the solar wind, this region of the upper atmosphere is able to slow and divert the flow of particles around the planet, creating a magnetosphere, shaped rather like a comet's tail, on the lee side of the planet.

      If we think of planet's iron core as a gigantic power generator, then Venus's slow rotation, when compared to Earth or Jupiter, might explain the absence of a strong internal magnetic field.

    6. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn in your nerd card. It's "Veneran," not "Venusian,"

    7. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by p4ul13 · · Score: 2

      But those only happen once every several hundred million years. And they take about 100 million years to complete, they're not rapid.

      Not necessarily agreeing with the previous poster, but I'm under the impression that geologically speaking 100 million years is somewhat rapid for that sort of change at least compared to Earth.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    8. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. I thought ancient humans colonized Mars and destroyed it's ecosystem.

    9. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably our creators, before they died off. I think C.S Lewis covers this in "Out of the Silent Planet".

      Venus backwards spin is probably is the result of alien interference or a large scale planetary war.

    10. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      It's speculation on a good day. The redness of Mars comes from iron. Spin iron and it magnetizes. Do this for 4+ billion years, and good grief, you get magnetized iron. There is no cogent forensic evidence of a magnetosphere on Mars.

      This earth trapped its water, and melting ice asteroid/meteorites filled it with water, I'm guessing, by plowing into it, thus causing the expansion of the Pangean continent. There's this 36000' deep trench, called the Mariana. Plates shifted, much water melted from a meteor or two, and the existing developing atmosphere, coupled to melting asteroid, give this planet what's now a habitable atmosphere.

      "Oceans on Mars" is still speculation. Might have been a sea, but nothing like what's here. Evaporation bubbled the rest off, what with no real atmosphere to make clouds, and the needed condensation cycles to send it back to the surface,

      Perhaps simple answers, but we humans tend to anthropomorphize everything, including wanting to make other planets like earth.... and they're not, and efforts to extrapolate seem to fail.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    11. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

      Actually, the red color comes from off-spec Tang that the moon people didn't like. Also, the dolphins that used to live on Mars took all of the water when they moved to Earth.

    12. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by G00F · · Score: 2

      Look at our moon. I believe it's the biggest reason we still have a liquid core and thus a strong magnetic field.

      Our moon is large in comparison to earth, and exerts a lot of force on the entire planet as we rotate together. If the moon wasn't tidal locked it would have a liquid core as well. basically as the moon and earth move/rotate the force direction changes, causing movement/heat.

      Also there is a theory that long before life there was no moon, and we captured it after it collided losing it's core with the rest of it's mass trapped in orbit. If this happened it wouldn't invalidate the moons tidal forces keeping our planet hot and gooey on the inside.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    13. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Rei · · Score: 2

      It's not that simple. Mercury also has a magnetic field. Which is a real head-scratcher, as it's even smaller than Mars.

      Internal planetary dynamics are complicated. To get a dynamo you need fluid flow. But whether something is liquid or solid depends on both temperature and pressure - temperature increasing melt, pressure decreasing it. So there's a very complicated interplay.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    14. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A common theory to explain Venus' slow and backwards rotation is that it suffered a large impact similar to the one that formed the Earth's moon, only in a direction counter to it's original rotation, so much that it put the brakes on Venus so hard that it's now slowly spinning in reverse.

      Instantly stopping a planet's rotation will turn it into a molten ball [all the angular momentum turned into heat]. If it happened, say, 2 billion years ago, we'd still be seeing a molten planet [with an mag field]. Your hypothesis is in serious danger.

    15. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by lgw · · Score: 2

      A common theory to explain Venus' slow and backwards rotation is that it suffered a large impact similar to the one that formed the Earth's moon, only in a direction counter to it's original rotation, so much that it put the brakes on Venus so hard that it's now slowly spinning in reverse.

      Also it's thought that Venus is simply too close to the Sun, there was a time when the Sun wasn't as bright and water may have been on the surface but as the sun matured the "goldilocks" zone shifted outwards and Venus got cooked.

      The rotation idea doesn't really hold water. It would have needed to happen very early in planet formation, or the whole planet would still be molten today, plus the details of the impact bringing angular momentum to 0, which requires the pieces that escaped the collision to have just precisely the right parameters post-impact, are "finely tuned", which is the polite way scientists say "BS".

      Keep in mind that, at least with Earth, the surface isn't rigidly coupled to the core. While the difference in rotation is only significant in geological terms, it means that you can't stop the core spinning just by smacking the crust around, and you can't really put enough energy into the crust to counterbalance the spin of the core. A single large impact just can't transfer enough momentum with a glancing blow - too much of the transferred energy ends up thermal, liquifying, even vaporizing, crust and magma. An impact while planets were still forming, or at least before the iron catastrophe might do it, but again the odds of the numbers working out exactly right to reach near-0 angular momentum are, well, astronomical.

