Scientists Have Clear Evidence of Martian Atmosphere 'Sputtering' (sciencealert.com) 20
For the first time, scientists have directly observed atmospheric sputtering in action on Mars -- an erosion process driven by solar wind ions that may have played a major role in the planet's atmospheric and water loss. ScienceAlert reports: The only spacecraft with the equipment and orbital configuration to make these observations is NASA's MAVEN. The researchers carefully pored over the data collected by the spacecraft since it arrived in Mars orbit in September 2014, looking to find simultaneous observations of the solar electric field and an upper atmosphere abundance of argon -- one of the sputtered particles, used as a tracer for the phenomenon. They found that, above an altitude of 350 kilometers (217 miles), argon densities vary depending on the orientation of the solar wind electric field, compared to argon densities at lower altitudes that remain consistent.
The results showed that lighter isotopes of argon vary, leaving behind an excess of heavy argon -- a discrepancy that is best explained by active sputtering. This is supported by observations of a solar storm, the outflows of which arrived at Mars in January 2016. During this time, the evidence of sputtering became significantly more pronounced. Not only does this support the team's finding that argon density variations at high Martian altitudes are the result of sputtering, it demonstrates what conditions may have been like billions of years ago, when the Sun was younger and rowdier, undergoing more frequent storm activity. The findings have been published in the journal Science Advances.
The results showed that lighter isotopes of argon vary, leaving behind an excess of heavy argon -- a discrepancy that is best explained by active sputtering. This is supported by observations of a solar storm, the outflows of which arrived at Mars in January 2016. During this time, the evidence of sputtering became significantly more pronounced. Not only does this support the team's finding that argon density variations at high Martian altitudes are the result of sputtering, it demonstrates what conditions may have been like billions of years ago, when the Sun was younger and rowdier, undergoing more frequent storm activity. The findings have been published in the journal Science Advances.
Into rocks or sky, which is it? (Score:2)
Many insist most of Mars' atmosphere got absorbed into the ground, while others insist most ionized into space due to Mars' scant magnetic field.
Both sides have belittled me, so which is it? Let's have it out once and for all at the "Mars is Not OK Corral". Cue the Ennio Morricone music...
I'll pick the "roughly even" camp this time; the Evenists have been nicer to me.
Re:Into rocks or [space], which is it? (Score:1)
Correction: "into rocks or space".
Shazbot!
Re: Into rocks or sky, which is it? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Many insist most of Mars' atmosphere got absorbed into the ground, while others insist most ionized into space due to Mars' scant magnetic field.
Both sides have belittled me, so which is it? Let's have it out once and for all at the "Mars is Not OK Corral". Cue the Ennio Morricone music...
I'll pick the "roughly even" camp this time; the Evenists have been nicer to me.
I don't know how they belittled you, but some of it went to oxidization, most of it probably was stripped away by the solar wind. That geomagnetic field around earth protects our atmosphere.
And this is the issue with the half baked plans to colonize Mars, and the even crazier ones like nuking the poles to create an atmosphere. https://www.space.com/elon-mus... [space.com].
If you don't have a protective magnetic field, you'd nuke it only to have any released gases stripped away again.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they belittled you, but some of it went to oxidization, most of it probably was stripped away by the solar wind. That geomagnetic field around earth protects our atmosphere. And this is the issue with the half baked plans to colonize Mars, and the even crazier ones like nuking the poles to create an atmosphere. https://www.space.com/elon-mus... [space.com]. If you don't have a protective magnetic field, you'd nuke it only to have any released gases stripped away again.
The people proposing terraforming aren't terribly worried about processes that strip the atmosphere over the course of tens of millions of years. They figure that if people are still around to care in ten million years time, they will have technology to replenish the atmosphere.
With that said, nuking the poles to create an atmosphere is only likely to work under absurdly optimistic assumptions about Mars, that only a very minor change in conditions would flip to a warmer stable equilibrium. This is very unl
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they belittled you, but some of it went to oxidization, most of it probably was stripped away by the solar wind. That geomagnetic field around earth protects our atmosphere. And this is the issue with the half baked plans to colonize Mars, and the even crazier ones like nuking the poles to create an atmosphere. https://www.space.com/elon-mus... [space.com]. If you don't have a protective magnetic field, you'd nuke it only to have any released gases stripped away again.
The people proposing terraforming aren't terribly worried about processes that strip the atmosphere over the course of tens of millions of years. They figure that if people are still around to care in ten million years time, they will have technology to replenish the atmosphere.
With that said, nuking the poles to create an atmosphere is only likely to work under absurdly optimistic assumptions about Mars, that only a very minor change in conditions would flip to a warmer stable equilibrium. This is very unlikely to be the case.
