Terraforming a magnetosphere possible?

Submitted by Pornelius_McSucc t3_113l5ul in space

So I've been doing a lot of surfing, looking at the fact that Mars for example has no magnetosphere, and a "dead" core that is not hot enough and/or doesn't spin independently to the other planetary layers. I saw that some people theorized we could detonate a large nuclear fusion payload inside the core (assuming we are able to reach it) to "restart" the magnetic dynamo effect by reheating the core layers so convection can occur. People usually point out that this would probably just make a mess instead of a magnetic field, because it wouldn't create spin on the core, due to the fact that is only generated by a moon of significant mass.

So theoretically, would it be possible to

  • Bring Ceres to Mars to provide tidal stress on the core and establish an independent spin

  • Nuke the core with a high-efficiency fusion bomb to liquefy it all enough for magnetic convection

?

The same principle could possibly be used to bring Mercury to Venus and spin the planet's core as well. Venus already has plenty of geothermal energy, but none of it spins to create magnetism. Ofc Venus is different, Mars and Earth coincidentally rotate at almost the same rate but Venus barely does at all. So we may have to first tackle the hurdle of accelerating the rotation, I saw some things about how potentially orbiting something around it at 10 percent lightspeed could do that in 30 years.

The only other rocky bodies with significant magnetic fields are Ganymede and Triton. I'm not sure if Ganymede's is strong enough to protect its surface from the radiation of Jupiter though. But we could use Ganymede to study how we can get a magnetic field on a similarly sized object like Mars. Personally I think figuring out how to do it organically like this is a cooler option than having something at L1 generating its own electromagnetosphere, regardless of the short-term practical superiority and necessity. Mostly I think this because an artificial magnetic field would require a ton of energy to maintain and it may be prone to mechanical failure. Another reason is that if we were to accomplish a core restart it would keep the planet inhabitable regardless of the state our species is in. A superconductor belt is a cool idea though.

Also I'm kinda fuzzy on what exactly creates a planetary magnetic field. If it was simply tidal forces and heat required we would probably see more bodies with a magnetic field, (Titan, Io) so. I saw people discuss how it is possible Earth's core just has a lot of radioactive material creating a georeactor, separating us. If that is true we would need to buy time on the geological scale by injecting massive amounts of radioactive material into a core (not feasible). Maybe we will never really know until we are able to do in-depth geological surveys on these planets. Edit on this section: After further googling it appears several bodies under notable tidal stress like Io and Enceladus are thought to have their own magnetic field. I'm not sure what that entails for the potential necessity of a georeactor. It may discount the necessity entirely.

So I'm really just curious if y'all believe it is theoretically possible to organically jump start and maintain a planetary dynamo. Please keep in mind that I don't really care about how ridiculously implausible it is for our current civilization and tech to achieve, I'm just interested in the theoretical. I feel like if we can figure this out, then humanity in say 2,000 years could be living across 3 Earths in our system with Venus and Mars both terraformed. That'd be crazy.

Edit: Guys, the core process that creates a magnetic field. Terraforming that. Not installing an artificial one. That is not the point of the discussion. And again, pretty obvious we can't do this currently. This is a hypothetical and theoretical prospect, made available by the logical assumption that a technological path exists to this level of planetary manipulation. Like we can't invent something that will accelerate to past light speed, so there is no use discussing that. But we can technically enact these immense methods of terraforming with the understanding of planetary dynamo mechanics. Talk about that please.

Edit 2: so happy this got even a little traction ive been obsessed with this. Everyone discussing it is a little dream of mine realized.

67

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

zolikk t1_j8r3yvs wrote

I understand what you're asking and it's not an artificial field. I don't know how possible it is, but my question is why? An artificial magnetosphere is probably much easier, so why bother with a "terraformed" one?

Better yet, why make one at all? You do not need a magnetosphere to terraform the surface of Mars otherwise. You'd only care about it if you want the changes to become more or less permanent without maintenance. But why would you bother? If we are able to create livable conditions on the Martian surface in the span of centuries only, then we don't care if those conditions are stable over only millions, rather than billions, of years. We can just actively maintain them as needed.