      Venus getting cooked goes beyond the oceans boiling - the vast majority of carbon is in a planet's crust, and you don't get an atmosphere like Venus's without melting all the crust. The atmosphere is a side-effect of the real mystery under the surface. The simplest assumption is that Venus's lack of rotation and repeated crust overturning are symptoms of the same weirdness, and we're unlikely to guess what that is from studying Earth geology.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Bravo, good sir.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    17. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      Here is half, if not all of the answer,
      Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth's heat. http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar...
      The rest of the answer may be in the data (if known) about the distribution of heavy radioactive elements throughout the Solar System.

    18. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Whoever came up with that theory knows absolutely nothing about magnetic fields. It hurt my brain just trying to read it.

    19. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Turn in your nerd card. It's "Veneran," not "Venusian,"

      It's been "Venusian" since I started reading SF in high school, before you were born.
      "Veneran" is a temporary fad... 8-)

    20. Re:Isn't it widely accepted... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The reason Earth is habitable and the other planets are not, is that the Space-Aliens terraformed Earth.

      (I think that I am joking, but I could be wrong!) 8-)

  3. This is basic planetary physics.. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mars has no Magnetic field because it's core cooled and is no longer a active moving iron mass. it cooled faster as it has very little radioactive isotopes and being further away from the sun it has less energy pounding it to slow the cooling.

    http://www.scientificamerican....

    Plus we had an event late after the formation of the planets in the solar system that also added a buttload of energy, when the moon was formed from a planetary sized impact.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. The crazy thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one will ever know.

    1. Re: The crazy thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's definitely a crazy thing to say. We should get the wingnuts some professional help.

  5. Oceans were lost due to the lost.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oceans were lost due to the loss of the magnetic field, which in turn was lost due to the cool down of the martian core. Next question.

    1. Re:Oceans were lost due to the lost.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, was the ocean made of some mysteriously magnetic form of water, that it was kept in place by a magnetic field?

    2. Re:Oceans were lost due to the lost.. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Actually, any oceans were lost because Mars is not massive enough to keep them.

  6. One sentence stands out as most interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scientists already have hints that Mars’s ancient magnetic field did not operate the way Earth’s does. And in 2007, one team of researchers made a model of the Martian core that suggested it might contain flecks of solid iron—a hint that the planet's magnetism could at some point re-activate.

    Lack of a magnetic field is one of the biggest obstacles to proper terraforming. If there's really a turning point within reach, that we one day might trigger artificially, then Mars becomes a lot more attractive. If we could restart its magnetic field, it could have a stable Earthlike climate someday.

    Triggering crystallisation of a planet's core is left as an exercise for the reader, and would be incredibly difficult, but it's a lot more plausible than trying to supply enough heat to start convection by any other means.

    1. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by Sir+Foxx · · Score: 2

      Don't we just have to get Quaid to Mars to fire up the alien machine?

      --
      "I don't which is worse, that everyone has a price, or that the price is always so low"--Hobbes
    2. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamn it Watney! Could you have done one single non-selfish thing in all the time you were on Mars?

      Oh, you were too busy growing potatoes and recharging batteries to fire up the alien machine! Fucking slacker!

    3. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dump lots of north and south magnetic monopoles into Mars, they would settle into the core,attract each other
      and annihilate each producing a big flash of gamma rays. That would heat up the core, the problem is there's no
      evidence they exist and we don't have any or enough if they did.

    4. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      If that machine did exist, it would ultimately amount to only a temporary climate change. Unless it also fixed the magnetic field, all the released air and water would simply get eroded by the solar winds and Mars would end up red and dry again.

       

      --
      Sig for hire.
    5. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by PPH · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should stop thinking that terraforming has to be modeled on properties of the earth alone. The question that needs to be answered: Why does Venus have a thick atmosphere and yet it also has a minimal magnetic field?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Triggering crystallisation of a planet's core is left as an exercise for the reader, and would be incredibly difficult, but it's a lot more plausible than trying to supply enough heat to start convection by any other means.

      interesting questions might be


      1. How much nuclear waste would have to be dumped down a borehole on Mars to remelt the planetary core; ( I know it's an insane amount, but how insane)?
      2. How long would it take to melt?
      3. How deep would the borehole have to be, at some point the waste would melt and go into "China Syndrome mode" and melt it's way down?
      4. Should we crash some icy asteroids into the planet to get some potential oxygen from water before or after we restart the core?
      5. How many rocky/metallic asteroids should we crash into Mars to get the gravity up?
      6. Would it just be easier to build a ring-world?
      7. Could we harvest gasses for atmosphere from Jupiter?
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't answer all of those questions, but on the point of obtaining hydrogen from Jupiter, there was a published paper about that. It suggested that if we tried to ignite Jupiter as a star, it would fail, but we might be able to make it throw off a vast cloud of hydrogen in a semi-nova fusion explosion. The author then went on to say this would be an excellent way to transport hydrogen to Mars in vast amounts.

      The paper also said it should be done while Earth was on the other side of the solar system, for safety.

      As far as I can tell, they were serious when writing that line.

    8. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Lack of a magnetic field is one of the biggest obstacles to proper terraforming. If there's really a turning point within reach, that we one day might trigger artificially, then Mars becomes a lot more attractive. If we could restart its magnetic field, it could have a stable Earthlike climate someday.

