NASA Proposes a Magnetic Shield To Protect Mars' Atmosphere (phys.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Proposes a Magnetic Shield To Protect Mars' Atmosphere (phys.org)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday March 6, 2017 @07:00PM from the science-fiction-to-science-fact dept.

New submitter Baron_Yam writes: Apparently it is no longer necessarily science fiction to consider terraforming the red planet in a human lifetime. NASA scientists have proposed putting a magnetic shield at the Mars L1 Lagrange Point, diverting sufficient solar wind in hopes that the Martian atmosphere would thicken and heat the planet to the point of melting the ice caps, causing what remains of Martian water to pool on the surface. While not enough of a change to allow walking around without a space suit, this would make human exploration of the planet a much easier task.

211 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 19:13 · Score: 2, Informative

They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be generated or powered. They also don't really know how long it will take a habitable atmosphere to form assuming it works at all, or what happens to everything if the shield fails at a later date and what kind of upkeep it would require. It sounds a lot like wishful thinking and hand-waving.
1. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, let's never have any ideas that are impractical, let's just plan to use basic well understood things like levers, and screws. You can do anything practical with these.
2. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 20:17 · Score: 0
  
  Magnesium Diboride. Duhhh...
3. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 20:19 · Score: 0
  
  Powered by nuclear decay of plutonium 238
4. Re:No real information by jandersen · 2017-03-06 20:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It sounds a lot like wishful thinking and hand-waving.
  It probably is, at that. In my (limited) experience, phys.org tends to publish stories rich in big, glossy pictures, slightly sensationalising headlines and with a rather too "popular" (read: dumbed down) style. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't think their stories tend to qualify as real news, when most of it is a glossy writeup of things I have already seen elsewhere, on general news media like the BBC.
  I think this is a fundamental problem when popularising science news - when you look at the totality of science, and especially the amazing discoveries made in the first half of the 20th century, it really is quite mind-blowing, but unfortunately this does not reflect the day-to-day reality of most science. Which is why most attempts at making science news popular and exciting are doomed to be disappointing.
  As for the actual idea - I think it is well-established that a magnetic shield would be just the thing to protect the atmosphere of a planet (or the passengers of a spacecraft), but the technical challenges are enormous, and the benefits to Mars would probably be slow and rather minor. At this point it is mostly speculation, but of course, all the great things we now take for granted once were little more than dreams and handwaving, so who knows? Perhaps we find a way to produce a magnetic fields big and strong enough that would endure long enough with little maintenance, and perhaps we find a way to replenish Mars' atmostphere quickly enough to make it worth doing.
5. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be generated or powered.
  Power is obviously solar cells and because space is cold you can use superconducting magnets which provide strong fields for little energy and this magical effect:
  
  An alternate operating mode used by most superconducting magnets is to short-circuit the windings with a piece of superconductor once the magnet has been energized. The windings become a closed superconducting loop, the power supply can be turned off, and persistent currents will flow for months, preserving the magnetic field.
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnet
6. Re: No real information by dougdonovan · 2017-03-06 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  obviously the money people did lunch with charles and said...we're moving to mars. do what you have to do to make it livable and then there IS Trump.
7. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:30 · Score: 0
  
  And a thermomix.
8. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  Every project doesn't start with a fully-designed and engineered final concept, in case this is news to you, they tend to start with just an idea. You probably consider the idea of terraforming Mars itself to be "wishful thinking and hand-waving", but for those who think a bit bigger than you, it's clearly a possibility. And the question then is would implementing this idea cost more or less than other ways of gaining the same atmospheric benefits? Since those other ways by all means proposed to date also require big and expensive technical efforts, it's perfectly possible that this might be a more cost effective option, but obviously it's a long way from a fully thought out and costed proposal.
9. Re: No real information by Opportunist · 2017-03-06 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Every problem can be solved with gaffer tape and WD40.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:No real information by Joce640k · 2017-03-06 22:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be generated or powered.
  If only there was an easy way to make working superconductors in near-zero ambient temperature environments.
  (or even an easy way to read articles from the comfort of home)
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  Solar cells. Mars. OK... And space isn't cold, dumbass. It's not hot either. It's a vacuum.
12. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I suppose the quantities required for a PLANET'S magnetic field will be quite trivial to manufacture, ship, and deploy to MARS.
  And, as usual, you think space is cold when in fact it is not. It is a vacuum. You seem to be a programmer; your knowledge of reality seems to come from comic books.
13. Re:No real information by hcs_$reboot · 2017-03-06 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is why that won't happen any time soon. If we intend to discuss here all potential NASA projects, slashdot must be dedicated to that, along with 10 other websites.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
14. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  You probably consider the idea of living on Earth within reality "wishful thinking and hand-waving", but for those who think a bit bigger than you, it's clearly a possibility.
15. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  You're right, let's never have any ideas that are impractical, let's just plan to use basic well understood things like levers, and screws. You can do anything practical with these.
  Well, there's a fuzzy thin line between practical, impractical, and no-effin-way. Or would that be two lines?
16. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  So where are the life extension and anti-aging stories on Slashdot?
17. Re:No real information by vtcodger · 2017-03-07 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  "They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be ... powered."
  Windmills. They work everywhere and are dirt cheap dontcha know? Seriously, I should think solar power. How much is needed? A lot I'm sure, but perhaps not as much as one might think. Basically, unlike here on Earth, the magnetic field they propose doesn't envelop the planet, it just deflects the solar wind a little bit -- just enough so it misses the planet.
  Not the dumbest idea I've heard this week.
  But I suspect the concept needs a LOT of work. For example, many of the purported benefits seem to envision conjuring up something like 60C in greenhouse warming from decidedly less solar input than Earth gets. I'm skeptical.
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
18. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Every idea can't become a fully-designed and engineered final concept, in case this is news to you, most ideas are complete nonsense.
  Reality is the great filter.
19. Re: No real information by vtcodger · 2017-03-07 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  "And space isn't cold, dumbass. It's not hot either. It's a vacuum."
  Correct if you're thinking conduction. Wrong if you're thinking radiation.
  And in any case, "dumbass" is probably right about superconducting magnets. They presumably will stay superconducting for a long time if they are protected from sunllght.
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
20. Re:No real information by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be generated or powered. They also don't really know how long it will take a habitable atmosphere to form assuming it works at all, or what happens to everything if the shield fails at a later date and what kind of upkeep it would require. It sounds a lot like wishful thinking and hand-waving.
  Didn't RTFA did ya?
  1 - 2 Tesla or 10K to 20K Gauss is what they are looking at. It is quite possible that you won't even need a powered magnet, as Neodymium magnets are already in that range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
  The confusion probably comes from the idea that the magnet needs to be extremely powerful. This is not the case. At the earth's surface our own magnetic field tops out around 0.65 gauss.
  Placing the big dumb magnet at the Lagrange point and having it deflect the charged particles is remarkably low maintenance.
  Side note - the earth's magnetic field has been weakening, as it is wont to do on occasion. If at some point in the future it weakens to the point of not blocking the solar wind or cosmic rays, this bit of kit might turn out very helpful to us until our own magnetic field reasserts itself.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
21. Re:No real information by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  As for the actual idea - I think it is well-established that a magnetic shield would be just the thing to protect the atmosphere of a planet (or the passengers of a spacecraft), but the technical challenges are enormous, and the benefits to Mars would probably be slow and rather minor.
  On the second point, yes, it would be slow. Probably multiple lifetimes worth of waiting. But on the first point, I was a little shocked at just how simple it might be. 1-2 Tesla is achievable without external power Neodymium magnets sit right about in the middle of that range. The biggest issues will be more mechanical, and for obvious reasons. Considering the implications, something like this might be important for the next earth geomagnetic reversal as well.
  