I like the long game. Build a synthetic magnetosphere, that part is relatively easy. But a decision needs made. If we decide to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, to create oxygen, that will be antagonistic for radiative forcing. In addition, one of proposed fuels for Mars Rockets is Methane, which will also require water, which is in short supply there. Perhaps utilizing oxygen released from oxyperchlorates as well? I'm no expert, but I've been led to believe that other chemicals in the soil makes that comp
Re: (Score:2)
I think mostly underground living would be the most practical at first. In the long run, for the surface, I think terraforming in covered patches would be the way to go. Not necessarily the traditionally envisaged domes, but still large areas covered over. Possibly craters could work, but maybe just areas ringed by massive berms or artificial structures to contain the atmosphere. That could be covered with huge composite sheets of material, probably clear, but maybe not. To counteract the atmospheric pressu
Re: (Score:2)
May I introduce to you a 3d headset and a treadmill. Have fun you Mars explorer!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, I get it. No need to imagine anything or try to think of solutions to any problems other than the ones immediately in front of you at this precise moment. I'm sorry, I forgot that being a nerd just meant playing video games and watching fantasy movies and doesn't have anything to do with problem-solving, imagination, and thinking big. You're right that civilization never advanced by anyone imagining anything different from their normal daily routine and how to get there from here. What was I think
Re: (Score:2)
If doing such a thing could create a dense enough atmosphere to cause significant warming, it would still be worth it.
Mars loses its atmosphere at million year timescales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've already hashed this out with Geoffrey- I have nothing to add. Should have read further before replying.
No problem!
Re: (Score:2)
The nuke plans are aiming for fast and easy and are not really practical as you point out. To go into it in more detail, nuclear bombs are impressive because they release a lot of energy all at once. However, consider the largest nuclear bomb ever, the Tsar Bomba (one of several Russian artifacts nicknamed "Tsar" like the Tsar Cannon or the Tsar Bell, demonstrating a fairly well recognized cultural obsession with size). The Tsar Bomba is estimated to have the energy of about 50 megatons. That works out to a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the lack of a magnetic field is much of a problem. That is to say, it is not much of a problem compared to the massive problem of that level of geoengineering. By comparison, artificially generating a planetary magnetic field is not actually much of a challenge. There are a number of proposals. All of them are pretty massive projects with huge power requirements and don't mistake me for claiming that they would be easy. However, relative to the feat of terraforming the whole planet, they would
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the lack of a magnetic field is much of a problem. That is to say, it is not much of a problem compared to the massive problem of that level of geoengineering. By comparison, artificially generating a planetary magnetic field is not actually much of a challenge. There are a number of proposals. All of them are pretty massive projects with huge power requirements and don't mistake me for claiming that they would be easy. However, relative to the feat of terraforming the whole planet, they would basically be a smaller side project.
It is true it isn't a big issue. It isn't glamorous though. People are having wet dreams about packing up getting on the starship and there ya go.
The magnet does not have to be big. Park it at L1, some fuel to nudge it as needed, and it will work. IIRC, a 1 Tesla magnet will work. Another advantage is it will stop a lot of the radiation from reaching anyone on the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Many insist most of Mars' atmosphere got absorbed into the ground, while others insist most ionized into space due to Mars' scant magnetic field.
Both sides have belittled me, so which is it? Let's have it out once and for all at the "Mars is Not OK Corral". Cue the Ennio Morricone music...
I'll pick the "roughly even" camp this time; the Evenists have been nicer to me.
Hard to say it's roughly even or not, but if your position is that it was both, you're probably right. In both cases the lack of a strong singular magnetic field protecting the planet from the solar wind probably played a big role. Obviously it would play a role in stripping the atmosphere into space over time. Also though, the energy from the solar radiation may also have participated in making nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, resulting eventually in nitric acid which reacts with minerals on the ground to
Headlines that start exciting... (Score:1)
WOW !
THEY FOUND THEM !
WE ARE NOT ALONE !
"...Atmosphere Sputtering"
Ah.
Quick ... (Score:2)
Possibly all of them!
Re: (Score:2)
That is funny. Of course, there's some truth there too considering that this is an article about Martian atmosphere. For vehicles on Mars, whether it's on the surface or in any sort of habitat we create, or if we actually terraform the place, EVs are going to be the way to go. Either because there is no oxygen in the atmosphere or, where there is oxygen in the atmosphere, it has a measurable cost. Here on Earth, oxygen is "free" but it would not be on Mars. For example, in a habitat, there would be a very c