5 ms·

Does building a magnetosphere for the purposes of protection require an atmosphere, or is it all about capturing and shaping solar wind? If it doesn't require

by bleair 10y ago

Does building a magnetosphere for the purposes of protection require an atmosphere, or is it all about capturing and shaping solar wind? If it doesn't require an atmosphere, could this approach be used to build a magnetospher around the moon? It feels like colonizing the moon first is a much easier and more useful problem to tackle. Once we have a moon colony you can crack water to make fuel and then go "where ever" you'd like - other asteroids, or mars. The moon is much closer and easier to get to, though maybe people need the "excitement" that travel to Mars connotates.

Armisael16 10y ago
Where does the water come from?
- criddell 10y ago
  There's more than a trillion pounds of water ice on the moon.
  - Armisael16 10y ago
    Mixed in with rock at low concentrations. Are you proposing shipping massive mining machines to the Moon?
    - criddell 10y ago
      This is a thread about building a magnetic shield to protect an entire planet. Shipping some gear to the poles of the moon to melt ice doesn't seem that crazy in comparison.
- PaulHoule 10y ago
  Mars has a lot of water, it is just solid.
brianberns 10y ago
IIUC, the proposal is to build a magnetic shield at a stable Lagrange point between Mars and the sun. Mars would be far away, in the "shade" created by the shield. So there's no magnetosphere around Mars. It's more like a magneto-cylinder. :) This image explains it better than I can: https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2017/1-nasaproposes.jpg https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2017... I don't think an approach like this would work for the moon, because there's no stable Lagrange point between the moon and the sun. (And even if we did build a magnetic shield for the moon somehow, I think it's still too small to accumulate an atmosphere.)
- ant6n 10y ago
  L1 isn't a _stable_ Lagrange point. I think only L4, L5 are.
Tuna-Fish 10y ago
The problem with using this approach with the Moon is that there is no stationary orbit that would keep the magnetic shield properly between the Moon and the Sun. Mars can use the Sun-Mars L1, but no such point exists for the Moon.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Wouldn't it be a halo orbit around the Sun-Earth L1?
kitsunesoba 10y ago
It's a common misconception that the moon is easier to get to. As far as rocket launches are concerned, getting to the moon is as difficult as getting to Mars. Worse, the moon has no atmospheric drag to assist with landing. The only way the moon is better is it's closer, which is almost a moot point because all the difficulty is tied up in getting off of Earth. And unless dramatic changes in our space flight capabilities take place, it's no easier to mount a timely rescue mission to the moon than it is to Mars - by the time we launch anything it'll be weeks or months after any accident takes place and well beyond the length of time stranded astronauts could survive. Beyond that, the moon is generally much less suited for long term habitation than Mars is for several reasons. I won't get into details about that right here (unless you want me to) and Mars isn't exactly a cakewalk either, but the moon poses a more significant challenge in many ways. That said, I welcome any kind of manned missions/outposts/colonies etc, whether the be on the moon or Mars or somewhere else entirely. I just believe that the payoff for starting on Mars could be much greater than doing the same on the moon.
- jacobush 10y ago
  The atmospheric drag on Mars is a bitch. Too little to help much, too much to ignore. Go too low and you burn up. Too high and you skip on the surface.
lutusp 10y ago
> Does building a magnetosphere for the purposes of protection require an atmosphere ... No, it's the other way around -- for a sustainable atmosphere, one needs a magnetic field. > If it doesn't require an atmosphere, could this approach be used to build a magnetospher around the moon? That would have an effect on surface radiation from charged particles, but the moon can't have an earth-like atmosphere because of its low gravity. So the payoff is smaller. More details: http://arachnoid.com/restoring_mars http://arachnoid.com/restoring_mars

by bleair 10y ago

Armisael16 10y ago

Where does the water come from?

criddell 10y ago
There's more than a trillion pounds of water ice on the moon.
- Armisael16 10y ago
  Mixed in with rock at low concentrations. Are you proposing shipping massive mining machines to the Moon?
  - criddell 10y ago
    This is a thread about building a magnetic shield to protect an entire planet. Shipping some gear to the poles of the moon to melt ice doesn't seem that crazy in comparison.
PaulHoule 10y ago
Mars has a lot of water, it is just solid.

brianberns 10y ago

IIUC, the proposal is to build a magnetic shield at a stable Lagrange point between Mars and the sun. Mars would be far away, in the "shade" created by the shield. So there's no magnetosphere around Mars. It's more like a magneto-cylinder. :) This image explains it better than I can: https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2017/1-nasaproposes.jpg https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2017... I don't think an approach like this would work for the moon, because there's no stable Lagrange point between the moon and the sun. (And even if we did build a magnetic shield for the moon somehow, I think it's still too small to accumulate an atmosphere.)

ant6n 10y ago
L1 isn't a _stable_ Lagrange point. I think only L4, L5 are.

Tuna-Fish 10y ago

The problem with using this approach with the Moon is that there is no stationary orbit that would keep the magnetic shield properly between the Moon and the Sun. Mars can use the Sun-Mars L1, but no such point exists for the Moon.

logfromblammo 10y ago
Wouldn't it be a halo orbit around the Sun-Earth L1?

kitsunesoba 10y ago

It's a common misconception that the moon is easier to get to. As far as rocket launches are concerned, getting to the moon is as difficult as getting to Mars. Worse, the moon has no atmospheric drag to assist with landing. The only way the moon is better is it's closer, which is almost a moot point because all the difficulty is tied up in getting off of Earth. And unless dramatic changes in our space flight capabilities take place, it's no easier to mount a timely rescue mission to the moon than it is to Mars - by the time we launch anything it'll be weeks or months after any accident takes place and well beyond the length of time stranded astronauts could survive. Beyond that, the moon is generally much less suited for long term habitation than Mars is for several reasons. I won't get into details about that right here (unless you want me to) and Mars isn't exactly a cakewalk either, but the moon poses a more significant challenge in many ways. That said, I welcome any kind of manned missions/outposts/colonies etc, whether the be on the moon or Mars or somewhere else entirely. I just believe that the payoff for starting on Mars could be much greater than doing the same on the moon.

jacobush 10y ago
The atmospheric drag on Mars is a bitch. Too little to help much, too much to ignore. Go too low and you burn up. Too high and you skip on the surface.

lutusp 10y ago

> Does building a magnetosphere for the purposes of protection require an atmosphere ... No, it's the other way around -- for a sustainable atmosphere, one needs a magnetic field. > If it doesn't require an atmosphere, could this approach be used to build a magnetospher around the moon? That would have an effect on surface radiation from charged particles, but the moon can't have an earth-like atmosphere because of its low gravity. So the payoff is smaller. More details: http://arachnoid.com/restoring_mars http://arachnoid.com/restoring_mars