53

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8r4c9t wrote

Well the biggest reason I can see, is that energy is finite in our solar system and artificial methods would take a lot. If we made some system to harness the sun's energy like a dyson swarm it could make it possible on a planetary scale, but it's a close margin otherwise with nuclear energy. You're right as far as everything else goes, an artificial field is more practical and less of an undertaking.

5

zolikk t1_j8r5syc wrote

Of course all this depends on what "level" civilization we are assuming, i.e. how much energy and what ability to move resources at large scale there are.

To just terraform the surface of Mars we don't need so much. Of course it's huge compared to what we can do now, but it's nowhere near dyson swarm capability levels. Technically it's probably enough to just dump a lot of atmosphere (lots of oxygen of course) plus water (from small icy asteroids e.g.) onto Mars; once it has a thick enough atmosphere with enough water vapor it will warm up through greenhouse effect.

No need for a magnetosphere.

If you still wanted one, even an artificial one, that would take a bit more effort. Not a big deal for a type II civilization, but still you do not need to wait until then to terraform Mars. You can just terraform it the "easy" way as above, even if it's not permanent you don't care, and then you might "fix it" later when you've advanced more - if you even care about it at that point.

To be honest I don't think any self-respecting type II civ would bother with a dyson swarm. That was conceptualized before the notion of nuclear energy was even mainstream understanding. If you're on that level of energy harnessing, using a dyson swarm is pointless; the Sun is an absolutely terrible "fusion reactor". You would instead use artificial fusion yourself. Would take fewer resources than a dyson swarm, you could create as much power as you want (easily more than the Sun itself, even if you just use fuel from Jupiter and leave the Sun alone as a token "natural reserve") and it would be a concentrated, on-demand power source. Of course at this point a project like "terraforming Mars" would become like a school science project.

13

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8r66kb wrote

I thought the absence of a magnetosphere basically equates to the planet's surface being sterilized, and the UV rays from Sol fuck with essential compounds in a bad way. The dyson swarm being an obsolete concept is interesting, I appreciate knowing that now.

8

zolikk t1_j8r77xq wrote

I don't think it's in any way critical to that. Those kinds of harmful waves, from UV to gamma, are mainly helped by having a thick enough atmosphere - its exact composition can matter too though (mainly for UV absorption). But initially all this requires is just dumping a lot of gas of your desired makeup onto Mars. The medium term stability of that atmosphere depends mainly on chemical (and eventually biologically driven) reactions near the surface...

Mars has weaker gravity so it won't be able to help hold onto the thick atmosphere long term. This is where a magnetosphere helps, because it can protect molecules in the upper atmosphere from being ejected by solar rays when in normal conditions they wouldn't reach escape velocity. But Mars' gravity is too low anyway, even with a magnetosphere it wouldn't be able to hold an Earthlike atmosphere forever.

The "easy" solution is to just keep adding required gases into the atmosphere. Which, if you were able to do it the first time, you can probably keep doing. This would still be a matter of millions of years, it's not like your Martian biosphere suddenly runs out of oxygen just because you forgot to add this year's oxygen supply.

8

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8r86h2 wrote

I honestly think the better move for a permanent terraform would be Venus, and Mars would work well with a "temporary" terraform like you describe. Venus is the only planet with real potential to be a sister Earth. There are multiple processes theoretically possible that would convert its atmosphere to the right composition and lower the temperature, at an exponential rate. These methods in conjunction could completely change Venus in a matter of a few centuries. The biggest thing it seems would be to accelerate its rotation. Which is a lot more difficult for a type 1 civ than all the other tasks such as adding water and converting the atmosphere. The energy and technology required to exert a meaningful positive rotational force on the planet is well, astronomical. And you also have to consider that to turn on the geological magnetism you may need to divert a moon to Venus. But I think Mars could be great practice for these things on a planetary scale.