  Perhaps we find a way to produce a magnetic fields big and strong enough that would endure long enough with little maintenance, and perhaps we find a way to replenish Mars' atmostphere quickly enough to make it worth doing.
  If this works - we already have a zero or almost zero maintenance way to produce the field. I was pretty concerned about the lack of a magnetosphere on Mars as a gamestopper. This conceptcomes along, and it was a facepalm moment.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
22. Re:No real information by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be generated or powered.
  If only there was an easy way to make working superconductors in near-zero ambient temperature environments.
  (or even an easy way to read articles from the comfort of home)
  Or Neodymium magnets. Remarkably strong.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
23. Re:No real information by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is why that won't happen any time soon. If we intend to discuss here all potential NASA projects, slashdot must be dedicated to that, along with 10 other websites.
  Beats hell out of the endless stories on Apple's missing headphone jack.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
24. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  1 - 2 Tesla or 10K to 20K Gauss is what they are looking at. It is quite possible that you won't even need a powered magnet, as Neodymium magnets are already in that range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
  The energy in a magnetic field goes with with the field strength squared and the volume. There is a big difference in energy for a kilometers wide field and a permanent magnet that has a strong field just near the surface of the material. Unless you want to make your magnetic shield thing out of a permanent magnet almost the exact same size as the extent you require in space (so a neodymium magnet the size of a moon), you're looking at a superconductor with rather high amount of energy stored. For 1 T over something roughly the same volume as Mars, you're looking at ~6*10^25 J (about 10 billion megatons of tnt equivalent, or about how much energy we would get from a century worth of current global electrical energy production).
25. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  " Wrong if you're thinking radiation."
  Precisely. If you're thinking of using solar cells at Mars, we'd assume there is enough radiation to heat things up?
26. Re:No real information by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  1 - 2 Tesla or 10K to 20K Gauss is what they are looking at. It is quite possible that you won't even need a powered magnet, as Neodymium magnets are already in that range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
  The energy in a magnetic field goes with with the field strength squared and the volume. There is a big difference in energy for a kilometers wide field and a permanent magnet that has a strong field just near the surface of the material. Unless you want to make your magnetic shield thing out of a permanent magnet almost the exact same size as the extent you require in space (so a neodymium magnet the size of a moon), you're looking at a superconductor with rather high amount of energy stored. For 1 T over something roughly the same volume as Mars, you're looking at ~6*10^25 J (about 10 billion megatons of tnt equivalent, or about how much energy we would get from a century worth of current global electrical energy production).
  Get in touch with NASA right way to let them know this is impossible.
  Then explain how an electromagnet doesn't have to be the same size as a inherent magnet.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
27. Re:No real information by pr0fessor · 2017-03-07 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  TFA was about using a magnetic shield to protect against solar radiation and possibly raising the temperature enough over time to allow liquid water and make oxygen extraction easier... nothing magical.
28. Re:No real information by JoeMerchant · 2017-03-07 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  So, keeping a magnet at L1 does seem practical, but if we had a higher temp superconductor that robots could fabricate out of martian soil, that would seem to be the ticket: loop the whole planet.
29. Re:No real information by JoeMerchant · 2017-03-07 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is getting far field effects from an itty bitty coil - no matter if you have a 20T field at the middle, how long before that dissipates to less than Earth's magnetic field? Hint: they make these crazy fields in Tallahassee, and they don't affect compass needles on the other side of town. Mars is a few orders of magnitude bigger than a city...
30. Re:No real information by JoeMerchant · 2017-03-07 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  They don't mention much about how this magical magnetic barrier is going to be generated or powered.
  If only there was an easy way to make working superconductors in near-zero ambient temperature environments.
  (or even an easy way to read articles from the comfort of home)
  Or Neodymium magnets. Remarkably strong.
  Oh, that would be fun: launching thousands of tiny magnets into different orbits...
31. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 04:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's what they told me initally.
  Now I have hairless genitalia.
32. Re: No real information by cyberchondriac · 2017-03-07 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or rerouting power / reversing the phase of the tachyon emission.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
33. Re:No real information by rgbatduke · 2017-03-07 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, this is just the first step. Then we crash Europa into Mars and wait a few million years for it to cool and the water to recondense. We'll need the magnetic shield in the meantime unless Europa has enough of an iron core that the remelted Martian core turns magnetic.
  Of course, we might hasten the cooling by a few hundred thousand years if we install a cloaking device at the same Lagrange point so that Mars is in its shadow.
  All it takes is money, right? Unbelievably enormous amounts of money. And time, don't forget the time. Something like the entire world GDP for a few centuries. But what the heck, you're buying another whole planet, one in the same solar system, which makes this way, way more realistic a proposal than imagining travelling to a nearby star.
  Well, except for the building a large enough field generator at a Lagrange point to shield a whole planet, and except for moving a good sized moon. Except for that.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
34. Re:No real information by rgbatduke · 2017-03-07 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  So, 1-2 Tesla peak in a device how large? A meter? Ten meters? A kilometer? (what are we going to pay for, in other words) sitting in the middle of nowhere is going to be enough to deflect off-axis charged particles by how much? Bear in mind that Mr. Sun subtends a pretty substantial arc. One such that an entire planetoid object the size of the moon barely obstructs line of sight in a tiny penumbra, sometimes, at 384K kilometers...
  So just how large a region WOULD we have to cover to actually put the entire planet of Mars in its deflection penumbra? Hmmm....
  If we're going to this place, why not do the same thing for Mother Earth -- put a large cloud of stuff at the lagrange point, reduce insolation, fight global warming. Price is no object! Fantasies are free! Besides, what could go wrong?
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
35. Re:No real information by ElizabethGreene · 2017-03-07 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  L1 is an unstable Lagrange point though, so this contraption would need constant tweaking to stay in the right spot.
  It would be nifty if we could figure out a way to tack into the Solar wind so this didn't require continuous resupply of propellant.
36. Re: No real information by Opportunist · 2017-03-07 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Were you the guy that wanted to send me his pubes?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
37. Re:No real information by Spy+Handler · 2017-03-07 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  we just need to get Arnold Schwartzenegger's ass to Mars, he will take care of the rest
38. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Kids these days. I had to remove the back panel from a PDP-11 to do some maintenance and that was before screws were invented.
39. Re: No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  No, no, that's just for the easy stuff. When it gets really complicated, we need a modified photon torpedo.
40. Re:No real information by wasteoid · 2017-03-07 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone knows there is an ancient Martian atmosphere generator beneath the surface.
41. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  many of the purported benefits seem to envision conjuring up something like 60C in greenhouse warming from decidedly less solar input than Earth gets. I'm skeptical.
  Roughly 43% given the relative orbits. More will get through to the surface given the diffuse atmosphere, but for the same reason more will be radiated back into space. It's really a matter of the degree of opacity that can be achieved in the infrared part of the spectrum. The thermal equilibrium point will be based on that, not on the amount of light hitting the planet. Of course, if we ever get to the technological/infrastructural stage where we could consider a serious terraforming project, we'd probably be able to consider moving some water rich asteroids into the vicinty of the planet and commence orbital bombardment with ice fragments small enough to burn up in the atmosphere and fall as rain. Something like that would take centuries, probably millenia, of work by robot ships.
42. Re:No real information by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  So, 1-2 Tesla peak in a device how large? A meter? Ten meters? A kilometer? (what are we going to pay for, in other words) sitting in the middle of nowhere is going to be enough to deflect off-axis charged particles by how much? Bear in mind that Mr. Sun subtends a pretty substantial arc. One such that an entire planetoid object the size of the moon barely obstructs line of sight in a tiny penumbra, sometimes, at 384K kilometers...
  So just how large a region WOULD we have to cover to actually put the entire planet of Mars in its deflection penumbra? Hmmm....
  If we're going to this place, why not do the same thing for Mother Earth -- put a large cloud of stuff at the lagrange point, reduce insolation, fight global warming. Price is no object! Fantasies are free! Besides, what could go wrong?
  rgb
  Well, that escalated quickly! Howbow I just reply to your first questions, because sunlight blocking isn't related nor makes much sense to me.
  The physical size of the magnet needed is going to be dependent upon a few factors. Distance away from Mars, and magnetic strength. The earth's magnetosphere is determined by a relatively large planet size, with a very weak magnetic field. .67 gauss at most. The 1-2 Tesla magnet at the Lagrange point will have the advantage of being a much stronger magnetic field. As for the final size, I don't have it handy, but I do suspect that the people who have made this study have. Someone else commented on Neodymium versus Electromagnet. Both would need to be the same physical size.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
43. Re:No real information by Socguy · 2017-03-07 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Might as well wait for the paper to be published.
44. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  "Get in touch with NASA right way to let them know this is impossible."
  I suspect they know already. 99% of what comes out of NASA is PR and CGI.
45. Re:No real information by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  we bloody well do know what would happen should the magnetic field fail. Look at Mars now, that is what would happen!
  Don't complain that they don't have a 100% engineered solution worked out with all details accounted for, that is just being a naysayer and of no value, how about you try to be part of a solution, Mate, and you provide something useful other than your whinging?
  If one does nothing other than build a magnetic field generator which shields the planet Mars from the solar wind at the same rate thei Earth's magnetic field does, it will take many generations for the atmosphere of Mars to rebuild itself, left to itself. If we added other solutions to the magnetic field, say some small biologicals engineered for this purpose, spread about on the planet's surface, then it may only take a few generations.
  But the fact is that even without an atmosphere similar to the Earth's, merely having the magnetic shield would make Mars 1000+% times more survivable for Humans than it is now.
  Generating such a field could be done in many ways (someone already mentioned bloody huge permanent magnets, for example). It really isn't that big a problem to create the magnetic field all it takes is less money than is currently wasted on the defense infrastructure each annum.
46. Re: No real information by cyberchondriac · 2017-03-07 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well how is that going to reset the subroutines in your sub-neural positronic matrix?
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
47. Re:No real information by rgbatduke · 2017-03-07 10:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, that escalated quickly! Howbow I just reply to your first questions, because sunlight blocking isn't related nor makes much sense to me.
  Let's try to make it make sense. The solar wind is driven by light pressure. Particles do not, however, follow strict radii out from the sun. They have transverse velocity components as well as radial ones. Also, they are pushed by photons from all over the face of the sun, which have different impact angles, which constantly change their transverse velocity. To put it another way, the particles driven away from the sun that will eventually hit Mars have a phase space envelope at least as large as the truncated cone formed by the surface of revolution whose boundaries are the circumference of the Sun on one end and the circumference of mars at the other.
  Now consider a satellite (say) 100m in diameter. Suppose you locate it at the Lagrange point so that it is always along the line between the center of the Earth and the center of the Sun. Question: Will it dim the total sunlight received by the Earth?
  Not measurably. The penumbra of this little satellite extends from its dark side to the tip of the extended cone formed by the circumference of the satellite and the circumference of the Sun. Since the Sun is basically 0.5 degrees from the Earth or the Lagrange point either way, the height of this cone is found from tan(0.5 degrees \approx 0.02 rad) \approx 0.02 rad = 100/H, or
  50x100 = 5 km. So the satellite will cast a complete shadow of the sun that starts out 100 m wide right behind the satellite, then shrinks to zero around 5 km (give or take a km, I'm being lazy) . Beyond that you are in the umbra, which basically means that you are in bright sunlight from the annulus of sun surface visible around the satellite. The further out you go, the smaller the ratio of the occluded part to the directly visible part. By the time you reach the earth, the satellite is completely invisible -- the umbra is irrelevantly dimmed relative to no satellite at all, and it "covers" less of the sun's face from any viewpoint on Earth than a medium sized sunspot.
  Now, if somebody were to tell you "hey, we're going to fix global warming by putting a sun shield in geosync orbit to reduce the total insolation of the Earth", your first concern would be to think about the geometry of that penumbral cone with a known cone height of roughly 5 earth radii vs a 0.5 degree Sun. Just how large would it have to be to reduce total insolation by a single whopping percent? The answer is really, really large. Even at only 5 Earth radii, which is not the distance to a Lagrange point. At the Lagrange point, really really REALLY REALLY large.
  Now, is the solar wind deflection by a magnet going to be exactly like this? No, of course not. The magnetic field doesn't have a sharp cutoff -- it drops off roughly like 1/r^3 from the center of the (presumably dipole) magnet. Also, the force acting on the solar wind (charged only) particles depends on their charge and speed, the acceleration depends on their mass as well, and it has the usual nasty cross products in it so that it only really exerts a large force when particles run across the field at right angles. One would LIKE to think that a small deflection far away produced by a magnet large enough to produce a reasonable deflection a REALLY REALLY large distance away from the magnet could create a shadow as large as Mars, but it is by no means clear that this is the case, and just saying "hey, we can make really big magnets" doesn't actually help. I've got really really big magnets in my house -- ones I've pulled out of dead hard drives, that can basically hold a (small) newspaper pinned to your fridge. IF you get them within an appallingly short distance of the fridge. From a meter away, you can't feel any force at all. If you take an old CRT television or computer monitor and wave this really really strong magnet from ten or twenty meters away, it has
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
48. Re:No real information by umghhh · 2017-03-07 18:46 · Score: 1
  So we have so far:
  
