Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.astro > #59740 > unrolled thread

NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home

Back to article view | Back to sci.astro

Contents

  NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-08 07:42 -0500
    Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home S Ergio <invlid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-08 08:16 -0600
      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-03-08 06:21 -0800
      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-08 11:40 -0500
        Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home S Ergio <invlid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-08 11:51 -0600
          Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-08 22:44 -0500
            Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second  home The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-08 23:36 -0800
              Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second  home The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-09 10:07 -0800
            Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home S Ergio <invlid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-09 08:47 -0600
              Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home "Rodney Pont" <mlist4@infohit.me.uk> - 2017-03-09 16:21 +0000
                Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home S Ergio <invlid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-09 10:50 -0600
                  Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home "Rodney Pont" <mlist4@infohit.me.uk> - 2017-03-09 19:04 +0000
                    Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home S Ergio <invlid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-09 15:31 -0600
                      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home "Rodney Pont" <mlist4@infohit.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 05:43 +0000
                      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 01:42 -0500
              Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 21:37 -0500
                Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home "Rodney Pont" <mlist4@infohit.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 05:38 +0000
                  Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 01:51 -0500
                    Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home "Rodney Pont" <mlist4@infohit.me.uk> - 2017-03-10 07:21 +0000
                      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 08:24 -0500
                        Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-03-10 06:37 -0800
                          Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-11 15:58 -0500
                            Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-03-11 18:09 -0800
                              Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 01:13 -0400
                                Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-03-13 07:14 -0700
                                  Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-15 23:41 -0400
                                    Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-03-16 07:25 -0700
                                      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-18 04:10 -0400
                                        Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2017-03-18 09:05 -0700
                                          Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-19 20:41 -0400
      Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Dr J R Stockton <reply1700@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2017-03-11 21:54 +0000
        Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-12 11:52 -0500
    Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-08 10:38 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#59740 — NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home

http://www.zdnet.com/article/nasa-proposes-artificial-magnetic-field-to-make-mars-a-second-home/

> However, researchers have proposed a way to make Mars more habitable -- by creating an artificial magnetic field to reduce radiation levels.
>
> To combat some of the main barriers to sending humans to Mars, as reported by Universe Today, last week, NASA hosted a discussion and presentation group called the Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop.
>
> At the event, scientists and researchers discussed the future possibilities of space exploration, and during one talk, NASA Planetary Science Division Director Dr. Jim Green proposed ways to deploy a magnetic shield around the planet which could act as a barrier to radiation and reduce the need for extreme protective equipment.
>
> The proposal (.PDF) relies on the theory that over four billion years ago, the planet's magnetic field vanished, turning the planet from a warm, wet environment to a dry husk. Without returning some kind of magnetic field to Mars, this situation will not change.
>
> Green proposes that by placing a magnetic dipole shield at the Mars L1 Lagrange Point, a man-made magnetosphere sphere would cradle the entire planet.
>
> The team says that previous tests in lab conditions suggest that inflatable structures could potentially generate a magnetic dipole field at a level of perhaps 1 or 2 Tesla, protecting against both radiation and solar winds.
>
> In addition, such a field could result in Mars' atmosphere thickening over time, creating a greenhouse effect which could increase the planet's surface temperature by up to four degrees and melt northern polar ice caps.
>
> While Green admits the idea is somewhat "fanciful," the scientists insist that it is not outside the realm of possibility, and could assist in the future exploration of the planet.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59741

On 3/8/2017 6:42 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/nasa-proposes-artificial-magnetic-field-to-make-mars-a-second-home/
>
>
>> However, researchers have proposed a way to make Mars more habitable
>> -- by creating an artificial magnetic field to reduce radiation levels.
>>
>> To combat some of the main barriers to sending humans to Mars, as
>> reported by Universe Today, last week, NASA hosted a discussion and
>> presentation group called the Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop.

>> At the event, scientists and researchers discussed the future
>> possibilities of space exploration, and during one talk, NASA
>> Planetary Science Division Director Dr. Jim Green proposed ways to
>> deploy a magnetic shield around the planet which could act as a
>> barrier to radiation and reduce the need for extreme protective
>> equipment.
>>
>> The proposal (.PDF) relies on the theory that over four billion years
>> ago, the planet's magnetic field vanished, turning the planet from a
>> warm, wet environment to a dry husk. Without returning some kind of
>> magnetic field to Mars, this situation will not change.
>>
>> Green proposes that by placing a magnetic dipole shield at the Mars L1
>> Lagrange Point, a man-made magnetosphere sphere would cradle the
>> entire planet.

how far away is Mars L1 Lagrange Point from Mars ?

about 141,000,000 miles.

how does magnetic field strength decline with distance ?

