Halloween Solar Storm Nearing Heliopause 187
PipianJ writes "Various sources are reporting that NASA has been tracking the Halloween solar storms of last year as they head towards the end of the solar system and the beginning of interstellar space, the heliopause, in the near future. In related news, scientists now believe that it was solar storms that ripped water from Mars, causing it to be the dry barren wasteland it is today."
How Exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How Exactly (Score:3, Informative)
Mars, without a m
Re:How Exactly (Score:3, Informative)
Truely far out, as I believe phobos and deimos much less massive than mars.
if my calculations are right, 59 billion phoboses would equal about one mars.
. and it would take 286 billion deimoses to equal one mars. they're really insignificant moons.
Re:How Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
And where, exactly, are you getting these magic ice asteroids? Your arse?
Hmm... I bet when Iceman gets clogged up, he shoots ice asteroids out his arse.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
From space, more specifically from the Asteroid Belt, of course. Why would you search asteroids from anyones arse ? Hmm... On second thought, I don't want to know.
AFAIK most comets are basically water ice with some dirt mixed in.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Even if they were made of ice -- how did you plan on making these crash into Mars? More magic arse-rockets? How much energy is it going to take to go to the asteroid belt (more than it takes to get to Mars, unless you want to take 5 years getting there...). Then how much to slow down the 'roid enough to make it go towards Mars?
AFAIK most comets are ba
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
This sounds likes a few hundreds years to me, though I'd welcome a more accurate estimate by someone who's studied this proposal.
I rather like the idea though, just wish we could have it done by about year after next maybee as late as 2010.
Or perhaps find a good way to extend my lifespan so I'm likely to have a chance to visit a terraformed mars. Well there is always cryonics I suppose.
Mycroft
Re:How Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
As a result the Earth has a spinning metallic core that generates a powerful magnetosphere and keeps the planet's mantle heated and molten, but Mars cooled long ago and has little magnetism.
This is - at best - a guess. The truth is we don't really know why our magnetosphere is stronger than Mars', or even why it exists! We also have no reason to
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
When in doubt, make a personal attack.
Re:How Exactly (Score:4, Informative)
There's more too it than that...
The primary difference is in the masses. The Earth is much more massive, so it has more gravity. That allows it to keep more gasses in its atmosphere. O2 for instance would easily get escape velocity on mars and leak out. So mars's atmosphere leaked out due to low gravity, this is the first step in the problem.
Secondly, the earth (by virtue of being heavier) has a lower surface area to volume ratio. So it loses heat slower with time. That is why our core is still molten. Mars probably had a molten core at one time, but it cooled off, and that was the end.
In addition, because the earth was heavier it got more heat from collisions (due to greater gravity) to begin with. So we not only keep heat more efficiently, we also started with more heat per unit of volume.
Also, much of the earth's heat is believed to be produced by the decay of radioactive elements, once again the lower surface are to volume (mass actually) ratio helps to keep that heat in, which keeps our core molten.
The liquid core that the earth still has (Venus has one too) produces the magnetic field. Our gravity is greater so most of the atmosphere can't escape, and thus we're relatively radiation hardened. In addition, the oxygen in the atmosphere (formed by primitive life) efficiently captures hydrogen (to form water) and thus keeps the hydrogen from leaking out. The solar winds deliver additional hydrogen (nicely funnelled into the poles) that replaces anything that was lost.
There really is a lot to it, but the basic factors are...
1) The earth is larger, so the core is still hot and we keep our atmosphere. Hot core generates magnetic shielding.
2) The earth has lots of oxygen (due to life), which traps hydrogen and keeps the surface cool because it is not a greenhouse gas. Oxygen also produces ozone that adds extra shielding. Mars is too light to keep oxygen even if we did generate it to begin with.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Secondly, the earth (by virtue of being heavier) has a lower surface area to volume ratio
Isn't the ratio of surface area to volume for a sphere a constant, i.e., both dependent on the diameter? Did you mean "surface area to mass ratio"?
volume =(4/3) [pi] r^{3}
surface area = 4 [pi] r^{2} (a derivative of the volume)
Nothing there indicating it will change due to the contents being heavier.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2, Informative)
Slight misstatement. If you assume that the density is about the same (fairly reasonable), then the mass is proportional to the volume. A heavier planet has a larger volume (once again, since earth and mars are both rocky planets), and thus a lower surface area to volume ratio.