      A few superconducting rings around the planet.. about a GW of power per ring would do. You need about 50k miles of superconducting cable and supporting infrastructure. Not totally unreasonable for a project of this scale.

    9. Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting by sexconker · · Score: 1
    10. Re: One sentence stands out as most interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an alternative to geomagnetic dynamism for the production of a magnetosphere.

      Observe the dynamics of the jupiter/io relationship. The intense tidal heating of io causes it to have constant, fantastic volcanic eruptions, which causes it to spew sulfur and other compounds into the orbital plane of jupiter. Once there, solar radiation ionizes this gas, and the spiral of this gas orbiting the planet magnetizes it. This plasma torus surrounds jupiter, and gives it a magnetospheric envelope many times what the gas giant would be capable of producing in its core alone.

      We wouldnt need to restart core dynamics to have a stable magnetosphere around mars. We just need a suitably thick plasma torus in orbit around it. There are a number of ways this could be accomplished, with varying levels of being credulous-- all of which being vastly more credible than restarting core dynamics inside the planet of interest.

  7. Oceans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was told by a Professor at Rice University that the oceans of Mars are gone because once the magnetic field diminished, the solar wind started to strip the top layer off the oceans. Only something like a mm or two per century (doesn't sound like much) but over a billion years or so adds up to a lot.

    1. Re:Oceans by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Strip off? But where did those 1-2mm go?

    2. Re:Oceans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that is why they asked "And, relatedly, what made Mars's magnetosphere fade away?" and that is why that professor is working at Rice and not a decent University.

    3. Re:Oceans by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Into space.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  8. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Lieutenant+Halfabeef · · Score: 2

    While trying to figure out what scripts to allow to make moderation work I accidentally ended up modding this as flamebait. For reference, I was going for informative. I believe posting a reply will undo that. So thanks for the post, Lumpy. I owe you +1.

  9. Marvin the Martian happened by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    It was Marvin the Martin, in the Valles Marineris, with an Illudium Pu-36 explosive space modulator.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Marvin the Martian happened by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Aliens...

    2. Re:Marvin the Martian happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. I believe you are using a faulty speech recognition module, although it was very close, both phonetically and ordinally.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuUJfYcn3V4

  10. Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is our iron core going to cool? Then we have no magnetosphere and then what happens to us?

  11. Re:Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We all turn into solar radiation zombies.

    You have about 1.2 Billion years to prepare for this, so start digging and stocking your bunker now.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  12. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Is the loss of the magnetic field related to the disappearance of the Martian ocean? Another commenter seemed to indicate this, but I don't get the connection and it's been 30 years since I've taken chemistry or physics.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:The answer. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Jesus told me it was because the Martians had turned their backs on him.

    I know you jest, but I was just reading something about the prevailing Christian belief regarding extraterrestrial life is that it's possible, but they would have no souls. Like gingers.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Terraforming Mars? by sinij · · Score: 1

    So what would it take to re-heat the core to restart magnetic field? What kind of energy input would it take, and what could deliver it? Could we just crash a bunch of large asteroids into mars then wait for the surface to cool?

    1. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear missiles!!!

    2. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, you just take Venus, adjust its orbit, slam it into Mars....

    3. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh look, a space nutter. You are right, we just need to crash a bunch of asteroids into it. No big deal. We will be sipping wine on Mars in no time at all!

    4. Re:Terraforming Mars? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      A bunch of posts in the "elon musk wants to nuke mars" story said something to the effect of....

      If we can terraform mars it doesn't really matter that solar wind would blow away the atmosphere that is created. If we can crash a comet into Mars to give it water and an atmosphere, we can keep doing that periodically to recharge everything. Solar wind erosion takes a comparatively long time so you might only need a new comet every few million years or so. Once every 1000 years is still incomprehensibly long for humans to think about. In that time maybe we (or whatever) can figure out how to create a self sustaining magnetic field.

      Don't know about you guys but I'm ready for a ski resort on Olympus Mons. 26km vertical in a single decent? Sign me up!

    5. Re:Terraforming Mars? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Ooo! There was a movie about this! You get a drill ship thing and drive a nuclear bomb into the core!

    6. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You might be better off using Mercury. Venus + Mars might be too massive for us to survive on the surface.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That would be one hell of a ski run. I wonder how long it would take to get from bottom to top to bottom again.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Terraforming Mars? by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you guys but I'm ready for a ski resort on Olympus Mons. 26km vertical in a single decent? Sign me up!

      A bit off topic, but that nearly 26km vertical averages a grade of only about 5 degrees at the flanks (the steeper parts of the mountain), and you'd be descending with roughly 1/3 of Earth's gravity. Sounds more like that'd be an exceptionally long and exceptionally dull bunny slope.

      Oh, another fun fact: If you were actually standing near the summit of the mountain, you'd have no idea since the slope of the mountain actually extends beyond the horizon.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    9. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Holi · · Score: 1

      That would be one hell of a very long and boring ski run. Olympus Mons has a very gradual incline, about 5 degrees.

      "I wonder how long it would take to get from bottom to top to bottom again."