1/d^2  ?

so you need a magnet of at least 2*10^16 telsa ? ?


why not just put it on the surface ? by the way, you will have to water 
cool it too.

extra credit questions;

1. how much water is needed to cool magnet that generates a 1 T field 
100,000 miles away. (how is this water stored?)

2. how much electricity in megawatts is required to run magnet, then to 
pump water.

3. what % of partials will be deflected away and outside a 100 mile zone 
on the surface around the magnet? (assume 98% speed of light)

4. What type of partials will be hardly by magnet ?




>>
>> While Green admits the idea is somewhat "fanciful,"

this dude works at NASA ???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59742

Dear S Ergio:

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7:16:41 AM UTC-7, S Ergio wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 6:42 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/article/nasa-proposes-artificial-magnetic-field-to-make-mars-a-second-home/
...
> >> While Green admits the idea is somewhat "fanciful,"
> 
> this dude works at NASA ???

So did/does the inventor of the Alcubierre drive...

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59743

On 3/8/2017 9:16 AM, S Ergio wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 6:42 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/nasa-proposes-artificial-magnetic-field-to-make-mars-a-second-home/
>>
>
> how far away is Mars L1 Lagrange Point from Mars ?
>
> about 141,000,000 miles.

You're completely wrong. You can be sure that you're completely wrong 
because that distance is greater than the distance between the Earth and 
the Sun! The distance you came up with is the distance between the Sun 
and Mars.

The L1 point for Mars is actually about 655,000 miles, or about 1 
million kilometers.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lagrange+point+Mars+Sun

> how does magnetic field strength decline with distance ?
>
> 1/d^2  ?
>
> so you need a magnet of at least 2*10^16 telsa ? ?

Earth's magnetic field at the surface is only 54 microteslas. The 
devices they are talking about are about 1 or 2 teslas, which should be 
enough to protect Mars.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=strength+of+Earth%27s+magnetic+field

> why not just put it on the surface ? by the way, you will have to water
> cool it too.

On the surface, you'd need multiple devices. In orbit, only need the one.

The power source is likely to be the Sun, through solar panels. Cooling 
through radiators into space.

>>> While Green admits the idea is somewhat "fanciful,"
>
> this dude works at NASA ???

Why not? You've certainly shown that you don't know what you're talking 
about.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59744

On 3/8/2017 10:40 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 9:16 AM, S Ergio wrote:
>> On 3/8/2017 6:42 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/nasa-proposes-artificial-magnetic-field-to-make-mars-a-second-home/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> how far away is Mars L1 Lagrange Point from Mars ?
>>
>> about 141,000,000 miles.
>
> You're completely wrong. You can be sure that you're completely wrong
> because that distance is greater than the distance between the Earth and
> the Sun! The distance you came up with is the distance between the Sun
> and Mars.
>
> The L1 point for Mars is actually about 655,000 miles, or about 1
> million kilometers.
>
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lagrange+point+Mars+Sun
>
>> how does magnetic field strength decline with distance ?
>>
>> 1/d^2  ?
>>
>> so you need a magnet of at least 2*10^16 telsa ? ?
>
> Earth's magnetic field at the surface is only 54 microteslas. The
> devices they are talking about are about 1 or 2 teslas, which should be
> enough to protect Mars.
>
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=strength+of+Earth%27s+magnetic+field
>
>> why not just put it on the surface ? by the way, you will have to water
>> cool it too.
>
> On the surface, you'd need multiple devices. In orbit, only need the one.
>
> The power source is likely to be the Sun, through solar panels. Cooling
> through radiators into space.

for small energy useage.

>
>>>> While Green admits the idea is somewhat "fanciful,"
>>
>> this dude works at NASA ???
>
> Why not? You've certainly shown that you don't know what you're talking
> about.
>
>     Yousuf Khan

thanks for the info,

that dude should have provided the numbers to back himself up, back of 
the envelope should do.


so how much is the field 655,000 miles away from a one T source ?

how much fuel on board with the sattilite need to compensate for pushing 
particals around?