So the surface area to volume ratio is...
S/V = 3/r
but (if the densities are the same) (4/3)[pi]r^3 = M
and thus r = ((3/4[pi])M)^1/3
And thus S/V = 1 / (M/4[pi])^1/3
and this decreases with increasing mass, though not that quickly.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
I'm just guessing here, but I think it is cooling off, and not quite geologically dead yet, but cool enough to start losing its gasses.
Re:How Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Water vapor ends up in the upper atmosphere. High speed solar wind strikes the atmosphere and carries it away. This results in lower atmospheric pressure leading to an increased amount of liquid water turing to vapor and being carried away as well.
As far as where it would go, its generally carried "out" in the direction of the solar wind.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Once that was gone it would have been a matter of time before the solar wind removed the atmosphere and water.
Re:How Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Maybe Mars had water and a thick atmosphere...then a planetary event (like a strike with a huge asteroid) ripped its atmosphere apart, and then water "evaporated".
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
The question of how the water formed on the surface of Mars in the first place and how it left the planet are not shrouded in the funky current theories but in pretty well determined facts.
First the water did not leave mars entirely and secondly what did leave left because of a basic law of physics. The molecular spin net mass velocity of water is above the escape velocity of mars. This means several things. A Orbit may be prescribed about any ray extending from the center of mass of an object and if a
Re:How Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the interaction between Earth and Moon that creates the magnetic shield we have.
First off, we have tidal interaction, which gives Earth nice strong tugs, maintaining a molten state underneath us, thereby creating/enhancing a magnetic field. As to why the Moon is not molten inside, its' origins and composition will have
Re:How Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
The surface area of a sphere is: 4 Pi r^2
So the volume of a sphere goes up as it's radius (width) to the power of 3, but the area only goes up with the power of 2. So the volume increases much much faster then the area does.
Ex:
^1 | ^2 | ^3
5 | 25 | 125
10 2 times as much | 100 4 times as much | 1000 8 times as much
15 3 times as much | 225 9 times as much | 3375 27 times as much
As you can see from my little chart, to the power of 3 grows way way faster then ^2 does. Power of two grew from 4 times as much as the first entry to 9 times as much, but power of 3 grew from 8 to 27 times as much as the first entry.
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
This also causes a few cosmological problems with the whole theory of how the planets etc formed. Since your numbers determine the rate of dissipation of energy from the planet and deminish the rate of accreation of material from space we find a few curious facts.
All planets substantially smaller than Earth are "Evaporating" into space. It is quite impossible for a planet the mass of the earth to have developed from a smaller planet like mars. The process doesn't work! In order to form an "Earth" you
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Different environment, different effects.
Remem
Re:How Exactly (Score:3, Informative)
Don't blame the scientists for the difficulty that you are having with these concepts. Instead read more of their papers and source material and perhaps you will see what they are talking about.
The universe is not a place with evenly distribut
Re:How Exactly (Score:2)
Re:How Exactly (Score:4, Informative)
One of the theories is that since Mars is smaller than Earth it may have cooled off faster. Since the magnetic field of a planet is generated by the spinning of the core if a planet were to cool sufficiently the core would slow down (the speeds of the core and the crust would begin to match) and thus the magnetic field would weaken.
This theory is supported by the fact that there is little or no tectonic activity currently occurring on Mars, although there certainly has been tectonic activity in the past.
Re:How Exactly (Score:5, Funny)
"Solar storms". That's what they want you to believe.
But the Fremen know it was the giant Sandworms.
The water went into the ground.. (Score:3, Informative)
There isn't concensus on where the water have gone, the only thing we know for sure is, there was a lot of water before, and there isn't now.