2

zolikk t1_j8r90fu wrote

A funny notion concerning Venus, connected to the "necessity of a magnetosphere", is that Venus also happens to have no magnetosphere. Yet it is fully capable of maintaining a thick atmosphere over geological timescales. Despite being hotter and closer to the Sun, its gravity does the job of keeping the atmosphere on the planet. Well, other than H and He, which will be blown away by solar wind (though the Earth loses these over time as well).

Venus doesn't have water, which indeed might be related to its lack of magnetosphere. Water vapor in the upper reaches of the atmosphere can ionize, and the H can be blown off by the solar wind. This might be how Venus lost all its water in the first place, and why it has so much CO2 gas, because without water it won't become bound to rocks like it does on Earth.

So, naturally, the "simple" task of terraforming Venus is probably to "just add water". And yes, you are right, Venus might be a much better early candidate for terraforming due to this. It is closer to the Sun, it has the right gravity etc. Mars is a better candidate for early human (artificial) habitation, but if we can terraform Mars we can probably also terraform Venus and it'd produce better results. And I don't think you really need to accelerate its rotation (unless, again, you're trying to make a magnetosphere perhaps?)

4

kerfitten1234 t1_j8rewyz wrote

Venus wouldn't be quite that simple. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Any attempt to add water to Venus would cause it's temperature to go up, not down. You'd have to cool Venus down first, then add water.

3

drgath t1_j8rurkx wrote

Out of curiosity, what ways exist to cool down a planet like Venus, if you can’t just add lots of ice?

3

kerfitten1234 t1_j8rvx4o wrote

Put a ring on it to shade the surface. A polar ring at about the right altitude might also give it a more earthlike day/night cycle.

2

danielravennest t1_j8tm679 wrote

> the "simple" task of terraforming Venus is

To drag several cubic km of metallic asteroids to Venus orbit, heat up chunks with concentrated sunlight, and roll it into thin sheet metal. Then use it as a sunshade to block out the Sun from the whole planet.

On a time scale of 40 years the atmosphere will cool down. It takes so long because not only is the atmosphere much more massive than Earth's, but the surface rock layer just below the gas is also at the same temperature, and has to lose heat too.

The high ground on Venus will preferentially be cooler and lower pressure, so that's where you can start doing stuff.

1

3d_blunder t1_j8vhssr wrote

Getting Venus to spin at a comfortable rate is IMO the big sticking point: doing so would probably involve so much energy the planet would be pure lava and take millennia to cool down.

1

northaviator t1_j9782ch wrote

Venus turns to lava regularly, on a geologic time scale. It's why there aren't many craters on Venus.

1

3d_blunder t1_j97s6ki wrote

TIL! Still, what mechanism could we use to increase its spin? If it happened to blow a big chunk of the atmosphere away I think that's a plus, no?

I'm still surprised that "total sun-shading" seems to have a consensus cooldown period of less than a decade.

2

kerfitten1234 t1_j8rei53 wrote

Uv rays don't give a shit about the magnetosphere, they are blocked by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. That's where the ozone layer comes from.

4

danielravennest t1_j8tl8u1 wrote

The combination of a magnetic field and atmosphere protect the Earth's surface from high levels of radiation. The atmosphere does most of the work.

An equivalent mass of anything will do the same job, more or less. Build a habitat dome with 4 meters of glass, and you are protected. This can be multiple panes for practical manufacturing and safety. Or an equivalent amount of dirt piled on the dome with sunlight piped in through side windows.

If you pump up the atmospheric pressure to Earth levels, it will be more than enough. Mars' lower gravity means you need more atmosphere thickness to generate the same pressure.

2

RollinThundaga t1_j8sds4p wrote

You're thinking of Ozone, which will be synthesized via photochemistry and lightning once an atmosphere is in place.

Edit: we also produce it as a lower-atmosphere pollutant, so maybe we'll be good if we run a coal plant on Mars for a few centuries 🤷‍♂️

1

Advanced_Double_42 t1_j8tm6c2 wrote

99.86% of the solar systems mass is in the sun. Over 70% of that is hydrogen that could be used for fuel.

