Mars does not have a magnetosphere. Any discussion of humans ever settling the red planet can stop right there, but of course it never does. Do you have a low-cost plan for, uh, creating a gigantic active dynamo at Mars’s dead core? No? Well. It’s fine. I’m sure you have some other workable, sustainable plan […]

By Albert Burneko

9:00 AM EDT on September 11, 2024

Mars does not have a magnetosphere. Any discussion of humans ever settling the red planet can stop right there, but of course it never does. Do you have a low-cost plan for, uh, creating a gigantic active dynamo at Mars’s dead core? No? Well. It’s fine. I’m sure you have some other workable, sustainable plan for shielding live Mars inhabitants from deadly solar and cosmic radiation, forever. No? Huh. Well then let’s discuss something else equally realistic, like your plan to build a condo complex in Middle Earth.

…

  • Midnitte@beehaw.orgEnglish
    91·
    2 months ago

    You just put a giant magnet in space at Mars’ L1 Lagrange point

    Well, that’s a lot saner than nuking the poles.

    Doesn’t seem like we’re near technical feasibility, though - how would you power such a massive magnet in space?

      • FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee
        9·
        2 months ago

        The linked article says the artificial magnetosphere would encompass the entire planet and points out this includes two critical places where the most atmosphere is lost.

        So yes by virtue of it encompassing the whole planet it does cover those two places… I suppose they wanted to specifically mention them

      • Midnitte@beehaw.orgEnglish
        81·
        2 months ago

        In the future it is quite possible that an inflatable structure(s) can generate a magnetic dipole field at a level of perhaps 1 or 2 Tesla (or 10,000 to 20,000 Gauss) as an active shield against the solar wind."

        Indeed, “in the future” seems to be doing quite a lot of heavy lifting. As noted, 1-2 Tesla is a pretty powerful magnet - so you’d need a pretty big and powerful magnet.

        It also doesn’t completely protect the entire planet just two critical points on the surface.

        That is certainly an important catch.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        42·
        2 months ago

        as masterspace noted NASA has actually given it some thought.

        Just because people talk about something at one conference that doesn’t make it real, feasible, happening, etc. As the actual people said, it’s “fanciful”. It’s literally just people talking. It doesn’t matter where they work.

        • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          You’re talking about the people who lowered a car from a rocket crane onto the surface of another planet, you can be thoughtfully critical, but their technical record has earned them a lot more than surface level dismissal.

    • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Solar panels would be my guess, though you can always build a space based nuclear reactor if you can refuel it and get rid of its waste.

      It would certainly need a lot more to figure out an actual feasible plan, but I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally impossible about doing it with today’s technology, let alone the future’s.

      • Midnitte@beehaw.orgEnglish
        21·
        2 months ago

        Mars gets roughly half the light of Earth, so I don’t think Solar panels would be realistic (how much solar panel surface would you need to power a magnet of that size?)

        I’m also not sure a nuclear reactor is realistic - forget the nuclear waste, how do you get rid of the heat waste?

        You’d need quite a big magnet operating at a level akin to superconducting magnets in particle accelerators.

        Perhaps someone could calculate more accurate numbers and feasibility, but to me, it currently sounds very out of reach for us (not impossible, mind you).