I work closely with the Mars scientists at Copenhagen University. They designed the magnets on the Mars Rovers. If you ask any one of those for their official oppinion on where the water went, most likely they will just say "erhhh?!", because really nobody has clue. Some calculations conclude that even with the weak magnetic field, the boiling off of water would no
Re:The water went into the ground.. (Score:2)
Space is a giant vacuum. Material sucked up into space and carried away at speeds approaching that of the light tend to "disappear." It didn't really disappear, of course. It's either joined the mishmash of matter between solar systems, or has slowed down and joined the orbit of another.
AAAHHHH!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong link in article (Score:5, Informative)
The End? (Score:3, Funny)
We're doomed!!!!!
oh just kidding, slashdot has been boring lately and you know it.
Solar Storms Destroyed Mars? (Score:4, Funny)
Nah. It was socialism.
Before the socialist revolution there, it was a verdant paradise, and the playground of the solar system's wealthy.
Now, it's Cuba without the palm trees.
The Martians are hoping and praying that the NASA landers are harbingers of the new "Yanqui" economy.
Re:Solar Storms Destroyed Mars? (Score:2, Funny)
Red planet indeed.
Perhaps Mars was First! (Score:2)
Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:3, Informative)
But who knows? Maybe it's easier to terraform Venus, though there's that slow rotation period to worry about. Anyone have any guesses on how to speed up a planet?
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Hit it with another planet of course. Or you could hit it with something smaller than a planet but moving faster.
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Hit it with another planet of course.
What planet could possibly be perfect for this?
((mass of Earth minus mass of Venus) plus mass of Mars) divided by mass of the moon = 23.7379076
(In a collision between Venus and Mars sufficient to impart enough angular momentum to Venus to make Earth's day, it's quite likely that only a Moon-sized object would form.)
It's a bit curious that the two nearest neighbors of Earth-Moon system could likely create another Earth-Moon system almost exactly. Bizarre.
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:4, Informative)
That said, since it does sport a huge iron core maybe if we spun the planet the magnetic field would come along too. Though it would be interesting to see what effect would it have on the earth's magneto sphere (magnetic tidal forces?). It would suck if earth's magneto sphere disappeared because of it.
Though maybe we can send a team of crackpots to detonate some nukes in the core. Oh gosh that was a terrible movie. but hey! maybe we can do that for venus!
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Serves me for not looking up the specific facts.
Link for explaining Venus's lack of a magnetosphere (it's pretty self-explanatory):
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/
The supposition by this article claims that Earth kept its magnetic bubble due to "stirring" of the core (most likely due to tidal forces from not having a tidal-locked rotation period, I would guess).
So, increasing the rotation would be just the key I would think to introducing a magetic field. Of course, someone here also said that a small planet colliding with that planet would be the trick to increasing its rotation. Since the entire planet would be converted to magma as a result of that collision, I think that would be the perfect solution to creating a good magnetoshpere (thanks to the trusty dynamo effect).
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily true. Yes, eventually Mars will lose most of its terraformed atmosphere and it will return to the state that it is currently in but that could take millions of years. We can certainly generate a ton more atmosphere than Mars loses and we can do so for a good, long time.
Not only that but if we were really innovative we would redirect a few comets or similar objects into a close orbit around Mars, releasing them onto the planet in a planned manner and further bulking up the atmosphere. This may be a bit beyond our current technology but we should be able to do it fairly soon.
By the time we are ready to terraform Mars we will almost definitely be able to do so.
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
"ready" is a question of vision. Nuclear robots, lasers, giant greenhouses, autonomous processes, it's all uncharted territory but there's nothing stopping us from go
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
The first one will probably be some evil madman who wants to write his name on the Moon so it can be seen from Earth. He'll probably get stopped but henchmen will still manage to write "CHA" in large letters across the near side of the Moon. [geocities.com]
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
That would be an insulator, wouldn't it?
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Magnetic feilds are generated by the movement of electrical current. When current moves along a wire, a magnetic field is generated perpendicular to that wire. When you make a tube of wire, the normals overlap in a away that produced a magnetic field of a specific direction, and only if you use alternating current.
It's the winds in the wire, and the changes in the direction of the current, that produce a magnetic field, not the distance.