I can't imagine a Type II civilization ignoring such a massive resource. Even if they simply end up "mining" the sun for hydrogen that they use for fusion reactors elsewhere. If they are not taking full advantage of their star, I don't think they can even be considered a fully-fledged Type II

1

zolikk t1_j8tmhth wrote

Yes, I imagine such a civ would just scoop up hydrogen from the Sun and run something like an artificial CNO cycle in reactors with that fuel. It makes more sense than using a dyson swarm.

What I meant there is that you can out-power the Sun's output easily even without that, by using the fuel on outer gas giants too. So technically you do not need to do anything with the Sun in order to "reach Type II" (it's defined by power generation, regardless of source).

2

northaviator t1_j978d89 wrote

It would be far easier to get your H2 at An Ice giant.

1

Advanced_Double_42 t1_j9f28ud wrote

Of course, but when all the H2 in all of the gas giants has been mined and fused, there will be ~500x more waiting in the sun.

1

danielravennest t1_j8tk770 wrote

> artificial methods would take a lot.

Mars is orange because of rust. Turn the rust back to iron, magnetize it, and point all the magnets the same way. No energy required to maintain.

The core of Mars is about 1500 km down from the surface. The mantle density is about 3.5 tons per cubic meter, which at Mars gravity produces a rock pressure of 13 MegaPascals (MPa) per km. Basalt, which is volcanic rock that Mars has lots of, has a maximum compressive strength of 338 MPa. So by the time you get 26 km down, the rock will definitely fail and your drill hole will collapse.

The best steel has about 5 times the strength, but 2.2 times the density. So if you use it to line a drill hole, it will collapse under its own weight at 58 km. You are now 3.9% of the way to the core. The core is out of reach with known technology, so forget doing anything to it.

3

YpsilonY t1_j8rhdx1 wrote

Without doing the math, I'm pretty sure you could run an artificial magnetic field or just keep topping up the atmospheres for millions of years using less energy than it would take to move Ceres or melt Mars's core.

2

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8ri2tj wrote

I think it is half the opposite because all you would need for heating the core is a BIG nuke unless you did it electrically. It is however likely that it would take less energy to just top up the atmosphere than to move Ceres to guarantee the core would be functional.

0

YpsilonY t1_j8rxy16 wrote

So my back of the envelope math says heating Mars' core from 1400°C (estimated temperature, exact value unknown) to the melting point of iron of 1538°C would take 8.21*10^20J or 2.2 billion TWh. So 100.000 times the current worlds yearly energy consumption.

How you produce that energy is kind of irrelevant, but assuming we use a perfectly efficient hydrogen bomb that somehow converts all it's mass into energy using deuterium tritium fusion, we'd need approximately 10.000.000 tons of hydrogen. Half of that deuterium and half tritium. That sure is one Big nuke ;)

6

RollinThundaga t1_j8sde9w wrote

"Energy is finite" but Jupiter and Saturn are literally made of mostly Hydrogen. Even ignoring stellasers and solar sails, there's enough fusion fuel to last a long time, and more than enough for a continuous Kuiper belt mining operation.

2

shibbypants t1_j8te9yc wrote

With the technology required to be able to move planets a magnetosphere generator in space should be easy.

3

EarthSolar t1_j8rtex7 wrote

I’d like to slip this link, which contains another link to an answer about why a magnetic field is not critically helpful in keeping an atmosphere intact.

1

I-tell-you-hwat t1_j8ruzzg wrote

Argument for an artificial magnetosphere. Maintenance cost over the long run (hundreds-thousands of years) vs development of AM and less need for maintenance upkeep of the surface. Otherwise, if it’s not really needed then 🤷🏻‍♂️.

1

RowKiwi t1_j8qzrrp wrote

If all else fails, you can simply put colossal cables on the surface around the whole planet and make a magnetic field the old-fashioned way, with electricity. A lot of electricity. A LOT. But scientifically possible.