Gamma rays are not deflected and come in at full strength to the ground, 
on earth the atmosphere protects us from 95% of them. so how much gamma 
can a crew take ? a year or two ?

and again, to cosmic rays, at what angle can they be deflected  from 
orgional their path, using a magnetic field, is it only 1 or 2 degrees ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59746

On 3/8/2017 12:51 PM, S Ergio wrote:
> thanks for the info,
>
> that dude should have provided the numbers to back himself up, back of
> the envelope should do.

I'm sure he has, this is just a popular science article which summarizes 
his proposal, and gives you an idea about what some scientists have come 
up with. It's up to you to go see his original proposal paper, if you 
want more details.

> so how much is the field 655,000 miles away from a one T source ?

Actually the magnetic field strength drops away by a factor of inverse 
cubed not inverse squared. But it really doesn't matter how strong the 
magnetic field is at the surface of Mars, just so long as it's ahead of 
Mars and it produces a large enough bow shock pattern, similar to how 
the bow shock pattern is produced ahead of Earth, diverting the solar 
wind away from Earth.

> how much fuel on board with the sattilite need to compensate for pushing
> particals around?

Don't know, perhaps they'll find a clever way to use the magnetic field 
itself as a propulsion tool to keep it stable in the L1?

> Gamma rays are not deflected and come in at full strength to the ground,
> on earth the atmosphere protects us from 95% of them. so how much gamma
> can a crew take ? a year or two ?

The magnetic field doesn't protect against any kind of EM radiation, no 
matter what. All it protects against is the solar winds. This in turn 
creates a shield of the upper atmosphere to protect against the high 
energy photons from penetrating into the lower atmosphere.

Fortunately, gamma rays are usually an uncommon type of photons in the 
universe, as most of the gamma rays occur inside the cores of stars 
during nuclear fusion, and they all get diffused into lower energy 
photons by the time they exit the star's photosphere. Most sources of 
raw gamma rays are things such as supernovas and quasars, and those are 
very directional in their nature. Another advantage is that these 
sources of gamma rays are also pretty distant.

> and again, to cosmic rays, at what angle can they be deflected  from
> orgional their path, using a magnetic field, is it only 1 or 2 degrees ?

Earth's magnetic field doesn't stop cosmic rays either, they tend to hit 
the Earth relatively unopposed. Again fortunately due to the fact that 
cosmic rays are high energy particles produced by supernovas and active 
galactic nuclei, they are relatively rare. Most of the cosmic rays are 
diverted by the Sun's magnetic field rather than any single planet's 
(though Jupiter's might be strong enough to divert some too).

Most cosmic rays are travelling at relativistic speeds, so no puny 
magnetic field short of a magnetar is going to do much to divert any 
cosmic rays. We used to use cosmic ray showers in the atmosphere to 
detect new particles, prior to the advent of supercolliders.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59747 — Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> On 3/8/2017 12:51 PM, S Ergio wrote:
> > thanks for the info,
> >
> > that dude should have provided the numbers to back himself up, back of
> > the envelope should do.
> 
> I'm sure he has, this is just a popular science article which summarizes
> his proposal, and gives you an idea about what some scientists have come
> up with. It's up to you to go see his original proposal paper, if you
> want more details.
> 
> > so how much is the field 655,000 miles away from a one T source ?
> 
> Actually the magnetic field strength drops away by a factor of inverse
> cubed not inverse squared. But it really doesn't matter how strong the
> magnetic field is at the surface of Mars, just so long as it's ahead of
> Mars and it produces a large enough bow shock pattern, similar to how
> the bow shock pattern is produced ahead of Earth, diverting the solar
> wind away from Earth.
> 
> > how much fuel on board with the sattilite need to compensate for pushing
> > particals around?
> 
> Don't know, perhaps they'll find a clever way to use the magnetic field
> itself as a propulsion tool to keep it stable in the L1?
> 
> > Gamma rays are not deflected and come in at full strength to the ground,
> > on earth the atmosphere protects us from 95% of them. so how much gamma
> > can a crew take ? a year or two ?
> 
> The magnetic field doesn't protect against any kind of EM radiation, no
> matter what. All it protects against is the solar winds. This in turn
> creates a shield of the upper atmosphere to protect against the high
> energy photons from penetrating into the lower atmosphere.
> 
> Fortunately, gamma rays are usually an uncommon type of photons in the
> universe, as most of the gamma rays occur inside the cores of stars
> during nuclear fusion, and they all get diffused into lower energy
> photons by the time they exit the star's photosphere. Most sources of
> raw gamma rays are things such as supernovas and quasars, and those are
> very directional in their nature. Another advantage is that these
> sources of gamma rays are also pretty distant.
> 
> > and again, to cosmic rays, at what angle can they be deflected  from
> > orgional their path, using a magnetic field, is it only 1 or 2 degrees ?
> 
> Earth's magnetic field doesn't stop cosmic rays either, they tend to hit
> the Earth relatively unopposed. Again fortunately due to the fact that
> cosmic rays are high energy particles produced by supernovas and active
> galactic nuclei, they are relatively rare. Most of the cosmic rays are
> diverted by the Sun's magnetic field rather than any single planet's
> (though Jupiter's might be strong enough to divert some too).
> 
> Most cosmic rays are travelling at relativistic speeds, so no puny
> magnetic field short of a magnetar is going to do much to divert any
> cosmic rays. We used to use cosmic ray showers in the atmosphere to
> detect new particles, prior to the advent of supercolliders.



