How would we get Mars' core going again?

[Dennis E. Taylor]

This came up tangentially in one of the other Mars-related threads, and it's been preying on my mind. Assuming that Mars has at least some metallic core, but it's all frozen, what technology would have at least a theoretical chance of firing it up again? I've thought about the following:

- Drilling a bunch of tunnels and dropping in some large nuclear (or maybe anti-matter) bombs
- Some kind of reactor or some such to provide heat at a more steady rate
- big, and I mean BIG solar mirrors, pointing straight down the poles.
- A very very VERY large rotating electromagnet at the poles, to try an melt the core through some form of inductive heating.
- Start dropping planet-busting asteroids onto Mars on an ongoing basis. This one seems a little drastic...

Other ideas? I don't think any extant Mars-colonization novels have dealt with this.

 

[Dave]

What? Do you mean to tell me there is no ancient native alien-built Oxygen machine on Mars inside glacial caves that Arnie can't just turn on? Maybe it was all just a free form delusion from a schizoid embolism after all?

 

[BAYLOR]

Nuclear devices might do the trick for Mars core .

 

[Vertigo]

Describing Mars' core as 'frozen' is very misleading. It is thought to be fluid just as ours is and it's temperature is in the region of 1500K. Actually only our outer core is fluid the inner core is solid even though it is thought to be around the same temperature as the surface of the sun. I believe, and I'm no expert, that the activity in our core is more to do with the violent convection currents in the outer core whilst Mars' is more(?) dormant.

Bottom line is that we don't have anything big enough to effect a planetary core and I don't think there is even any speculative science that might do so. Maybe if you could get a something really big like one of Jupiter's moon to crash into it might do it but you'd likely have to wait a few million years for it to cool down again.

I believe current theories suggest it is quite possible that Mars' core could 'start up' again of its own accord. However as I mentioned in the other thread it is now thought that the magnetic field has much much less impact on protection from radiation than had been thought. So I'm not quite sure why we would want to 'restart it'. What it needs is a load of atmosphere.

 

[BAYLOR]

Describing Mars' core as 'frozen' is very misleading. It is thought to be fluid just as ours is and it's temperature is in the region of 1500K. Actually only our outer core is fluid the inner core is solid even though it is thought to be around the same temperature as the surface of the sun. I believe, and I'm no expert, that the activity in our core is more to do with the violent convection currents in the outer core whilst Mars' is more(?) dormant.

Bottom line is that we don't have anything big enough to effect a planetary core and I don't think there is even any speculative science that might do so. Maybe if you could get a something really big like one of Jupiter's moon to crash into it might do it but you'd likely have to wait a few million years for it to cool down again.

I believe current theories suggest it is quite possible that Mars' core could 'start up' again of its own accord. However as I mentioned in the other thread it is now thought that the magnetic field has much much less impact on protection from radiation than had been thought. So I'm not quite sure why we would want to 'restart it'. What it needs is a load of atmosphere.

If not the magnetic field , then what is the mechanism that keeps the atmosphere from being eroded by the solar winds?

If mars had an atmosphere the same density as earth, It would be habitable, at least at the equatorial zone and it would allow liquid water to exit on the surface.

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

Describing Mars' core as 'frozen' is very misleading. It is thought to be fluid just as ours is and it's temperature is in the region of 1500K. Actually only our outer core is fluid the inner core is solid even though it is thought to be around the same temperature as the surface of the sun. I believe, and I'm no expert, that the activity in our core is more to do with the violent convection currents in the outer core whilst Mars' is more(?) dormant.

http://beamartian.jpl.nasa.gov/towhnall/question/186/does-mars-have-a-molten-core

Hmm, NASA disagrees with you, although they aren't making any definitive statements. And current theories seem to indicate specifically that the lack of atmosphere is due to lack of protection from a magnetic field.

In any case, even if the core is still partly molten, it just shortens the time frame and simplifies things a bit, it doesn't really invalidate the question.

 

[Vertigo]

Well I don't want to get into link battles but:

Wiki has it that it is liquid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
New Scientist has "It has been known since 2003 that at least part of Mars' interior is molten, based on how easily the Sun's gravity distorts the planet's shape, but no one knew whether it is completely liquid, or whether there is a solid inner core like Earth's." http://www.newscientist.com/article...ates-mars-has-a-molten-core.html#.VKmBxmdyZhE

Of course there is no way we can know either way for certain. But my point was that simply heating it up is not necessarily going to start it up and that heating up such a vast amount of matter would be an extraordinary endeavour and finally that it probably wouldn't achieve very much. I mean why do you want to 'start it up" again?

 

[Dave]

Hmm, NASA disagrees with you, although they aren't making any definitive statements. And current theories seem to indicate specifically that the lack of atmosphere is due to lack of protection from a magnetic field.

Unless there has been some recent research I've missed, all of these theories are simply abstract postulating without any empirical backing. Which means there is plenty of room for wild speculations and science fiction.

We don't even know why the Earth's core flips magnetic polarity every so often. That could be due to factors external to the Earth, or it could be due to processes within the core. We have only scratched the surface of the Crust with decades-long drilling experiments.

 

[Vertigo]

If not the magnetic field , then what is the mechanism that keeps the atmosphere from being eroded by the solar winds?

If mars had an atmosphere the same density as earth, It would be habitable, at least at the equatorial zone and it would allow liquid water to exit on the surface.