14

ILoveEmeralds t1_j8red9h wrote

Lol, I say if your at this technological level just also use it as like a radiation funnel to power the tech. I mean magnetosphere’s grab ionized radiation and to my knowledge pul the tword the poles so you probably could do it. Of course I’m no physicist so I could be completely wrong

5

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rk0mk wrote

Really cool idea

2

ILoveEmeralds t1_j8rltkb wrote

Yeh and I mean even if you didn’t need to make one you could theoretically use a naturally occurring sphere to just make the planet a giant solar panel

2

zZEpicSniper303Zz t1_j8r3xei wrote

Technically you could turn the planet into a giant induction magnet with two stupendously powerful electromagnets on the poles, heating up it's core until geologic function resumes.

10

Supreme-Plays t1_j8wxwd9 wrote

Where exactly would you get enough energy for something like that

1

zZEpicSniper303Zz t1_j8x2q86 wrote

Dyson swarm, antimatter, kugelblitz etc.

This is such a far futute solution that there are a ton of ways to produce a ton of energy out of various violent cosmic objects...

3

dave200204 t1_j8rnl6u wrote

I think the actual mass of Mars may have something to do with the lack of a magnetosphere. The core of the Earth is very likely radioactive which would keep it nice and warm liquifying the inner layers of the planet. The liquidation plays into the creation of the magnetosphere. I also think that the Earth is massive enough to put additional heat and pressure on the inner layers of our planet.

Mars has some radioactive processes keeping the core warm but not liquifying the core. It's hot enough for volcanoes but not hot enough for plate tectonics.

My idea is that if we could increase the mass of Mars we might be able to put enough pressure on the core to liquify the inside of Mars. Maybe using an orbital ring to drop chunks of asteroids or comets onto the surface would work. Do this correctly and we could spend up the spin of the planet. This way it's day would more closely match Earth's.

6

ah-tzib-of-alaska t1_j8riuo6 wrote

The magnetosphere is a non issue. Mars loses atmosphere slower than Earth does currently. If you can replenish atmosphere to terraform mars at any useful rate why would you invent another system to hold in less atmosphere than you can already make?

4

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rjbf6 wrote

Well there is also the radiation. Theoretically Mars with a magnetosphere would be able to support walking around in a t-shirt and jeans. Provided you have sufficient atmospheric pressure and composition. Otherwise we would have to live underground or in shielded habitats. It's not just the atmospheric loss, though if you did jumpstart the dynamo you would make atmospheric deterioration a non-issue for the next 2 billion years of inhabitants. Yeah, that doesn't really matter when it still takes 200 mil to deplete without one, but if civilized society were to collapse it would still be inhabitable.

3

ah-tzib-of-alaska t1_j8rltr5 wrote

That’s a great point and I should have included that as follows:

If you want similar to Earth levels of atmospheric pressure on mars you’ll need much more atmosphere than you have on Earth. In other words, you’ll need a lot more physical barrier between you and the radiation. AGAIN, if you can make the atmosphere you need the magnetosphere is a non issue.

4

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rmksq wrote

Would that much atmosphere being packed onto small Mars possibly create an issue where exponentially more of it is lost at x rate?

2

ah-tzib-of-alaska t1_j8rnof0 wrote

oh yes for sure; more than it is now. But it’s already getting less than half the amount of radiation / solar winds force than Earth is. BUT this is is still a non issue; if you can increase mars atmosphere to 3x Earths atmosphere for the same pressure than the loss rate even if it’s 30x what Earth loses is going to be a non issue. You already creating trillions of times of atmosphere than what you’re losing. So after atmo creation you just exude some 1/trillionth of the amount of atmo you already just created. SO ANY useful amount of atmosphere creation makes the magnetic shield a non issue of the goal is humans breathing.

Earth loses 90 tones a year. So if Mars loses 900 tones it’s still going to be a non issue because Earths atmo is like 5.5 quadrillion tones. And if you want 1 bar on earth you’ll need 3x that. And you want to worry about a 100 tones a year after we just made 16.5 quadrillion tones?