  every finished project started with some idea, that idea may have changed and be augmented between inception and final production facility
  most ideas are dumb
  Somehow I do not see contradiction here. You call each other dumbuasses - each such statement may be true. Gosh when I look in the past I am ashamed of my own dumbassism. Everybody has a moment of glory.
  Thus I conclude that this discussion is of little informational values so far.
49. Re: No real information by syntotic · 2017-03-08 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  We expect NASA to be the difference between wishful thinking / scamming / excess of confidence, and what is scientifically and At The Time feasible and possible. X wants to reach Pluto and leave a permanent observatory satellite there? Laugh a little bit, nothing to see, keep going... NASA says we can expect big business from parachuting off the Space Station? Stop. Take it seriously! Ask how much it will cost. I would not be reading nor writing this if it had not mentioned NASA, that is for real. After all, there is a lot of money paid into real research and assessment in NASA.
50. Re:No real information by syntotic · 2017-03-08 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe some special asteroid we do not know about was discovered?
51. Re:No real information by painandgreed · 2017-03-10 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  L1 is an unstable Lagrange point though, so this contraption would need constant tweaking to stay in the right spot.
  It's going to need constant tweaking anyway considering it's going to be absorbing at least some of the energy that is enough to knock off a 100 grams of matter per second out of Mars' gravity well. Probably a lot as the solar wind gets caught in this stations own radiation belts (and will probably produce some wonderful lights at the poles). I'd bet they do something like a Bussard ramjet and use the field to knock some solar wind away, while collecting the opposite charge, and then use that as fuel for a ion drive that will keep the station in place.
Let's do it... by Camel+Pilot · 2017-03-06 19:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the hell are we waiting for? Having 4.2 Billions years of evolutionary investment held captive at the bottom of one gravity well is not a good long term strategy.
1. Re:Let's do it... by h33t+l4x0r · 2017-03-06 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  All life has the same amount of evolutionary investment by your measure. So let's send some microbes and call it a day. Don't terraform Mars, how about let Mars be Mars.
2. Re:Let's do it... by Wescotte · 2017-03-06 21:10 · Score: 2
  
  Cave Johnson would like a word with you.
3. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  So fascinated I am about those... games
  Why don't we invest a bit more in learning how to keep a fairly well terraformed rock in habitable conditions?
  Getting rid of Trumps, Erdogans, Putins and other disgusting would-be caligulas (and their followers) might go a long way.
4. Re:Let's do it... by stud9920 · 2017-03-06 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  Don't terraform Mars, how about let Mars be Mars.
  Damn Reddie!
5. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  How did I know some useful idiot would jump up and utter the words Gravity Well just to demonstrate what a perfect hipster he is.
6. Re:Let's do it... by Kjella · 2017-03-06 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are we waiting for? Having 4.2 Billions years of evolutionary investment held captive at the bottom of one gravity well is not a good long term strategy.
  And for the first 4.19999 billion years we didn't have homo sapiens. For 4.1999999 billion years ago we were in the Dark Ages. And 4.19999999 billion years ago we fought WWI without any real rocketry. Dragging in astronomical time scales is more an argument that there's no urgency at all, if life survives 0.01% longer than it has we have hundreds of thousands of years to make it to the stars. And we could survive a dino-killer here on Earth, of course by we I don't mean 99.9% of us but humanity as such.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
7. Re:Let's do it... by michelcolman · 2017-03-06 21:26 · Score: 0
  