      Longer then your lift ticket was good for.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    10. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Not even a bunny slope. more like a very gradually inclined plane. I doubt you would overcome friction. So I think alpine skiing is out which means it would be a X-country ski park, LAME.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    11. Re:Terraforming Mars? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Well obviously the terraformers would smash the comets into the south side of the mountain resulting in the most epic bowl imaginable!

    12. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have the energy to move any of the planets into such different orbits, then you're sufficiently powerful to give terraforming projects as homework assignments to sixth-graders.

    13. Re:Terraforming Mars? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Stop using the term "space nutter," thank you.
      It's second only to "SJW" and "no true scotsman" when it comes to stupid phrases used on Slashdot that people need to stop parroting.

  15. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

    So let's crash the moon into Mars and see if it restarts the core.

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
  16. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did a planet that may have looked something like Earth turn into a dry red husk?

    Well, of course, it's because the Martians didn't listen to Al Gore and continued emitting carbon, duh!

    SAVE THE EARTH! STOP BREATHING NOW!

    1. Re:Why? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Breathing is carbon neutral. Your joke would have been funny if you stopped one line earlier and didn't go full retard.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Why? by fraxinus-tree · · Score: 1

      Not really carbon-neutral. A lot of our food is not only indirectly dependent on fossil fuels, but contains direct oil/gas derivatives. And I didn't even started talking about cheap hard drinks. Or soda.

    3. Re:Why? by Holi · · Score: 1

      You're weird, I breathe air, you seem to breathe food.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Why? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      The O2 has to combine with something to make the CO2...

  17. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Sir+Foxx · · Score: 1

    Also there is a theory that Mars got hit by something big on the opposite side of the planet from where Olympus Mons is and that it may have disrupted things enough to cause it's dynamo to stop earlier than it should have and for the core to lose it's heat much faster from the Olympus Mons eruptions due to the collision.

    --
    "I don't which is worse, that everyone has a price, or that the price is always so low"--Hobbes
  18. surface infiltration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When its core cooled atmospheric gasses and liquids began infiltrating into its surface, eventually in combination with the loss of the magnetic field and the decreasing surface atmospheric pressure which caused increasing losses to space the surface lost a vast majority of its atmosphere and water. I'd wager though that a majority of the planets water and atmosphere and water is still there, just miles below the surface at the region between the cool crust and the hot interior. Same thing would eventually happen to Earth if our core cooled, but whenever water/atmosphere tries to infiltrate into our planets currently toasty interior it hits a layer of very hot crust at most a few miles down that blows it back out through geysers, volcanoes or other geothermal features.

  19. Global warming? by mi · · Score: 2, Funny

    20+ posts already, and no one mentioned Global Warming yet? How could you, guys, miss this opportunity to refresh the fear in the hearts of your followers? If you keep burning fossil fuels, our planet too will become an airless desert devoid of life. Whether it will heat up or cool down is an impolite question, but something will happen, unless you install solar panels on your roof.

    The "point of now return" — like the second coming of a deity of some unscientific cult followed by the unwashed — has been within "only a few years" for the past 4 decades.

    Gebyy zl gnvy.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Global warming? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Why bother? The sun will heat up by 10% in a billion years, and do the global warming without our help. We're doomed.

      Oh, sorry, I forgot. That doesn't increase their political power.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Global warming? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How could you, guys, miss this opportunity to refresh the fear in the hearts of your followers? If you keep burning fossil fuels, our planet too will become an airless desert devoid of life

      Tell me, what's the carbon footprint of burning a straw man?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for complaining that people are staying on topic. There's no room for that on the internet.

    4. Re:Global warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? The sun will heat up by 10% in a billion years, and do the global warming without our help.

      [rolls eyes] Again, it's 500m years.

    5. Re:Global warming? by mi · · Score: 1

      A couple of bovine decafarts?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  20. Blame Ben Affleck. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Then we get another movie.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  21. Magnetic field and open terraforming not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lack of a magnetic field is one of the biggest obstacles to proper terraforming.

    Only if "proper" means that one is fixated on creating an Earth-like habitat that is planet-wide and open to the stars. That's traditional, but it's not sensible engineering because it's not resource-efficient.

    Instead, it makes a lot more sense to create your own habitable layer no larger than is needed, to do so in segments so that not all your eggs are in one basket, and to extend it only when more space is needed. There are numerous different variations on this theme, all of them much more sensible than wanting to terraform a whole planet with an open atmosphere.

    Whether it be domed cities or a tunneled crust or anything else, it wouldn't be all that different to Earth in practice because even here we are limited to a narrow planetary niche. We can't survive without protection much higher, much deeper, or even at the same level in many places on Earth, especially in the vast oceans which cover most of our planet, so it's a misconception to think that it's fully habitable by humans.

    And that's something we can create on Mars, a partly habitable environment. Don't get hung up on wanting planet-wide open terraforming, it's a quaint idea but it's not at all sensible.