Hell if Mars loses 8100 tones a year it’ll be a nonissue.

4

BrotherBrutha t1_j8rj8c9 wrote

We might want to start by figuring out how to terraform earth, let’s start with the easy stuff!

3

Psychomadeye t1_j8sll5s wrote

The technology for each is mostly the same, or at least with high overlap. Maybe we can do two things at once. Not saying we focus equal amounts, but it would be nice to run experiments on not earth if we're worried.

1

northaviator t1_j8qxgiq wrote

Interesting, how about a local system to protect settlements, instead of burrowing into Mars to live, surface housing protected by a magnetic field under a huge polycarbonate dome ( import from Earth).

2

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8qyq7m wrote

That is one of my more favorite possibilities, as it would require significantly less power draw than an artificial planetary shield from a satellite or superconducting belt. The drawbacks however, appear to be that it doesn't assist in atmospheric retention and is not a naturally perpetual process. Therefore prone to mechanical failure and requiring constant upkeep. But I think this will be the logical first step for magnetic field solutions over frontier colonies. Definitely very cool to think about.

3

northaviator t1_j8qzk5u wrote

I was thinking they could build large domes because the Martian atmosphere is 1% of Earths and its gravity is 40% of ours, think of the architecture one could come up with, radiation and perchlorates considered.

2

danielravennest t1_j8tnmlx wrote

Sea level pressure under a dome on Mars produces a lifting force of 27 tons per square meter. That's the equivalent of 10 meters of solid rock. If your dome is lighter than that, it will be trying to pop off the foundation and has to be either tied or weighted down.

2

northaviator t1_j8yh52r wrote

Foundation, will be critical, what if the pressure was kept to around 10000 ft.

1

danielravennest t1_j91b0ti wrote

No. Lightweight domes as is often shown in artist's illustrations are dumb. Make the domes heavy enough to stay put on the foundation and they double as radiation protection.

2

bwprog t1_j8r9tcj wrote

Hypothetically, you can do just about anything.

But a magnetosphere is not necessary for Mars. Because of the inverse square law, Mars would see less than half of the solar wind and radiation as Earth.

2

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rab6e wrote

Would you say it is the case for Venus? I would imagine the level of solar radiation is not remotely negligible at that distance. Especially if the atmosphere is converted to be breathable, and thus dramatically reduced in density.

1

bwprog t1_j8rcddm wrote

Venus already has a magnetosphere, created differently but still effective.

3

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rczza wrote

mom can we have magnetic field?

no honey, we have a magnetic field at home

magnetic field at home:

−1

EarthSolar t1_j8rqiez wrote

It’s actually more effective at preventing atmosphere from escaping. Intrinsic field causes polar wind as the particles just escape through that hole. Does not happen in an induced field.

1

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rqsq6 wrote

Would it still occur if we were to change the atmosphere of Venus in order to live there? That's neat as well.

1

EarthSolar t1_j8rrerb wrote

IIRC we had some really good answers from actual scientists about why magnetic field doesn’t do jack about the atmosphere, but idk why they’re not here. I’ll try to find it.

1

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rrzm3 wrote

So there is really no benefit after all? Except maybe radiation in a less dense atmosphere like ours?

2

EarthSolar t1_j8rsitb wrote

Found it

I’m not sure how much thinner atmosphere would be required for radiation to be a big issue - I mean it doesn’t just instantly become an issue once it crosses a certain threshold - but I think it’s likely that any breathable mix is going to reduce the radiation to negligible levels.

3

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8ru4vo wrote

Well wow. That's a big weight off, I suppose is one way to look at it lol. Possibly still a good idea for Jovian moons being baked by Jupiter's radiation? But then again, any settlement on a Jovian ice moon will be completely enclosed to begin with, as terraforming is an impractical impossibility I assume.

2

EarthSolar t1_j8rw19v wrote

And why would you want to terraform those iceballs anyway? Just dig down and live in the ice shell or the subsurface oceans. Not much difference really.