  If we just send Trump to Mars, those ice caps will melt pretty quickly!
8. Re:Let's do it... by Opportunist · 2017-03-06 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  And even if not... it's worth a try.
  Could we send Erdogan and Putin along, too? For ... umm... backup.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  and risk getting blown out of the universe by an q-36 explosive space modulator in retaliation? hmm.
  tough call. i say risk it with the martain. do it.
10. Re:Let's do it... by Maritz · 2017-03-06 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Only on slashdot would the term 'gravity well' be associated with 'hipster'. Most hipsters I've encountered are aggressively uninterested in science and tech apart from iPhones.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
11. Re:Let's do it... by Maritz · 2017-03-06 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  The nuclear stockpiles that exist on this planet make it pretty unlikely we'll see out the next century or so. Doesn't even have to be a deliberate act. More likely to be accidental. Given that, I think the urgency is warranted. Our ability to deal with existential threats is one of our worst competencies.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
12. Re:Let's do it... by Opportunist · 2017-03-06 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, you know our record when it comes to Mars missions, don't you? The total success rate is just over 50%, so ... Just send them again if they survive at first.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:Let's do it... by swb · 2017-03-06 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Is that you, Ann Clayborne?
14. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it's part of the Space Nutter religion's terms. You'll also find "this rock", and lots of babble about "the species", from people who can't even get a date.
15. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  You *do* understand that the radioactive material in your precious "stockpiles" decays within decades? Right? They need constant maintenance and repair. They are not these comic book weapons you seem to think they are.
  I understand that Doomsday and being saved by space are part of your religion, but please, try to join us in reality.
16. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:00 · Score: 0
  
  If a species is stupid enough to kill themselves with nuclear weapons, why should they spread that stupidity? Humans aren't ever going to live anywhere else than Earth anyway. Deal with it.
17. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics, a Masters in EE, and have regular sex with my girlfriend who has her Masters in Biology. On top of that, she's pretty cute for her age and still trim and fit.
  Here is the truth... If we do not get off this rock and escape this gravity well then the entire species is doomed. It is best that we start looking for ways to do so while we still retain the material components needed to do so.
  The steps we take now, will be great steps or great blunders many generations from now. That is still better than sitting around sobbing because you can't get your way. You're really not nearly as smart as you think you are and many of us are significantly more intelligent than you.
18. Re: Let's do it... by shortscruffydave · 2017-03-07 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the truth... If we do not get off this rock and escape this gravity well then the entire species is doomed.
  ...being doomed is probably no more or less than we deserve. To believe that we're the absolute pinnacle of evolution and deserve to last for ever is sheer arrogance. In the overall scheme of things we're just like the dinosaurs - dominant and influential, but ultimately just another note on the planet's timeline.
  I just hope we get wiped out before we have the opportunity to head to another planet and start wrecking that one as well
19. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps they *eat* that? We could try wrapping it as a gift... 't takes some risk making new friends.
20. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Pfft! Where's your sense of adventure.
  We're one super-volcano, rogue meteor away from Nuclear winter or worse anyways. What do we have to lose at this point?
  We need to get our 'ass to MARS'!
21. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  Whoa there son. The tap room closes in 15 minutes. Give me your keys and I'll call you a cab.
22. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Here is the truth. Evolution is still happening. This entire species didn't exist a million years ago, and it won't exist in another million years.
  You have a techno-religion with its own doomsday scenario, its saints, its saviors, and a promised afterlife.
  If you pretend to care so much about the species, what are you doing RIGHT NOW for the people alive RIGHT HERE AND NOW?
  And try to use some of that purported intelligence you seem so proud to broadcast and apply it reality:
  www.distancetomars.com
  The truth is you will age and die, and no one will notice or care.
  "You're really not nearly as smart as you think you are and many of us are significantly more intelligent than you."
  Smarts doesn't get you across the Atlantic in six hours. Kerosene does. You can be as smart as you want, it doesn't change reality.
  You are a fine dreamer and weaver of pseudo-gothic techno-dramatic scenarios, but you are not the Saviour Of Mankind, you will not colonize Mars, you will not live to see asteroid mining, you are not some brave Seer Of Truths That No One Else Sees.
  You are an arrested adolescent.
  Get over yourself, you've been smelling your own farts for too long.
23. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Get mad! Demand to see life's manager! Do you know who I am?
24. Re:Let's do it... by Kjella · 2017-03-07 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  The nuclear stockpiles that exist on this planet make it pretty unlikely we'll see out the next century or so. Doesn't even have to be a deliberate act. More likely to be accidental. Given that, I think the urgency is warranted. Our ability to deal with existential threats is one of our worst competencies.
  The most powerful nuke tested was 50 MT. The world's total nuclear arsenal is around 6400 MT. The dino-killer was 100.000.000 MT. We could obliterate all major population centers and contaminate the surrounding areas. Whirl enough dust into the athmosphere to send the planet into nuclear winter. We still wouldn't have enough nukes to hit every rural farm in the middle of nowhere. Maybe Florida would be more like Canada, but it wouldn't be uninhabitable. It would be the end of civilization as we know it. It wouldn't be the end of humanity as we know it.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
25. Re: Let's do it... by vtcodger · 2017-03-07 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Here is the truth... If we do not get off this rock and escape this gravity well then the entire species is doomed. It is best that we start looking for ways to do so while we still retain the material components needed to do so."
  With all due respect, you are probably grossly underestimating the cost and difficulty of establishing viable colonies off planet. If you really think a fairly safe habitat for a breeding population needs to be built, by far the cheapest alternative would be to hollow out a very deep hole somewhere remote, equip it with stand alone power, water and air recycling, and farms. That'll run a goodly fraction of a trillion USD I think. Doing the same thing in space? More, a whole hell of a lot more. Likely more than the world's entire current GDP. And that's for a few thousand people.
  There will probably come a time to colonize, although I'm skeptical that the usual candidates -- the Moon, Mars, the asteroid belt -- are ever going to be very desirable targets. But we need a lot better technology than we currently have.
  For now, and maybe another century or two, we're stuck here I think.
  For starters, maybe it'd be a good idea to ease up on that fruitful and multiplying thing.
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
26. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  We can't terraform mars yet because we still need to figure out a solution for who's-allowed-to-use-which-bathroom here on earth. Priorities, people.
27. Re:Let's do it... by vtcodger · 2017-03-07 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  "You *do* understand that the radioactive material in your precious "stockpiles" decays within decades? Right?"
  Sadly, not right I think. Yes the Tritium in thermonuclear weapons has a fairly short half life of 12 years. But unfortunately, the fissionable components U-235, Pu-237 have half lives of 700 million years and 28,000 years respectively.
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
28. Re:Let's do it... by bluegutang · 2017-03-07 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  No matter what happens to Earth, it's going to be a lot more habitable than Mars will ever be.
  Over the last 500 million years, Earth's temperature has varied by less than 15 degrees C in either direction. Mars' average temperature is about 70 degrees C less than that of Earth.
  One could make similar arguments regarding Earth's atmospheric pressure, oxygen level, magnetic field, and so on.
  It's hard to conceive of a human or non-human catastrophe will disrupt Earth to the point that it's less habitable than Mars.
29. Re:Let's do it... by drinkypoo · 2017-03-07 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't be the end of humanity as we know it.
  I think that probably depends on how widespread the bombing is. Spread enough radiation around and you're sure to see things change one way or another, even if it's "only" because people have to live substantially differently as a precaution for some years.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re:Let's do it... by Thud457 · 2017-03-07 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Conservative bathroom obsessions...
  Individual private bathrooms for all.
  Problem solved.
  Expensive? Hell mate, you're the one that brought it up as a problem, what are you whining about now?
  
  Done.
  Can we move on to solving real problems now?
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
31. Re:Let's do it... by denzacar · 2017-03-07 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Tritium is what makes the big kaboom. Without it, it's basically just the fuse going off, not the bomb.
  Which is why nukes from the '60s, '70s and the '80s must be refurbished periodically at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
  And while tritium deteriorates... so do other elements on the periodic table in the presence of radiation.
  Nukes are an ongoing chemistry experiment even just sitting there.
  Which is why they must be refurbished periodically at the cost of tens of billions of dollars to make sure that their wiring or their proppelent didn't transmute into cheese.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
32. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  What if we shoot nuclear weapons at Mars colonies while we're shooting them at each other? Then what?
  captcha: honest
33. Re: Let's do it... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-03-07 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Without consciousness, everything is pointless. There is no point in not wrecking some other planet if nothing is there.
  Even your feeble, warped mind won't be present to appreciate it's idiotic non-existence.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
34. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Terraforming and colonizing Mars is the new Manifest Destiny. Martians better pack their shit and get out of the way.
35. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Even your feeble, warped mind won't be present to appreciate it's idiotic non-existence."
  Maybe you could master the difference between its and it's before ranting about other people's feeble minds.
  PS: Your user name is itself misspelled, so I shouldn't expect too much from you.
36. Re:Let's do it... by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-03-07 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  the fissionable components U-235
  Note that exactly one (1) bomb in history has actually used U-235. They dropped it on Hiroshima.
  