What a superconductor buys you is the ability to re
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson got it an bit wrong (Score:2)
Soo.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of earths higher gravity, denser atmosphere and our magnetic field this effect might not at all have been that big, but over the billions of years it has probably made a noticeable decrease in earths oceans too?
If we take a look at Venus, a planet we believe had as much water as earth in the past, we find that it has no water either - and no magnetic field but it has about the same gravity as earth and a denser atmosphere => it is quite likely that a magnetic field is much more important for a planet to keep its water, than its atmosphere and/or gravity.
However, as I understand, during the period (several hundreds of years or more?) which the earths magnetic field changes polarity, which happends regularly, we have no magnetic "shield" and together with my statement that denser atmosphere and higher gravity than mars does not matter that much, earth should during this time also have lost some water in the same way as Mars/Venus?
So what am I shooting at here? Well I think it is an interesting question wether we (planet earth) had more water 5 billion years ago, or if it is largely unchanged? Maybe earth was totally covered in water? Maybe we will only have half as much, or no, water in 5 billion years? Or is earth in fact increasing its water-mass by sucking up comets? Are there any such data/measurements?
Maybe if we have such measurements from periods during which we had no magnetic field - we might be able to calculate the effects of solarwinds and thereby maybe evaluate this new Mars-theory plus maybe calculate wether earth might suffer the same destiny as Venus and Mars.
(I think it is quite sad that we are surrounded by all these planets that once was easily terraformable but now they are all "dead".
Re:Soo.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mars has no magnetic field. Its core cooled off tremendously faster than Earth's, and so the magnetic field froze out.
Earth, being more massive, also has a much smaller scale height, so that liquid water vapor extends to much smaller heights. Combine those two and the water vapor loss rate for Earth is tremendously less.
Until the output of the Sun increases in a few hundred million years, the water cycle is stable. (Yes, a couple hundred million years - Earth will be out of the habitable zone *before* the Sun goes red giant).
(I think it is quite sad that we are surrounded by all these planets that once was easily terraformable but now they are all "dead".
Well, yes - life requires energy, and the Sun is burning through it at an utterly incredible rate. Eventually it has to run out.
Of course, that's several hundred million years from now, and if we're still stuck on this planet by then, we deserve to go extinct.
If we really want a couple more, we could always move Venus out to Mars's orbit, and have Mars smash into it. Poof! Instant new Earth.
Re:Soo.. (Score:2)
That's a very interesting use of the word "instant." I believe It would take hundreds of years for it to solidify again after becoming a ball of molten rock. Two planets colliding cause a little bit of friction...
However, I like the point of your comment, it would be pretty cool to start smashing planets together & see what happens. We might want to test it outside our own solar system first, t
Re:Soo.. (Score:2)
That's a very interesting use of the word "instant." I believe It would take hundreds of years for it to solidify again after becoming a ball of molten rock. Two planets colliding cause a little bit of friction...
Millions of years, more likely!
But as we've got hundreds of millions of years left, as long as we get to it in the next few million years, we should be fine.
(I thought it was a more interesting use of the word "Poof".)
Re:Soo.. (Score:2)
I figured I was underestimating a lot, but didn't want to make wildly inaccurate statements. Guess I did anyway
> (I thought it was a more interesting use of the word "Poof".)
pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...ooooo...ooooff
Re:Soo.. (Score:2)
You don't really mind the journey to another solar system taking 40,000 years if you bring the rest of your civilization with you.
Re:Soo.. (Score:2)
"Hey, it worked for me!" -God
Not Solar Storms At All (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not Solar Storms At All (Score:2)
Chapter 2: "Hey, where'd all this water come from," says Earth
Clearly (Score:3, Funny)
That menace!
Re:Clearly (Score:2)
We cannot allow a Sun Worship Gap!!!
Re:Clearly (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Clearly (Score:2)
Re:Clearly (Score:2)
Hey, that's nukular, pal! Only terrorists use the word "nuclear," especially when planning their next attack!
mars solar storm movie (Score:5, Informative)
This is the working link, [nasa.gov]
And here's a link to the movie itself. [nasa.gov]
oh well (Score:2, Funny)
damn! i was hoping to blame microsoft.