2

trophycloset33 t1_j8rf3vu wrote

If we ever reach this status we might as well evolve into a level 3 species and create our own artificial planet or travel to one that fits our needs. We are harnessing power of entire solar systems and near by suns, we wouldn’t need the protection of a magnetic field or planetary warmth anymore.

2

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8rf9d3 wrote

I think that's honestly a giant leap that we may never accomplish. FLT may also be an impossibility.

1

trophycloset33 t1_j8sk7ms wrote

Cresting false moons or trying to restart a planets tectonic convection process is feasible in this scenario?

If we have this ability than near to light travel or building mega structures absolutely is possible. In addition to elevating to we have likely evolved to a level 2 civilization

0

BurtMackl t1_j8s87gv wrote

But first, you need to find Unobtainium to actually execute your idea. 👀

2

herbys t1_j8sr730 wrote

Sure it can be done. There's a very scientifically thorough documentary called "The Core" where they show how it's done. :-)

2

GonzoRonin t1_j8sghhm wrote

I have recently learned about magnetic induction and that it may not be earth generating our field as much as the suns magnetism linking to earth.

You can take a strong magnet then hold a piece of ferrous metal a bit away from it and it will act like a magnet itself just by being in the field.

So maybe Mars lost more than a hot core.

*fringe theory Mars liquid core was used to construct the moon which we have now to convey a whole civilization to a new planet.

1

DisillusionedBook t1_j8spmei wrote

Also look into low gravity making building a thick atmosphere unsustainable too.

There are potential (astronomically expensive and currently technically very improbable) and probably only partial solutions to the lack of magnetosphere, but the gravity problem has no solution that I'm aware of. This is assuming you want an atmosphere as well as radiation shielding.

1

AtomicPow_r_D t1_j8su0rq wrote

I suggest placing Mercury in orbit around Mars (or Venus). Mercury is supposed to have a magnetic field as strong as Earth's, but for the effect of the Sun's nearby solar wind. If it was instead in orbit around Mars or Venus, and much farther out from the Sun, you'd have the strong magnetosphere of its moon to help protect your main planet. Hey look, it's the only other planet with a magnetosphere in the Solar System -

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8tgeme wrote

I don't think you can toss the masses around as casually as you think you can. You want to move planets? That's some immense values snd vectors of P you're going to need to change. How do you apply the ∆ V? I don't know the otder of magnitude of energy needed, but you'd probably need to convert solar energy into something that reshapes orbit.

1

danielravennest t1_j8tojdb wrote

> How do you apply the ∆ V?

Asteroid flybys. If they are massive enough, they cause a shift in a planet's orbit. Then you need to use Jupiter flybys to correct the asteroid for the next pass.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8tvijh wrote

You want to play celestial billiards by using bigger and bigger fly-by. You want to use 200 big asteroids to perturb Mercury the right direction?. Welp, you don't think small. I'm assuming you need a world government to pull this off?

1

danielravennest t1_j8u00ox wrote

My ideas have been known to make other space systems engineers run away screaming and pulling out their hair :-).

Moving the Earth will eventually be necessary, because the Sun is getting brighter over time. But it is not like, urgent. We have a few hundred million years to figure it out.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8u1n9u wrote

Grinz. I'm more focused on current species problems. Parenting that no longer works, economies that no longer makes sense, politics that is no longer relevant. :-) I'm thinking about ∆V at the sociological level and flat out moving to post scarcity today and finish in 40 years.

1

danielravennest t1_j8wmqvp wrote

Have you seen my book on Seed Factories? That's the idea of a starter set of machines that are used to make more machines for itself until you have a full range of industry. Using "smart tools" (automation, robotics, software, and AI) it should mostly run itself. A member cooperative can split the cost and make it affordable.

The real magic happens when a mature factory starts spitting out new starter sets. Then it can grow exponentially.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8wn8bg wrote

I don't wanna talk tech. The people are what need therapy and help.