This is what I read on wiki here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

Depending on planet size and atmospheric composition, however, a lack of magnetic field does not determine the fate of a planet's atmosphere. Venus, for instance, has no powerful magnetic field. Its close proximity to the Sun also increases the speed and number of particles, and would presumably cause the atmosphere to be stripped almost entirely, much like that of Mars. Despite this, the atmosphere of Venus is two orders of magnitudes denser than Earth's.[3] Recent models indicate that stripping by solar wind accounts for less than 1/3 of total non-thermal loss processes.[3]

While Venus and Mars have no magnetosphere to protect the atmosphere from solar winds, photoionizing radiation (sunlight) and the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere of the planets causes ionization of the uppermost part of the atmosphere. This ionized region in turn induces magnetic moments that deflect solar winds much like a magnetic field.

Now of course I know that Wiki is not the word of God but what it says makes sense and they also comment:

A common erroneous belief is that the primary non-thermal escape mechanism is atmospheric stripping by a solar wind in the absence of a magnetosphere.

As you say what Mars needs is an atmosphere. Give it that (bombard with comets or some such) and even if it is still losing atmosphere it would be fine for several millions of years. Atmosphere loss is a slow process.

The major problem, in my opinion, is radiation and an atmosphere would do a lot to improve that; probably more than a magnetosphere.

 

[Vertigo]

Unless there has been some recent research I've missed, all of these theories are simply abstract postulating without any empirical backing. Which means there is plenty of room for wild speculations and science fiction.

We don't even know why the Earth's core flips magnetic polarity every so often. That could be due to factors external to the Earth, or it could be due to processes within the core. We have only scratched the surface of the Crust with decades-long drilling experiments.

I agree and that, I suspect, is why it is so easy to fine contrary views on the web. The real point IMO is whether it is actually of any importance.

 

[BAYLOR]

Mars lacks a large moon instead has two very small moons, So how does it's Axis maintain stability?

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

Well, fair enough. But what a link-war really proves is that the question doesn't have a definitive answer. As to why you'd want a magnetic field, there are several potential benefits. One is the atmosphere-stripping issue-- and it's worth noting that this isn't an all-or-nothing question. The Venus example is a bit of a red herring, because Venus is also much larger than mars, and has an atmosphere consisting mostly of heavier gases. So it's not unreasonable to postulate that a smaller world like Mars would be more subject to atmospheric stripping in the absence of a protective field.

The second issue is ozone breakdown. The ozone layer is what protects us from UV, and even if we dumped a full atmosphere on Mars through some advanced technology, the lack of a field would mean no ozone layer.

Then there's the question of the solar wind simply reaching the ground without a field. That would affect biology somewhat, but would affect electronics more.

And of course, the magnetic field isn't the only consequence of an active core. Tectonic activity would also be increased. We'd prefer plate tectonics of course, instead of Venus' periodic resurfacing, but anything is better than nothing.

I think what I'm driving at is that "terraforming" Mars may consist of more than just adding air and water.

 

[tinkerdan]

My understanding is that there are still some who believe that life as we know it would not exist without the present core and the magnetosphere. In part that is because of protection by deflection of cosmic rays and that if we were to go beyond the magnetosphere the cosmic rays would bombard us with no protection so we would need to shield ourselves.

If we were to want to make mars habitable closely to the way earth is then yes the magnetosphere might be helpful.

Once we work this technology out we could always turn off ours and see what happens just to be sure we aren't wasting time and resources.

 

[BAYLOR]

My understanding is that there are still some who believe that life as we know it would not exist without the present core and the magnetosphere. In part that is because of protection by deflection of cosmic rays and that if we were to go beyond the magnetosphere the cosmic rays would bombard us with no protection so we would need to shield ourselves.

If we were to want to make mars habitable closely to the way earth is then yes the magnetosphere might be helpful.

Once we work this technology out we could always turn off ours and see what happens just to be sure we aren't wasting time and resources.

Short of trying to jumpstart the core is there any other way to generate a magnetic field sufficient to protect Mars Atmosphere? Perhaps we can come up a technology solution here?

 

[Mirannan]

Mars lacks a large moon instead has two very small moons, So how does it's Axis maintain stability?

Quite simply, it doesn't - obliquity ranges from 0 degrees to 60, most astronomers believe. Most of the way down this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

 

[ralphkern]

Short of trying to jumpstart the core is there any other way to generate a magnetic field sufficient to protect Mars Atmosphere? Perhaps we can come up a technology solution here?

Circling the planet with cabling and running electricity through it? I suspect so much power would be required that it might be easier, looking at the raw numbers just to jump start the core again, but in terms of the engineering involved, could be far simpler.

I haven't even done back of the fag packet calcs, so more than happy to stand corrected.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think for the answer we need a magnetics expert. If someone can find one let me know. I recently needed specific information about strength and the field of a rare earth magnet we have custom made from a magnetic manufacturer and they couldn't answer the simple questions.

I did manage to find this small piece of some interest.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slup123/slup123.pdf

 

[BAYLOR]

I think for the answer we need a magnetics expert. If someone can find one let me know. I recently needed specific information about strength and the field of a rare earth magnet we have custom made from a magnetic manufacturer and they couldn't answer the simple questions.

I did manage to find this small piece of some interest.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slup123/slup123.pdf

Duplicating a magnetic field of the required magnitude is a bit beyond our current technology and manufacturing capability.

 

[ralphkern]

Ha, ya think?

 

[BAYLOR]

Ha, ya think?

If possible, it would be quite feat of science , engineering and technology. Id love to see it done.