  Pu-237
  Pu-239. Half-life 24K-years.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
37. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  amen to that.
  also, I happen to love these kinds of stories on /., as well as the reverse aging, robotics and life extension stories.
38. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  sorry can't do that and work out how to become a spacefaring race.... hey but if its any consolation, Mars is a rocky barren planet... it won't mind.
39. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  because we want to , and we are. deal with it.
40. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  ".being doomed is probably no more or less than we deserve."
  this is the kind of idea that is just ludicrous to me. there are billions upon billions of planets out there, MOST of them barren .. they don't CARE what we do to them. and if we can GET OFF OF THIS planet we may not have to continue to ruin it so much we can try to FIX it.
  and of course you know, if we go down, by our own hand or otherwise, so does pretty much every other living thing here. , because it would take a huge catastrophe to rid the earth of humans.
41. Re:Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  Being less habitable than Mars isn't really the bar we're trying to stay above, is it? Humans would become extinct far, far before conditions ever got to Mars level habitability.
42. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  www.distancetomars.com
  " there are billions upon billions of planets out there"
  Ummm.... Your lack of understanding of the sheer scale of what you're talking about is obvious.
43. Re:Let's do it... by umghhh · 2017-03-07 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  While I think fighting a few ugly leisons on the arse of the world is good.
  I think even better is investing in condom production as the main reason we have a problem is that there are 7.5b people demanding steaks, fries and circus as well as air-conditioning and transport for their excessive fat. Garbage disposal of these 7.5b apes is a problem too and it seems the only way to resolve the issue is reducing on numbers.
44. Re:Let's do it... by bluegutang · 2017-03-07 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's the bar if you're deciding whether you need to colonize Mars.
45. Re: Let's do it... by crimson+tsunami · 2017-03-08 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  You think the Universe will run out of planets if we fuck up a few?
46. Re: Let's do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-08 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  So ask the Fed pretty please for another Trillion. They hand that stuff out like candy if you're a bank.
Missing one very obvious point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 19:22 · Score: 0

The amount of outgassing on Mars approaches the smoke coming out of Hawaii's volcanoes. That's it. For an entire planet. It would take millions of years for this to make a difference.
1. Re:Missing one very obvious point by goodmanj · 2017-03-06 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Billions.
2. Re:Missing one very obvious point by Maritz · 2017-03-06 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would imagine that it's more to do with making Mars a less harsh environment with respect to radiation. e.g. for humans walking around on the surface. I don't think this is expected to turn Mars into Earth Mk 2. It's far too different anyway. (small, slightly too far from sun, frozen core, etc).
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
3. Re:Missing one very obvious point by thinkwaitfast · 2017-03-07 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Mars is effectively a vacuum as far as your body is concerned. You would not survive longer on the surface of Mars than on the surface of the moon without an environmental suit.
While were at it by goombah99 · 2017-03-06 19:27 · Score: 0

let's build a 12,000 foot mountain so we can have a ski area too.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:While were at it by KiloByte · 2017-03-06 19:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, a 22km (72,000 foot for those using medieval units) mountain is not high enough for you? Add water and you'll have snow.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
2. Re:While were at it by AJWM · 2017-03-06 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Just watch out for the escarpment at the bottom. At as much as 8km high, that first step is a doozy.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
3. Re:While were at it by CeasedCaring · 2017-03-06 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  Simples:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
4. Re:While were at it by shione · 2017-03-06 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  No need. Mars already has a mountain 15 miles high (Olympus Mons') you can use for that purpose after the atmosphere comes back.*
  *Provided the mountain peak doesn't stick out above the new atmosphere. It is the highest mountain in the Solar System after all!
5. Re:While were at it by puddingebola · 2017-03-07 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  The martians will respond by launching their attack craft, there will be an attack fleet at earth in minutes.
6. Re: While were at it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Pew, Pew, Pew!
7. Re:While were at it by gnick · 2017-03-07 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  No need. Mars already has a mountain 15 miles high (Olympus Mons') you can use for that purpose after the atmosphere comes back.
  For now, maybe. But what about after the rise of the sea levels? Let's call this what it is - Man-made Martian climate change.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
8. Re: While were at it by Dareth · 2017-03-07 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Has this statement been verified by the Pew Research Center?
  
  --
  
  I only look human.
  My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
9. Re:While were at it by aicrules · 2017-03-07 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  that would be kinda cool to have a mountain that if you climbed to its peak you were in space...
10. Re:While were at it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well, a 22km (72,000 foot for those using medieval units) mountain is not high enough for you? Add water and you'll have snow.
  Wow, you motherfuckers act like such a bunch of fucking crybabies when it comes to your metric system, don't you?
11. Re:While were at it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  If the foot was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everybody!
12. Re:While were at it by rgbatduke · 2017-03-07 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Not so much Jesus as King John. 36 barleycorns to the foot! How can one not love a system of weights and measures based on the grain upon which so much human happiness depends?
  And hey, the mile is really decimal. Heck it STANDS for 1000. It's just a "kilo-roman-pace". Is it anyone's fault, really, that the British went with a clothyard arrow as their intermediate standard instead of something sensible, like 1 pace = 5 feet = 180 barleycorns!
  Jesus, OTOH, no doubt used cubits, anticipating that in modern times we'd use qubits, which even now is a critical word to know if you play words with friends or scrabble. Thanks, Jesus!
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
13. Re: While were at it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Has this statement been verified by the Pew Research Center?
  Why are you feigning ignorance in this mater, Dareth Vadeer?
Isn't L1 unstable? by slashcross · 2017-03-06 19:27 · Score: 1

Wouldn't this device just push itself out of the L1 point if it worked? Deflecting the solar wind should transfer momentum to the magnet, then it should fall in towards Mars. No?

--
Slashdot your i and slashcross your t.
1. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Henning+Rogge · 2017-03-06 20:03 · Score: 2
  
  You don't place it exactly at L1, you place it slightly out of L1 so the pressure of the solar wind will be countered by a gravity pull towards the Sun.
  Of course you need some "thrusters" to keep the thing at the right place, but this should be easy to do by changing the shape of the magnet field, using the solar wind itself to move the shield around.
  Not easy, but technically possible
2. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  Well, just put it off center then and let the momentum from the solar wind keep it in place.
3. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Opportunist · 2017-03-06 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, L1 isn't stable in all eternity, but for all practical purposes it's "stable enough".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  And for all practical purposes, Earth is "safe enough" and is really all we have. So all your Space Nuttery is just so much escapism.
5. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, if the magnetic field is being pressed against by the solar wind, it should interact with the magnet creating the field.
  so, its going to need some kind of way to thrust itself back into position, which means its going to need a fuel supply, and only last a short time?
6. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  That sounds like a good idea. I guess I'm curious just how much gravity you need to counter act the solar wind for a area large enough to cloak the entire planet Mars.
  seems to me, with such a cross sectional area of the solar wind, it would be vaguely like having a solar sail thats 10,000 miles radius. I just don't think gravity would cut it.
  OTOH, maybe this would make an amazing solar sail design... you don't need a sail at all. Just create a giant magnetic field, and let the magnetic field get pushed by the solar wind? without the need to worry about the mass of the sail, or unfolding the sail, or supporting the sail, even if this was less efficient, it might be practical cause it would be so much simplier (assuming whatever plan they have to create the magnetic field in the first place, is workable)
7. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Opportunist · 2017-03-07 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  We can build another probe should that one eventually croak.
  Where is your spare Earth?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Isn't L1 unstable? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't this device just push itself out of the L1 point if it worked? Deflecting the solar wind should transfer momentum to the magnet, then it should fall in towards Mars. No?
  If it was placed at the literal mathematical L1 point then yes.
  Interestingly if the device only had to deal with deflecting the solar wind, the problem is still solvable in a similar way.
  Since L1 is calculable as a function of the mass of Mars and the Sun, one could also perform the same function with the mass of Mars and the Sun + the converted mass force of the solar wind to obtain a new point on the line between them that would still function as a "balance point"
  This point wouldn't be the natural L1 of course, it would be closer to the Sun and further from Mars, but it would have a similar effect.
  The only problem with that is the fact the output of the Sun fluctuates massively, over relatively small time periods, so the "balance point" would move.
  Now if the mass of the object at that balance point was small enough, the object would move along with the balance point.
  I'd imagine the whole sudden solar flare thing might screw with that plan pretty heavily though.
  Also I'd figure any object of the size required to generate a magnetic field worth talking about here will be fairly large and massive. It's likely to slip out of the balance point and begin to fall towards one of the other bodies, probably as you say towards Mars.
  It would need significant station keeping capabilities to not do that.
  Of course L1 and L2 are also the most susceptible places for an object to be easily perturbed out of the balance point.
  Any other unaccounted for object such as a rock passing near enough to it will bump anything in L1 out of its spot, and that would go for any balance point along the line between the two bodies.
  We can't really track space objects below a certain size threshold at all, and even if we could we would need to track or predict their paths for a long time into the future, at least as long as this terriforming process would take.
  Maybe once we figure out these new fangled electricity-directly-into-thrust devices, we could design some sort of automated station keeping system. But that's at best going to be a long ways off all on its own, let alone the technology required to build the electromagnet itself.
  About the only part this idea has going for it is the fact the magnetic field being generated doesn't have to be anywhere near the scale slashdot posters are claiming it would.
  It wouldn't need to be of the size scale that Earths magnetic field is relative to the Earth.
  Of course I would call it something more like a "magnetic umbrella" instead of "magnetic shield", but I must admit the images that name conjurers up are less silly than the idea itself, and we simply can't have that :P
That's neat. Yay, Mars by sheramil · 2017-03-06 19:41 · Score: 1