    1. Re:Magnetic field and open terraforming not needed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If terraforming is your goal, Venus would be a better target. While being terraformed, there is a spot at altitude where pressure is Earth norm, and temperature is livable. The atmosphere also has everything we need to produce CO2, O2, H2O to have a life sustaining habitat built.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  22. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is thought to be related to the disappearance of the Martian atmosphere. The magnetic poles divert the solar wind towards themselves, and prevents it from hitting most of the planet. When the magnetism disappears, the solar wind blows the atmosphere away.

    When the atmosphere disappears, the pressure is reduced, and with it the boiling point of water, until water can only have two states - ice and gas form. The water that doesn't turn into ice goes the same way as the rest of the atmosphere.

  23. It was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate Change.

  24. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Magnetic fields definitely help slow atmospheric loss, but I think a lot of scientists are overestimating the effect on Mars. Either Mars never had much of an atmosphere, there is some extreme tipping point between atmospheric pressure and gravity, or the atmosphere is still mostly there, just sunk into the surface of the planet. Otherwise there is no way that the atmosphere of Venus, which also has no real magnetic field, could be nearly as thick as it is today.

  25. Many millions of years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a thriving Martian civilization, but then they reached the 3D printer stage of development, and they quickly ran out of resources as their 3D printers 3D printed more 3D printers. Then their Martian Elon Musk private spaced themselves all to Earth.

    The end.

  26. Re:Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by budgenator · · Score: 2

    Aren't we due to stick our heads out from the protective Galactic Disk and magnetosphere to get fried by intergalactic cosmic rays long before then?

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  27. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious that the magnetic field existed prior to the Terminal Lunar Cataclysm (Late Heavy Bombardment) and did not exist afterwards (ca ~3.8-4.0 Gya). I'd guess the dynamo died between the formation of the Hellas and Utopia basins.

  28. War. Thats what happened. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Millions of years ago Earth, Mars and Venus formed an artificial Klemperer rosette in the habitable zone around the Sun.

    The advanced civilisations which produced this artifact went to war. Mars and Venus' orbits were wrecked. Mars was hit by 'planetbuster' bombs and cracked open, its molten core spewing out into space and collapsing on itself. Venus was subjected to bombardment by comets and turned into the hell-hole it is today. Only Earth survived mostly intact.

    Either that or the civilisation which produced the rosette went into decline and could no longer maintain the technology that kept this unstable formation from breaking up into what we see today.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:War. Thats what happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James P Hogan? Get back in your coffin!

  29. Re: The answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well whatever. I just didn't have anything smart sounding to ad to the posts, so I decided to make fun of other peoples beliefs instead, because I'm a loser with 2 very sticky hands because I'm ambidextrous.

  30. Why does it have to be liquid? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Even as far back as the original Cosmos series, scientists were saying that the lack of a liquid iron core to generate the magnetic field was the cause of the atmosphere leaking off into space. Okay, sounds plausible but it has me wondering why it has to be liquid when lodestone has a magnetic field and it's solid.
    And why isn't gravity enough to hold the atmosphere in? Or is the gravitational field too weak?

    1. Re:Why does it have to be liquid? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I would think - with my limited understanding of physics and cosmology- that Mars' smaller size, being about 1/3 the size/mass of Earth, would have to play some part in it's early "death". A smaller, less massive core would would probably not have the same inertia as a larger one; and less magnetic field, not to mention gravitational field, would make an atmosphere more vulnerable to the solar wind.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:Why does it have to be liquid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars vs Earth is 1/2 the diameter. 1/10 the mass (less than 1/8 (1/2^3) because average density is lower -- not as much nickel-iron, which is part of the problem).

    3. Re:Why does it have to be liquid? by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Even as far back as the original Cosmos series, scientists were saying that the lack of a liquid iron core to generate the magnetic field was the cause of the atmosphere leaking off into space. Okay, sounds plausible but it has me wondering why it has to be liquid when lodestone has a magnetic field and it's solid. And why isn't gravity enough to hold the atmosphere in? Or is the gravitational field too weak?

      Iron looses magnetic properties at 770C which is hot but still solid. A liquid iron core has a magnetic field due to convection. Once it cools and solidify, the convection stops but the core is too hot to have a magnetic field of its own.

    4. Re:Why does it have to be liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Magnetite is very hard to magnetize, and it normally does not hold a magnetic charge for very long. The prevailing theory on lodestones is that they are magnetized by lightning strikes. Magnetized magnetite is very rare and only found on the surface of the planet.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:Why does it have to be liquid? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And why isn't gravity enough to hold the atmosphere in? Or is the gravitational field too weak?

      My understanding was that the solar wind could essentially "blow away" the atmosphere over time, that the atmosphere has an external force acting on it. Earth's magnetic field is essential for deflecting the solar wind and avoiding the same fate. But that wouldn't explain why Venus, presumably dealing with a much stronger solar wind, has such a robust atmosphere with such a weak magnetic field. Venus's wikipedia article suggests that water on Venus had boiled off, and its free hydrogen and oxygen were swept into space by the solar wind. Perhaps its clouds of sulferic acid are so much heavier that gravity is enough to keep them there.

    6. Re:Why does it have to be liquid? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      And why isn't gravity enough to hold the atmosphere in? Or is the gravitational field too weak?