"This may sound “fanciful” but new research is starting 
to emerge revealing that a miniature magnetsphere can 
be used to protect humans
and spacecraft."



He could at least learn how to spel....magnetsphere.
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/8250.pdf



fan·ci·ful
'fans?f?l/
adjective
adjective: fanciful

    (of a person or their thoughts and ideas) overimaginative and unrealistic.



At least he's honest about his thinking...unrealstic.



Put him in charge of ...NASA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59753 — Re: NASA proposes artificial magnetic field to make Mars a second home

john wrote:
> 
> Just build the Space Elevator right
> out to Mars and plug in.

That sounds like a great...proposes!


but don't you want to dig a hole first?

i proposes
to dig a hole
through the earth
to make an elevator
to China, then
keeping building 
to Mars.

would i end up upside down in China? or are they upside down??

how do i get to Mars right side up???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59750

On 3/8/2017 9:44 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 12:51 PM, S Ergio wrote:
>> thanks for the info,
>>
>> that dude should have provided the numbers to back himself up, back of
>> the envelope should do.
>
> I'm sure he has, this is just a popular science article which summarizes
> his proposal, and gives you an idea about what some scientists have come
> up with. It's up to you to go see his original proposal paper, if you
> want more details.
>
>> so how much is the field 655,000 miles away from a one T source ?
>
> Actually the magnetic field strength drops away by a factor of inverse
> cubed not inverse squared.

so it is far weaker than d^(-2),
for a rough order of magnitude, compair 1 mile out vs 655,000 miles out
1/(655000)^3  = 3.56 * 10^(-18)

so if the source could generate a 1 T field a mile away, then 655,000 
miles away the field is 3.56 E-18, so the generator has no field on Mars.



> But it really doesn't matter how strong the
> magnetic field is at the surface of Mars, just so long as it's ahead of
> Mars and it produces a large enough bow shock pattern, similar to how
> the bow shock pattern is produced ahead of Earth, diverting the solar
> wind away from Earth.

but the L1 is not in the path of Sun to Mars, where particles go. It is 
at L1 way out of the way, 60 degrees off.
diagram here;
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/lagrangp.htm

>
>> how much fuel on board with the sattilite need to compensate for pushing
>> particals around?
>
> Don't know, perhaps they'll find a clever way to use the magnetic field
> itself as a propulsion tool to keep it stable in the L1?

nothing to push aginst.   one has to eject mass.

>
>> Gamma rays are not deflected and come in at full strength to the ground,
>> on earth the atmosphere protects us from 95% of them. so how much gamma
>> can a crew take ? a year or two ?
>
> The magnetic field doesn't protect against any kind of EM radiation, no
> matter what. All it protects against is the solar winds. This in turn
> creates a shield of the upper atmosphere to protect against the high
> energy photons from penetrating into the lower atmosphere.