Screw Mars, maybe we should be thinking about putting one at EARTH's L1 point.
1. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Maritz · 2017-03-06 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Earth has a powerful magnetic field. You might as well suggest oceans. ;)
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by sheramil · 2017-03-06 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Earth has a powerful magnetic field.
  for the moment.
3. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  There is plenty of time if our magnetic field fails. First, it will likely weaken, not just switch off. Second, even if it switches off, the atmosphere isn't stripped quickly. It starts thinning, giving you decades to get that magnetic shield in place.
4. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Fire_Wraith · 2017-03-07 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted to say that there was a movie where they did something like that, like one of the Highlander movie sequels, but then I remembered there aren't any sequels to Highlander.
5. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  MagneticReversal.org
6. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Earth has a powerful magnetic field. You might as well suggest oceans. ;)
  Putting one up to protect earth might be a fine idea some day. The Magnetic field of earth (~.65 gauss at the surface) is possibly making way for one of it's reversals at present - it's certainly weakening. If it approaches 0, an artificial magnetic field might come in handy to tide us over until the earth gets it's own back.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  There is plenty of time if our magnetic field fails. First, it will likely weaken, not just switch off. Second, even if it switches off, the atmosphere isn't stripped quickly. It starts thinning, giving you decades to get that magnetic shield in place.
  You forgot about the solar wind and cosmic rays having free access. That would happen much more quickly than atmospheric stripping.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by MightyYar · 2017-03-07 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just stay on the side of the earth not facing the sun.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
9. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by thinkwaitfast · 2017-03-07 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  True that.
10. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Just stay on the side of the earth not facing the sun.
  The ultimate nomads! 8^)
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re:That's neat. Yay, Mars by painandgreed · 2017-03-10 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Screw Mars, maybe we should be thinking about putting one at EARTH's L1 point.
  Damn straight! Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!
you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 19:48 · Score: 0

It's no secret Elon Musk wants to plant his seed on Mars, and it's no secret that Musk is an insane loon with delusions of godhood. We've seen this lunacy before in history, when Emperor Augustus claimed the entirety of Egypt as his personal property. Why shouldn't Musk possess Mars, and just name the whole planet Musk. It's clear enough as we enter the final years of the 2010s, we are in an era of plutocrats and robber barons and god emperors. Give to Musk what is clearly his. Now.
1. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  I'd pay to see Elon Musk plant his seed all over Angelina Jolie's face.
  I'd pay a somewhat lesser amount to see him plant his seed all over the face of Flo, the Progressive Insurance girl.
2. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:17 · Score: 0
  
  I want to see Elon Musk jizz on Dan Castellaneta's face.
3. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Maritz · 2017-03-06 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  You should strive to be less obsessed with Elon Musk. Might make you happier.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
4. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  Elon Reeve Musk is the Harcourt Fenton Mudd of our time.
5. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, being obsessed with colonizing space and Death Asteroids is so much better!
6. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  You should strive to be less obsessed with Elon Musk. Might make you happier.
  Or less creepy, at least.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by cyberchondriac · 2017-03-07 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I, Musk
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
8. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  yes , it is
9. Re:you mean Musk's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  Mentally ill people go off their meds all the time because they think the hallucinations are better.
What the hell are we waiting for? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 20:11 · Score: 0

$142 quadrillion dollars.
Or at least $500k so that we can keep investigating the problem.
Timescale is all wrong by goodmanj · 2017-03-06 20:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is a cool idea, but do the math: if you were able to shut off the reported 0.1 kg/s of atmospheric mass loss, how long does it take to double the atmospheric mass (about 2.5 x 10^16 kg)?
Related question: does it count as terraforming if the Sun blows up before you finish the job?
1. Re:Timescale is all wrong by Xyrus · 2017-03-07 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  If the sun blows up, that would be terra-unforming. No points awarded.
  
  --
  ~X~
2. Re:Timescale is all wrong by poofmeisterp · 2017-03-07 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  If the sun blows up, that would be terra-unforming. No points awarded.
  ...but, but but, we did something that transformed a whole planet!!! That counts for something!
  *snort* :)
3. Re:Timescale is all wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  well, lets see. when the sun explodes - the earth will be a burnt husk. And Mars will be a burnt husk. So they will match perfectly. Terraform achieved!!
Re:How to pay for it by Notabadguy · 2017-03-06 20:21 · Score: 1

In general if we deport all the foreign criminals and illegal aliens ahd their families we wiil save billions in incarceration costs, and the cost to society from all their descrtuction, muder, and thievery. All of this wasted money can go to space exploration and discovery!
I say that we deport them all to Greenland. They can be our Australia, and in 100 years, Nuuk and Sisimiut will be full of sexy eskimo women who will have to overpay Microsoft and Steam for the shipping costs of digital distribution to their far away island.
No need by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 20:42 · Score: 0

There is no need to shield mars'atmosphere. Just get some rocks from the kuiper belt and sling it to mars to increase it's mass in a significant way. Then grab some ice crystals from Saturn's rings and sling it to Mars, wait a bunch of thounsands years for the impact dust to settle and voilà...a terraformed planet ready to go. Obviously the martians could have something to say about this plan but...who cares?
1. Re: No need by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, wreck the place and all those little green refugees will come here and take our jerbs.
It would help by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 21:36 · Score: 0

The main problem isn't terraforming Mars, it's the continual atmosphere loss.
We can warm it up and wet it down by throwing lots of ice at it from orbit and our solar system has quite a bit of that. But without something to keep the atmosphere there it's pointless.
1. Re:It would help by Baron_Yam · 2017-03-07 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  >But without something to keep the atmosphere there it's pointless.
  You know how I know you didn't RTFA? Or even the summary?
2. Re:It would help by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-03-07 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  >But without something to keep the atmosphere there it's pointless.
  You know how I know you didn't RTFA? Or even the summary?
  Its the fun game some slashdotters play. Read the headline, get pissed off, and post how it won't work.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
3. Re:It would help by penandpaper · 2017-03-07 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I am not sure what you wrote but it's wrong. I know better than you about whatever it was you were talking about.
  Get back to me when you can get on my level of not reading things. I didn't even read this to type it.
Hey by Dunbal · 2017-03-06 22:09 · Score: 2

I know a kid inventor who can do wonders with stuff from Wal Mart I'm sure he can come up with something.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Positive feedback by Ihlosi · 2017-03-06 22:17 · Score: 1

This is a cool idea, but do the math
The idea is to start a positive feedback loop - heat up the planet to release currently frozen volatiles (CO2, etc), which in turn will increase the temperature even more.
Over a period of time, the dynamics of this process will be exponential, until it becomes self-limiting (i.e. most of the volatiles have been released into the atmosphere and further temperature increases will not lead to more of them being released.)
1. Re:Positive feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Kickstart it by exploding every nuke we have on the poles as well.
2. Re:Positive feedback by Ihlosi · 2017-03-06 23:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Kickstart it by exploding every nuke we have on the poles as well.
  Dropping a few space rocks on Mars might work better and add even more volatiles to the planet.
3. Re:Positive feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  Dear Space Nutter,
  
  How do drop "space rocks" on a planet?
  