This is a great theory, except... (Score:2)
I am going to get slapped for this one but (Score:2, Offtopic)
Missed that one... (Score:2)
That said, we did nickname our daughter space baby. Little did I know...
Well if she grows up to be some sort of supergenious I'll blame it on my genes anyway.
Re:maybe... (Score:4, Informative)
That is our protection. Over 3.5 million years, without that protection, it's POSSIBLE that the water was blown off of Mars.
Re:maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
They discussed to a good length that the failure of magnetosphere of mars had stripped it of its atmosphere and water.
Since I got rid of cable I have honestly rediscovered why Public broadcasting is great, as I would have never found this degree of depth on discovery channel.
[OT] Re:maybe... (Score:1)
Re:maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:maybe... (Score:3)
Satellites will need to be more radiation hardened, people will wear more sunblock and cover up outdoors, a suntan becomes deeply unfashionable. Big hats and baggy clothes will be the fashion. Migrating birds and other animals that rely on the field are more likely to be confused, businesses will have to spend more money protecting sensitive equipment. Skin cancers rise.
But this is going to be a gradual thing, not a sudden shut off. The thing I'm dreading most is all the cranks
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
In any case, the only real effects would be an increase in cancer and mutation rates. However, 95% of all cancer would probably still be after reproductive ages. If the life expenctancy of man dropped to 40 years (a HUGE drop when you think about it), it probably wouldn't affect population much at all. As long as everyone has kids in their ear
Re:maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Wild guess here. Perhaps it has to do with Mars being smaller than Earth, therefore a thinner atmosphere. The materials for the "replacement" have to come from somewhere, so if you have fewer materials to start with, you would incur a greater % loss.
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Uh, don't you mean billion?
Re:maybe... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Magnetic Field (Score:3, Interesting)
Warning: blatant oversimplification!
Much of the solar flux comes in the form of charged particles, such as Hydrogen ions and electrons. Electrically charged particles are deflected by magnetic fields. Thus, a major portion of the solar wind does not reach the surface of Earth. To find out more, here is a helpful link. [nasa.gov]
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Re:maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)
The reasons are because of the Earth's magnetic field and stronger gravitational pull.
Re:maybe... (Score:2)
Besides, in a probabilistic model, Earth _would_ get subjected to more intense solar storms, on a
Re:Voyager?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Voyager?! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Voyager?! (Score:5, Informative)
As we speak, Voyager 1 is more than twice the distance from the Sun to Neptune, maybe even three times as much. Voyager 2 is lagging behind a bit. Whatever the exact distance, the Voyager Twins are alive, well, and broadcasting from the very edge of the Solar System.
First, a bit of definition: a Solar or Interstellar Wind is not really wind, but particles travelling through space at great speeds. Our own Solar Winds zoom away from the Sun at about a million mph; it is poetically referred to as a Supersonic wind.
Solar winds race outward like an expanding bubble. Interstellar winds bombard us from all directions. There is a high-turbulence zone where these winds clash head-on; very little penetrates either in or out. This zone is called the Heliopause, where Solar Winds slow down from Supersonic to a hundred thousand mph. During a Solar Maximum, when our winds push the hardest, the Heliopause expands in area. Conversely, during a Solar Minimum, the Heliopause deflates.
On August 1, 2002, Voyager 1 measured Solar Winds at a hundred thousand mph! However, eight months later, the winds went back up to Supersonic, and have remained that way. Voyager 2, lagging behind, has detected no change at any point in time.
What does this mean? Well, Voyager 1 left the direct influence of the Sun, then some months later the bubble expanded, and Voyager 1 is back under the influence.
This has been a source of controversy, since way too few interstellar particles were detected, according to what current theorists expected. But then again, we ARE in uncharted territory, aren't we?
Re:Voyager?! (Score:2)
Please excuse my ignorance, but isn't that exactly what "normal" wind is? It's particles (molocules, mostly) flying around through space? Except in this case they keep being pulled towards Earth so that they appear to be part of it.
Re:Voyager?! (Score:3, Informative)
But there is another catch!
Because the gases in space have a sigificant amount of charged particles, there is also a coupling effect between the electromagneti
Re:in other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:2)