      Solar winds are very high velocity particles. While the average pressure isn't enough to strip the atmosphere, the individual particles are slamming the atmosphere to accelerate them to escape velocities.

  31. Re:Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    We have a long time to figure out how to get along well enough to emigrate to another world.

    And if we haven't figured it out by then, we probably don't deserve to have another shot at a world.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  32. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Venus has more gravity, so it is harder for the solar wind to strip away its atmosphere, even though the solar wind should be stronger there given its proximity. XKCD has a rough representation of the relative size of solar system gravity wells here if you want a visual representation.

  33. Re: The answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well whatever. I just didn't have anything smart sounding to ad to the posts, so I decided to make fun of other peoples beliefs instead, because I'm a loser with 2 very sticky hands because I'm ambidextrous.

    You must be a Ginger ;)

  34. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's this exactly. Without a magnetic field, the solar wind dried out the planet and blew away a large amount of the already thin atmosphere. The low gravity didn't help any. The planet had a lot going against it from the beginning and was probably never a good place for complex life to appear. Barring some sort of cosmic change like how we got our moon and added a huge amount of iron and mass, Mars was always doomed to end up freeze-dried.

    We currently have no way of fixing this problem so all the grand plans to terraform Mars won't work, unless they also restart the magnetic field, which we don't know how to do. It might take slamming a proto-planet into Mars to get things going again, which we can't currently do, and which would also make the planet essentially unusable for hundreds of millions of years, at least.

    It also risks all kinds of other issues like disturbing other planets and introducing a lot of chaos into the solar system. But luckily we don't know how to knock planets into each other. And I suppose if we DID and we had that sort of tech, we would not need to bother with Mars. We'd just find a suitable planet elsewhere, which is probably easier.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  35. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars has no Magnetic field because it's core cooled and is no longer a active moving iron mass. it cooled faster as it has very little radioactive isotopes and being further away from the sun it has less energy pounding it to slow the cooling.

    http://www.scientificamerican....

    Plus we had an event late after the formation of the planets in the solar system that also added a buttload of energy, when the moon was formed from a planetary sized impact.

    Also continuing tidal forces from our moon may also play a factor in generating friction beneath the crust. This same friction has caused the lighter moon to become tidal locked with the earth, always facing us with the same side.

  36. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way I understand it the lost of the magnetosphere allows the solar wind to push the ozone back to the nightside and some off into space, this thins ozone lets the UV disassociate more water vapor (that's lighter than air) into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is lost to space because it's so light and the oxygen that doesn't get blown off into space oxidises any methane or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere on the way back down to the surface. This causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease, which cause the water to boil at a lower temperature, putting more water vapor into the air to be dissociated and lost, in an accelerating death spiral.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  37. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The core cooled because Mars has little uranium and thorium. Insolation has little to do with core temperatures.

  38. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    First manned flight to Mars may very well be landing on one of the Martian moon, Phobos, first. A later manned flight will land on Mars itself.

    http://www.space.com/29349-manned-mars-missions-phobos-moon.html

  39. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

    Yes, and the event that formed the moon probably gave us a larger molten iron core. I have seen a hypothesis that the gravitational forces from the moon also help keep the iron dynamo moving in the core. I don't know how likely that is, not being a physicist, but it is an interesting idea.

  40. Um, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spinning cold, solid iron doesn't make a magnet.

    1. Re:Um, no by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. Depends on how fast you spin it and for how long.

    2. Re:Um, no by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      How about about one rotation every 25 hours (give or take) for 4.5 billion years?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  41. Backwards spin by mschaffer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is the backwards spin evidence that cats had used the Venerian spin to get their planet moving.

    1. Re:Backwards spin by Michaelejahn · · Score: 2

      THANKS OBAMACARE

  42. Re:Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To give some scale to the amount of time, the continents have been merged into a super continent and separated two times by then.

  43. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The way I understand it the lost of the magnetosphere allows the solar wind to push the ozone back to the nightside and some off into space, this thins ozone lets the UV disassociate more water vapor (that's lighter than air) into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is lost to space because it's so light and the oxygen that doesn't get blown off into space oxidises any methane or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere on the way back down to the surface. This causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease, which cause the water to boil at a lower temperature, putting more water vapor into the air to be dissociated and lost, in an accelerating death spiral.

    Thank you.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  44. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    We currently have no way of fixing this problem so all the grand plans to terraform Mars won't work, unless they also restart the magnetic field

    The process of bleeding away the atmosphere happens over geological time spans. If we could increase the density of the atmosphere it would still be there for tens of thousands of generations. I would not call that a terraforming failure. Given that you're argument is based on that one misunderstanding, your pessimism seems to have political roots, not intellectual roots.

  45. Geologic time by John+Bayko · · Score: 1

    The age of the Earth (and presumably Vanus) is about 4.5 billion years. 100 million years is about 2.2% of that. An event that takes 100 million years could happen 45 times in the Earth's lifetime. If it were a day, this would be about a half hour lunch. So more of a moderate length of time, geologically.

    Compare it to what the Earth looked like 100 million years ago.