Edit consider the pace of technology advancement versus the pace of social progress.

Edit yes I understand Von Neumann Machines.

1

danielravennest t1_j8wqhrb wrote

Von Neumann machines are fully automated, which is still too hard to do. A seed factory allows some human labor where needed. It just turns the output into self-expansion rather than cars or washing machines like a regular factory.

Also Von Neumann machines make an exact copy of themselves. That's "direct replication". They have to start with a full set of machines needed. Seed factories work like plant seeds. They start with the minimum set of equipment to allow growth, then eventually can make new starter sets. But the new starter sets are not identical to the grown factories.

Social progress is being held back by fear. Rural white people are afraid of losing their position on top of the "natural order of things" (their view, not mine). Having grown up in New York City in an immigrant family, I'm not afraid of people who are different than me. They are just people.

But if everyone is well enough off through productive means, you don't have to be afraid of losing out.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8wrbln wrote

Social progress is being held back by the work of Adam Smith, and the Puritan belief that idle hands are the devil's hands.

In 1982, America threw out 40% of the food it served. In the same year and for 3 decades, America alone spent as much celebrating Christmas as it would take to feed the world per capita a very rich diet for a full year. That's just one example. We are a wealthy species and our society does not reflect it.

1

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8uvnmg wrote

the engineering hurdles are irrelevant. the fact that a certain amount of V would be sufficient, regardless of how, is the focus.

1

gordo65 t1_j8uogoi wrote

Grab an asteroid and put it into orbit? Drill to the center of a planet? Seems like the cost and effort of terraforming Mars would exceed the benefit.

1

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8uvsxf wrote

i don't think so. after the fact, you have an entirely separate sustaining inhabitable planet. good until the death of the solar system.

1

tcorey2336 t1_j8uuk3y wrote

Do you all take this stuff seriously or are you practicing science fiction? Is there a time period in which these massive projects-something on the order of the pyramids times thousands-are expected to be completed? “Oh, in a million years…” I doubt humans will have the wherewithal in a million years, if any representatives of the species still exist. Maybe pangolins will have evolved to replace us by then.

1

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8uw83n wrote

well assuming our species experiences exponential growth in knowledge and technology, then this could be a matter of millennium. the focus is also not really on whether we do it or not. it's assuming we can.

2

Graphite_Forest t1_j8utt9o wrote

So if beings have the power to move planets, or planetoids, why do they want a magnetosphere?

0

Pornelius_McSucc OP t1_j8uwovw wrote

for the beneficial effects of a magnetosphere shielding terrestrial civilization. We wouldn't necessarily have to be forerunners to achieve this.

1

Graphite_Forest t1_j8vg2l0 wrote

I suppose, but I would think such a civilization would be able to harden themselves to withstand extreme conditions more easily than desire shielding from high energy particles? But who knows, maybe such a thing would be a luxury to a sufficiently advced society.

1

AggravatingChest7838 t1_j8r8drp wrote

My uncle terraformed a magnetosphere in his garage but it didn't pass the roadworthy.

−1

Excellent-Pattern119 t1_j8t10t3 wrote

I will put it bluntly: we can't even terraform the Sahara Desert, the Namibia Desert, and the Atacama Desert to be inhabitable and people are talking about terraforming a planet that has not have enough gravity to maintain an atmosphere for geological time unless that is a very heavy gas: the tail end of Maxwell velocity distribution of speeds will make all those molecules get to the escape velocity and leak to the space after a few million years or less. So If you can breathe sulfur hexafluoride maybe we can. It is a calculation so easy you can do it yourself, it is usually one of the problems or examples that are given in the kinetic theory of gases course. So come back with your feet to Earth and spare me the Elon hype.

−1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8thfbl wrote

I agree with everything you've said. I would add one caveat. We haven't really tried to terraform, with realistic amounts of resource applied. You'd need a significant amount of resources to actually attempt remediation. Resources equivalent to a significant percentage of worldwide military expenditure for 5-10 years.

You'd need a world government.

1