science

21656 readers

142 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

m3t00@lemmy.world

Joleee@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

laverabe@lemmy.zip

114

Mars has a solid core, resolving a longstanding planetary mystery, according to new study (phys.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/science@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The findings, which are published in Nature, have important implications for our understanding of how Mars evolved. Billions of years ago, the planet may have had a thicker atmosphere that allowed liquid water to flow on the surface.

This thicker atmosphere may have been kept in place by a protective magnetic field, like the one Earth has. However, Mars lacks such a field today. Scientists have wondered whether the loss of this magnetic field led to the red planet losing its atmosphere to space over time and becoming the cold, dry desert it is today.

From residual magnetization in the crust, we think that Mars did once have a magnetic field, possibly from a core structure similar to that of Earth. However, scientists think that the core must have cooled and stopped moving at some point in its history.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

The lack of a magnetic field was always going to prevent that, Musk was just a moron.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago

Eh, it’s a problem but my understanding is that atmospheric loss should be quite slow. The challenge of creating an atmosphere in the first place is nearly insurmountable but assuming we’re able to do that, there’s no reason it couldn’t be gradually replenished.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean we were never going to see the result of a complete terraform of Mars to begin with even if it went perfect with theoretical technology. I doubt our great great grandchildren would have seen it either. I was speculating on the long term. Flying colonies on Venus might be the best bet for long term 2nd human planet.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Agreed on all counts. Yeah, Mars was never really a good candidate for colonies, despite being technically the most earth-like planet.

Realistically, terraforming Mars would probably be something like a 3000 year project. But to me, that doesn't mean it's 3000 years away, it means it will actually never happen. Given the ever increasing pace of technology, I can't actually see a 3000 year project like that ever completing, because in that time the human race, and our goals would have changed immensely. We're already successfully editing plant and animal genomes, at some point we will have changed ourselves so much that the goal we aimed for a millennia ago no longer makes sense. We likely won't need an earth-like planet in the same way.

At any rate, I think space habitats are the way of the future, O'Neil cylinders and the like. Once you make it all the way to space, why trap yourself all the way down another gravity well?

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

"just give me a few hundred megatons of nuclear weapons and we can restart the core on Mars guys"

melon husk, probably

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Could an artificial field be created?

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It would require more energy than we can produce at the moment.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

What if we nuke something?

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There's is a video from 'Kurzgesagt' I think it was that explains why it's more realistic to settle Venus instead of Mars.

Edit: Found it