  46. Re:Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all turn into solar radiation zombies.

    You have about 1.2 Billion years to prepare for this

    Actually 500M years. It means YOU'RE LATE! Hurry up!

  47. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many things wrong with this comment.

    "If we could increase the density of the atmosphere..." OK, let's start here. What process exactly will we begin that will do this? You get no points for just saying 'terraforming'.

    "... it would still be there for tens of thousands of generations." Not good enough. If you make Mars habitable, that work will get leveraged, as in it will be inhabited. What will those distant generations think if we set up an unstable atmospheric dynamic and knowingly doom future generations to suffocating? The atmospheric dynamic must be stable, like it is on Earth. Robust and even largely self-correcting.

    "Ah", you say, "we simply run the terraforming technology permanently!" That sounds like an answer I admit, but let's follow this logic. You are talking about generating gigatons of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and so on. Truly massive quantities in other words. Where does this mass come from? Can planetary resources sustain this drain, especially when there is permanent loss to outer space? Wouldn't you rather have these resources available to citizens of the planet, for business and other purposes? Rather than injecting it into the atmosphere where it will be stripped away by the solar wind?

    Once that mass has been ejected into space, it's not coming back. Which brings us right back to the current situation on Mars today. It has very little atmosphere, making a new one will be hard, and having done the hard work, you face gradual loss of your accomplishment.

    Terraforming needs virtuous cycles, not self-limiting cycles.

  48. GTFO n00b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turn in your nerd card. It's "Cytherean" not "Veneran".

  49. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes it has more gravity, but not that much more. Using Earth as a reference (1G), Venus is 0.9 g and Mars is 0.376 g. That can definitely account for some additional atmosphere but not that much (92 times Earth sea level pressure), especially when considering that more atmosphere means a higher atmosphere which is more susceptible to being stripped off. You have to go 50 KM high before atmospheric pressure even drops to Earth sea level pressure. SOMETHING is happening besides the solar wind.

  50. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by painandgreed · · Score: 2

    "... it would still be there for tens of thousands of generations." Not good enough. If you make Mars habitable, that work will get leveraged, as in it will be inhabited. What will those distant generations think if we set up an unstable atmospheric dynamic and knowingly doom future generations to suffocating? The atmospheric dynamic must be stable, like it is on Earth. Robust and even largely self-correcting.

    Not really. If we can do it once, we can keep it supplied with atmosphere in plenty of time. We keep importing resources to places that don't have them all the time. However, although about a fifth of the needed material might be already on Mars in the form of ice, the only real option would be to bring in comet type material from the oort cloud. Last time I did rough estimates on doing that, the energy needed to move all that material in ten years was measured in days total output of the sun. Move the cometary material slower, and it takes longer but the energy needed is less. Increase the time to 10,000 years, the time that an astrophysicist friend of mine said it would take for Mars, give an Earth-like atmosphere to degenerate to one that wasn't, and that makes the constant power requirement to keep Mars supplied with atmosphere at 3.8*10^14 W. That's about 2000 times what the we generate currently on the Earth, just to keep Mars' atmosphere stable.

    It's also been proposed to ship Venus' atmophere to Mars, but I haven't seen any estimates on the energy needed to do that.

  51. The Alien Generator Need To Be Turned Back On by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    Did you see the machine in Total Recall? It warmed the water, but also generated a magnetosphere. They shut it down before leaving as running without maintenance it would just break down. That does mean that once we turn it back on we need to figure out how fix it, but at least we will have blue skies and protection from the Sun while we study how the machine works.

    *This is a joke, not a troll, or a belief of intelligent life forms on mars*

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  52. inner core growing 1/2 to 1 mm a year by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Thats 500 to 1000 kilometers a billion years. I am not sure how small the outer liquid core must get before the dynamo halts. Someones probably modeled that.

  53. We know what happened to Mars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was MegaMaid. Damn that insidious Dark Helmet!

  54. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Holi · · Score: 1

    Any link to that theory? I was pretty sure the accepted theory on Olympus Mons is it built up over time due to the fact that plate tectonics stopped and it was stuck over a magma hot spot.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  55. Re: The answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be a Ginger ;)

    lets kill him and pee on him.

  56. Re:The answer. by Holi · · Score: 1

    I thought the idea was that either they had their own incarnations of the resurrection/redemption story, or that they were not as wicked thus would not have killed the Christ so Earth was chosen and the redemption was universal.

    I kinda like the 2nd one. We were chosen because we were special.... just not in a good way.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  57. Uranium for the win by PDX · · Score: 1

    The heavy isotopes sink down to the core of planets. If hot then the densest metals transfer heat to the lighter elements. I've given this some thought. If the horse head nebula is second generation stars then there isn't enough plutonium and uranium present to maintain heat for billions of years. The Sol system is at least a fifth generation star having components from early star collisions and nova events. The gold on earth is from neutron star collisions billions of years before this system existed. Any planets in the horse head nebula are facing the exact same problem as Mars. Too few heavy metals.
      Too many and you wind up with Mercury. Plutonium core surrounded by lead. Venus had enough heat internally to resurface itself, erasing nearly all meteorite craters. Venus's proximity to the sun doomed it to a run away greenhouse effect.
      The Earth has the right mix of distance from the sun... heavy metal mixtures... lunar mass(asteroid buffer)... Amino acid levels... and we shouldn't discount theories that the outer star system was in a liquid state four billion years ago. Life may have started near Jupiter and made its way inwards as the young star cooled down.
    Once life started out there it changed each habitat to suit itself. A lack of sunlight in the outer system means methane breathing bacterium. Same as Earth's diverse genomes. RNA or DNA doesn't really matter. There is also circular MtDNA. If we explore the galaxy we will probably find right handed DNA and RNA.