  Signed,
  Someone Who Lives in Reality.
4. Re:Positive feedback by Ihlosi · 2017-03-07 01:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How do drop "space rocks" on a planet?
  1. Make a list of known space rocks of suitable size and composition.
  2. Sort list by amount of delta-v required to have each candidate impact on Mars.
  3. Pick one of the candidates with the lowest delta-v requirements.
  4. Apply necessary delta-v.
  .. what? We're talking about a plan to create a planet-sized magnetic shield. If we assume we can do that, then moving a few space rocks shouldn't be too hard?
5. Re:Positive feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Funnily enough, even doing step one in your list is bloody difficult with our current capabilities.
6. Re:Positive feedback by gumbi+west · 2017-03-07 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm unsure if you didn't read, "known space rocks" or find it hard to make lists.
7. Re:Positive feedback by Ihlosi · 2017-03-07 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough, even doing step one in your list is bloody difficult with our current capabilities.
  Seems to work just fine for Earth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Or the asteroid belt:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Then again, putting a planet-sized artificial magnetosphere in Mars L1 is pretty much outside our current capabilities. So I assume that if we manage to put the artificial magnetosphere there, our capabilities then will be beyond those we have now.
8. Re:Positive feedback by denzacar · 2017-03-07 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  90% of rocks, bigger than 1 kilometer in diameter and floating around Earth, should be enough for everyone.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
9. Re:Positive feedback by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-03-07 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough, even doing step one in your list is bloody difficult with our current capabilities.
  A hundred years ago you were waiting for a horse to take you places, or maybe an electric trolley if you lived in a big city.
  I am astounded at the goobering ignorance of fools who think they have any idea what tech will be like in 100 years, when it will be more changed than it was from 100 years ago.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
10. Re:Positive feedback by PPH · 2017-03-07 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  1. Make a list of known space rocks of suitable size and composition.
  We tried that. But someone used MongoDB and we couldn't figure out how to query it on a time scale comparable to terraforming.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
11. Re:Positive feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  "who think they have any idea what tech will be like in 100 years, when it will be more changed than it was from 100 years ago."
  Yet you seem perfectly happy to tell us your idea. What if the future is less advanced than today? Guess what?
  We don't even have the Concorde anymore!
12. Re:Positive feedback by painandgreed · 2017-03-07 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  .. what? We're talking about a plan to create a planet-sized magnetic shield. If we assume we can do that, then moving a few space rocks shouldn't be too hard?
  Not quite. However, I did sit down and do the math one day. There is about 20% of needed material to give Mars a reasonably comfortable breathable atmosphere is already on the planet int eh form of ices. The rest could be provided by about 1000 comets about the size of Halley's comet. Assuming ideal delta-V requirements and that it is trivial to heat the material already on the planet, I figured out the energy requirements for getting those 1000 comets to Mars from nearby Oort cloud not too far past Pluto in 100 years. The end result was a number that was a fraction (about a third IIRC) of the total daily energy output of the sun. So basically to even begin, you need an infrastructure capable of capturing somewhere around a few tenths of a percent of the energy coming out of the sun with no losses for a hundred years. Given that, something like putting up solar mirrors to heat Mars or even create a magnetic shield for it at its L1 are trivial items probably written off in the Misc listing of the overall project budget.
... and sun shades for Venus. by Ihlosi · 2017-03-06 22:19 · Score: 1

Wasn't that also suggested at some point? Putting a shield, possibly in the form of a large solar power plant, at Venus' L1 Lagrange point to cool off the planet until the CO2 can be siphoned (and shipped to Mars?).
Re:How to pay for it by Maritz · 2017-03-06 22:37 · Score: 1

We'll just take your word for all of that, shall we? lol.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Namecalling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 22:42 · Score: 0

> and just name the whole planet Musk
I'd propose Mursk. Or possibly Murks (yah, yah, German readers might chuckle at this one)
1. Re:Namecalling by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  You say that like naming rights are not a thing. The story after this one happens to be about Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, so perhaps you've heard of Sears Tower in Chicago? No it's not called Sears Tower anymore, since now it's named Willis Tower. And no, Willis Tower is not big. Sears Tower used to be the biggest in the world, but these days Chicago doesn't even have a big Willis.
Total Recall by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-06 23:54 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who is reminded of the movie "Total Recall" by this story?
sure! by ooloorie · 2017-03-07 00:19 · Score: 1

While not enough of a change to allow walking around without a space suit, this would make human exploration of the planet a much easier task.
Sure, if there are still humans in a few million years. But shielding the atmosphere and waiting for the planet to warm is not a feasible approach to terraforming.
If you want to terraform Mars right now, you first need to thicken the atmosphere by warming the polar caps. You then have lots of time protecting that atmosphere from solar wind.
1. Re:sure! by painandgreed · 2017-03-07 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to terraform Mars right now, you first need to thicken the atmosphere by warming the polar caps. You then have lots of time protecting that atmosphere from solar wind.
  Yes, but without this, you'll just immediately end up losing that atmosphere to space. This will probably be an addition to any Mars terraforming project as once we are capable to doing any sort of terraforming, such a space station will be fairly trivial part of such a project in either technology or cost. Even then, heating up the planet won't get Mars an atmosphere at human survivable pressures. That will still require importing or creating more gasses and that will be the main heavy lifting part of any martian terraforming mission.
2. Re:sure! by ooloorie · 2017-03-07 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but without this, you'll just immediately end up losing that atmosphere to space.
  If that were true, Mars would have no atmosphere left. In fact, atmospheric loss rate is about 100 g/s, or about 3000 tons per year. The current Martian atmosphere is about 30 trillion tons of CO2. Let's say you increase that ten-fold, and let's say loss rates scale up not just proportionately, but 100 fold. You lose 3e5 tons of atmosphere a year from about 3e14 tons of total atmosphere. It would take geolotic time scales to have any appreciable atmospheric loss.
3. Re:sure! by painandgreed · 2017-03-10 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but without this, you'll just immediately end up losing that atmosphere to space.
  If that were true, Mars would have no atmosphere left. In fact, atmospheric loss rate is about 100 g/s, or about 3000 tons per year. The current Martian atmosphere is about 30 trillion tons of CO2. Let's say you increase that ten-fold, and let's say loss rates scale up not just proportionately, but 100 fold. You lose 3e5 tons of atmosphere a year from about 3e14 tons of total atmosphere. It would take geolotic time scales to have any appreciable atmospheric loss.
  Heh. Well, we are sort of arguing about how big of paddles we need for the canoes needed to colonize the New World from Europe. things are bound to change anyway by time this is attempted. If terraforming of Mars was going on, they'd probably still build this or something similar just to try and stop radiation for endangering people on the surface. Plus, may well be that as the atmosphere grows, so will the loss and that the elements lost will be the most needed in the volatiles that seem to be in rare supply on Mars. Whatever loss that happens might well be cheaper for this than shipping in more from wherever they're getting it to begin with.
4. Re:sure! by ooloorie · 2017-03-10 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. Well, we are sort of arguing about how big of paddles we need for the canoes needed to colonize the New World from Europe
  No we are not. We are arguing about the rate of loss of atmosphere from Mars, which you obviously greatly overestimate.
  