  58. Assumptions... by mlheur · · Score: 1

    “We see magnetized rocks on the Mars surface,” ... “And so we know Mars had a magnetic field at one time"

    I think all we can say with reasonable certainty is that rocks on the Mars surface were exposed to a magnetic field. As far as I've found, there's no observable evidence that the magnetic field must have come from Mars itself, or even that the rocks were impregnated with magnetic alignment while they were on Mars.

    Europa for example has a magnetic field that was induced by Jupiter's own field and was not created by Europa itself.
    https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/l...

  59. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how rust is red, and Mars's surface is red. Coincidence?

  60. There's hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be possible to transport and/or deploy an artificial magnetic field. They'll be operatinng around 2020. So, problem solved,

    Read more...

  61. Poor Zacahria... by xTantrum · · Score: 1

    It's understandable science has to do it's due dillegence but seriously, i wish they'd just take Sitchin a little more seriously.

    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
  62. Mars does have magnetic fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars does have magnetic fields, I don't know why anyone is saying differently.

    Sure, the fields at this point don't cover the entire planet and are spotty, but they are present over portions of Mars. Those areas where a Magnetic field is present would be the logical places to consider for manned missions or colonies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRaXW9Z9V18

    1. Re:Mars does have magnetic fields by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Mars does have magnetic fields, I don't know why anyone is saying differently.

      Earth has a global, powerful magnetic field. Mars does not.

      Considering Mars is approximately the same age as Earth but with around one tenth the mass, I don't see why that's a huge mystery. You would expect a smaller, lower mass orb to cool more quickly, even if just because the ratio of volume to surface is so much greater.

      Having said that I'm not a areologist or even a geologist, so I'm quite prepared to be wrong and maybe there's something more subtle going on.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  63. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    The energy taken to terraform mars would be better used on Venus or towards pressurised structures. And those will be very simple as you need only about 7-8 psi capability

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  64. Re: This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I would suggest diverting small cometary objects, or small rocky asteroids toward the martian surface. Small asteroids would burn up in the atmosphere (making it thicker; rocky asteroids contain significant quantities of hydrogen and oxygen) and are within are current technological capacity to divert. There are a nearly uncountable number of such divertable small bodies between mars and jupiter. Diversion does not need to be accomplished through rocket thrust-- several well placed hydrogen bombs in the asteroid belt would be more than enough.

    The big question is not "how do you thicken the atmosphere?", but instead "how do you give it a thick, breathable atmosphere?" That is an entirely different kettle of fish. Mars has a marked scarcity of molecular nitrogen. Burning rocks up on reentry will increase the concentrations of oxygen and hydrogen, but NOT nitrogen. You need amonia ice comets for that, and you DONT find those in the nearby asteroid belt. You have to go all the way to the damned kupier belt for that, and then wait several hundred years for them to reach thier target. Not feasible. I suppose that if you dont mind the deadly radiation and crushing gravity well involved, that you could collect such ammonia ice from saturn's ring system-- but that is outside the plausible tech window we have.

    Making the atmosphere thicker? we can totally do that if we give the international planetary society and the anti-proliferation treaties the bird by launching deep space rockets with hydrogen bomb warheads on them and detonating them VERY carefully in the asteroid belt.

    Making a thick, BREATHABLE atmosphere? sorry chums, but you need a shitton of nitrogen, and comet catching wont be sufficient, and the local asteroid piggy bank seems to have other stuff in it instead.

  65. Re:This is basic planetary physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to re-ignite the core of Mars ?

  66. Re:Yay! Another end of Life on Earth scenario by Bengie · · Score: 1

    1.2b years and start digging now? Why? Tectonics will destroy whatever hole I make by then.

  67. MARS NEEDS ONLY ONE MOON/MAN MADE MAGNETIC FIELDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Dr Robin Canyup's ONE MOON THEORY, one moon's orbit and pull on its parent planet keeps the axis of that planet relatively stable. Right now Mars rolls all over the place. Hence you have global dust storms, global snow storms, and generally crazy wind patterns. Get rid of Phobos, the smaller moon by pushing it out to the outer asteroid belt by calculated thermonuclear explosions. (A 15,000 year journey.) Then add some mass to Deimos after you push it further away from Mars, otherwise it'll crash into Mars in under a million years. Deimos is the fastest orbiting moon in the solar system and its getting closer to Mars every year.
              We need to create strong glass dome habitats on Mars while all the above is going on. And these habitats need to be close to or on top of magnetic fields, which will have to be artifically created. There are already some mag fields scattered about on the planet.