  Plus, may well be that as the atmosphere grows, so will the loss and that the elements lost will be the most needed in the volatiles that seem to be in rare supply on Mars.
  Which part of "let's say loss rates scale up not just proportionately, but 100 fold" was too difficult to grasp for you?
Actually doesn't sound all that nuts by tomxor · 2017-03-07 00:42 · Score: 2

Trying to generate a magnetosphere in place is hard, but this is quite a strategic alternative. Nothing is cheap when talking about Mars, but this has to be one of the cheapest long range construction projects with the largest potential change to the planet.
1. Re:Actually doesn't sound all that nuts by Baron_Yam · 2017-03-07 01:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There's a lot of 'Mars stuff' I'm surprised we don't toy with more. Or maybe we are, but it's all in some lab because (so far) that's good enough given our current level of technology and knowledge.
  You'd think, for instance, somewhere someone should be experimenting with the minimum requirements for rendering Martian regolith into non-toxic, fertile ground. Toying around with the power requirements to augment Martian sunlight and temperatures to levels required to support Terran plants or trying to engineer plants that will grow and thrive at Martian insolation levels. Figuring out how to reliably supply the required power.
  Or playing around with in situ production of building materials, automated mining and refining equipment, etc. Maybe we just don't have a firm enough grasp on what the Martian surface is actually like to bother starting with that. Send a robot to make a little red brick igloo, you know?
  I'd certainly be up for a really inhumane experiment - sending a colony of mice in a sealed environment to see multiple generations of mammals under 0.38g. And it might be nice to attempt a small terrarium with some automated environmental systems to see how long we can keep it going. And while we're at that... drop a scale model of an airlock and cycle it until it fails so we can see how bad the dust problem is.
2. Re:Actually doesn't sound all that nuts by drinkypoo · 2017-03-07 03:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You'd think, for instance, somewhere someone should be experimenting with the minimum requirements for rendering Martian regolith into non-toxic, fertile ground.
  You would think that, yeah. Indeed, we probably have some sort of simulated martian regolith that can be used for this sort of research.
  
  Toying around with the power requirements to augment Martian sunlight and temperatures to levels required to support Terran plants or trying to engineer plants that will grow and thrive at Martian insolation levels.
  That sounds quite handy.
  
  Or playing around with in situ production of building materials, automated mining and refining equipment, etc.
  Yes, it would be handy if you could make bricks, or perhaps concrete.
  
  I'd certainly be up for a really inhumane experiment
  When can you be ready to go?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Please NASA by jpellino · 2017-03-07 01:57 · Score: 5, Funny

stop watching "Thunderbirds" in the break room.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
T's definately B Ark material by Thud457 · 2017-03-07 03:21 · Score: 1

Well obviously we wouldn't send them in the first prototype ark, that wouldn't be prudent.
We'd send them in the second "B" ark.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Cheap and easy! by poofmeisterp · 2017-03-07 03:27 · Score: 1

Hey, you can buy a directional electromagnet and all necessary solar capture/transfer stuff needed to handle that kind of a load for on it for only $6000 from Home Depot. Why haven't they done it already??
</sarcasm>
What. The. Fuck.
Cool idea but kind of pointless.... by ventsyv · 2017-03-07 03:51 · Score: 1

After Mars' magnetic field disappeared, it took 500 million years for it to lose its atmosphere. If we are terraforming Mars and working on a human timescale (hundreds or thousands of years) the amount of atmosphere lost due to solar wind will be negligible.
I think I saw this on SG:Atlantis once... by obenchainr · 2017-03-07 03:53 · Score: 1

/EOM
dud dudu daaaa by tomxor · 2017-03-07 04:01 · Score: 1

dud dudu daaaa dudu da da dud dudu daa daa daaaaaaaaaa. OMG MAKE IT STOP, KILL ME!
NASA looses it's mind! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 04:37 · Score: 0

If any human can think that they can generate a magnetic field with lines of force that extend as far over the earth and are as powerful as the earth's to repel the powerful solar wind.. They are idiots.. NASA has caught the White House fever that has been going around.
Troubling words from TFA. by fahrbot-bot · 2017-03-07 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Magnetosheath, Magnetopause, Magnetotail
Carnac the Magnificent: (opens envelope) "Things X-Man Magento doesn't want to see on his annual medical report."

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Troubling words from TFA. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Magnetosheath, Magnetopause, Magnetotail
  Carnac the Magnificent: (opens envelope) "Things X-Man Magento doesn't want to see on his annual medical report."
  Magento?
  Wasn't Magento Riff-Raff's frizzy-haired sister in Rocky Horror Picture Show?
2. Re:Troubling words from TFA. by fahrbot-bot · 2017-03-07 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Magento
  I think my typing fingers have dyslexia.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Climate Change by lloy0076 · 2017-03-07 05:01 · Score: 1

Oooh, humans don't have any hand(s) in climate change at all - maybe melting the polar ice caps on earth is really just one big expiriment by scienctists!
yes, Yes, YES! by jediborg · 2017-03-07 05:07 · Score: 1

I have been excited about this idea for a long time. Terra-forming Mars is a must before we can colonize in my opinion, and NASA is taking too darn long to do it. "Stop looking for life and put some there already!" - is what i say. My first thought was to jump start the Martian core so as to generate a natural magnetosphere like the planet once had (and earth has). I assumed we could drill to the center of the martian core, detonate a few atomic bombs to heat up the core and turn it back into magma. Then you just step back and let the natural rotation of molten metal generate a magnetosphere. The process would probably increase the amount of volcanism on mars (volcanoes would start forming/existing ones would start spewing) that would pour CO2 into the atmosphere, helping to thicken it and giving the bio-engineered plants we put there some "fuel" to grow. Melting the polar ice caps, distributing water and oxygen, and hopefully generating a thick atmosphere we could either use, or work with until it was livable for humans.
Unfortunately I did the math... turns out nuclear explosions don't convect heat that well, and martian rock (actually we used the parameters of common earth rocks) don't absorb heat that quickly. So the atomic bomb generates a lot of heat, but only for a few seconds and the rock doesn't absorb that much, turns out it would take more uranium than we have on earth to heat up the martian core with nuclear bombs. So I guess putting a shield up in the L1 Lagrange point is more feasible? Alright fine, lets do it! I just wish we could use explosions...
1. Re:yes, Yes, YES! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, I remember being eight years old as well, playing with my space LEGO and pretending with my astronauts!
  Ah, youth. But eventually you must grow up, right?
Followed by "nom, nom, nom"... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 06:22 · Score: 0

...as they proceed to use us for food.
Magento is an absolutely fabulous ex-man! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 08:30 · Score: 0

Magento is an absolutely fabulous ex-man!
And she (proper gender please!) would certainly be surprised to see a magentosheath still on her medical report. Had that nasty thing removed (actually turned inside-out) years ago!
TLDR:TMI
Earth needs one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 10:34 · Score: 0

Earth is a Carrington Event away from having our internet and electric grid fried. If this magnetic shield is viable we should put it up as an extra layer of protection at Earth's L1 point.
Again with the terraforming of Mars... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-07 12:44 · Score: 0

Why Mars? Too deep a well to be useful, too shallow a well to mitigate the effects on humans of low gravity. Radiation levels that would just about fry an egg (well, your wife's eggs anyway), an atmosphere of mostly CO2 which isn't going away. Seriously, why Mars?
Thousands of rocks, billions of tons of raw materials in the belt and the leading and trailing jovian trojans. Moons with billion ton atmospheres of processable gases, water all over the place.
Simpler answer by whitroth · 2017-03-08 05:17 · Score: 1

Toss ice asteroids at Mars. Or skim them from Jupiter's rings. Add a *lot* of water to Mars, and it's a lot easier to just use mass drivers plunked down on an ice asteroid to take a few years to head Marsward.
Questions by DarthVain · 2017-03-09 08:31 · Score: 1

After reading the article (unslashdotlike I know), I really only have 3 questions...
1) Didn't really explain what a magnetic dipole was, nor how one might be constructed or what it might take to do so at the scale involved. All of those things seem kinda important.
2) As much as I can fathom, it at least involves a) magnets, and b) electricity. At the scale required, I'll go out on a limb and say really ridiculously big/strong magnets and a lot of power. Even if we concede that we're capable of building such things as super powerful magnets, and large independent power sources, the question I would have is how would you propose to get that out of our atmosphere? We've put some radiological power sources in space in the past, however I think even these had outputs of like 450W which isn't exactly stellar (pardon pun)... However the big thing would be unless said magnets were more less totally non-active unless power is applied, how the heck would those interact well with anything as complex as a rocket launch? I'm guessing not well.
3) Time. It mentions that it took 500 million years for the atmosphere to blow away, however it didn't really indicate how long it might take for any kind of change due to a magnetic field. We have trouble building things that last more than 10 years, never mind some small fraction of the cosmic time previously indicated...