No such shield on Mars, need a lot of atmosphere, on earth yes, [that is 
why we are able to live on the surface of earth, atmosphere blocks most 
gammas]

>
> Fortunately, gamma rays are usually an uncommon type of photons in the
> universe, as most of the gamma rays occur inside the cores of stars
> during nuclear fusion, and they all get diffused into lower energy
> photons by the time they exit the star's photosphere. Most sources of
> raw gamma rays are things such as supernovas and quasars, and those are
> very directional in their nature. Another advantage is that these
> sources of gamma rays are also pretty distant.

the sun emits gamma, and being distant does not make them weaker,

I havent found gamma ray radiation levels in space yet, there is a lot 
of data NASA has already but they make it very hard to find;

"Measuring Space Radiation Between the Earth
and Mars
As the Mars Odyssey spacecraft made its way to Mars between
April and October 2001, the Mars radiation environment
experiment (MARIE) measured the amounts and kinds of space
radiation the spacecraft encountered along the way. These data
are essential to understanding how much and what kinds of
radiation future space travelers might encounter on a long trip
to explore the red planet.
Now in orbit around Mars, MARIE continues to measure the
amount of harmful radiation at the planet itself. Unlike Earth,
Mars does not have a global magnetic field to shield it from
solar flares and cosmic rays. Mars’ atmosphere is also less
than one percent as thick as the Earth’s. These two factors
make Mars very vulnerable to space radiation.
Aboard the International Space Station and in our own solar
system, NASA researchers continue to quantify the amounts
of space radiation our explorers face every day and will face
in the future. Understanding space radiation will not only protect
the crew currently aboard the International Space Station, but
those first humans who will continue the exploration of our
solar system."

>
>> and again, to cosmic rays, at what angle can they be deflected  from
>> orgional their path, using a magnetic field, is it only 1 or 2 degrees ?
>
> Earth's magnetic field doesn't stop cosmic rays either, they tend to hit
> the Earth relatively unopposed.

they get changed, typically they smash into the atmosphere and cause 
partical showers, into thousands of less energetic particals, and hit 
the surface as a disk shape a few hundred meters across and about 1 or 2 
meters thick.

> Again fortunately due to the fact that
> cosmic rays are high energy particles produced by supernovas and active
> galactic nuclei, they are relatively rare.

sun makes a lot of them for local use, sun spots etc

> Most of the cosmic rays are
> diverted by the Sun's magnetic field rather than any single planet's
> (though Jupiter's might be strong enough to divert some too).

"diverted" only means the ray's path was changed, not that the partical 
went away.
and the ray travels so fast a local magnetic field has little time to 
affect change

>
> Most cosmic rays are travelling at relativistic speeds, so no puny
> magnetic field short of a magnetar is going to do much to divert any
> cosmic rays. We used to use cosmic ray showers in the atmosphere to
> detect new particles, prior to the advent of supercolliders.

yep.  with a PMT, some plastic, and Oscope you can detect them coming 
in. (all bought off ebay)

so there are some questionable points that NASA guy's idea still has.
I think he moved it from the surface, because the path would not be long 
enough to effect change, and moving to L1 is good for stability of 
orbit, but not for diverting particals in path from sun, then the loss 
infield strength...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59751

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:47:55 -0600, S Ergio wrote:

>but the L1 is not in the path of Sun to Mars, where particles go. It is 
>at L1 way out of the way, 60 degrees off.
>diagram here;
>http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/lagrangp.htm

According to Wikipedia L1 is between Mars and the Sun;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrangian_points

and I thought L1 was always the one between the two bodies.

-- 
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59752

On 3/9/2017 10:21 AM, Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:47:55 -0600, S Ergio wrote:
>
>> but the L1 is not in the path of Sun to Mars, where particles go. It is
>> at L1 way out of the way, 60 degrees off.
>> diagram here;
>> http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/lagrangp.htm
>
> According to Wikipedia L1 is between Mars and the Sun;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_objects_at_Lagrangian_points
>
> and I thought L1 was always the one between the two bodies.
>

you are right, guess I was thinking L4 or L5,

[I make mistake, first of the year, that I know of...]


L1 would be effective

mars is 92,900,000 miles from the sun and L1 was stated as 655,000 miles 
out, or 0.7% of the way.

if you double the effective radius from L1, the magnetic field, the 
partical would be exposed to the mag field for about 7 seconds from the sun.

I think the magnetic field drops off as d^(-3) nearby L1, but is d^(-2) 
after a ways out.

the other problem is a magnetic field generator at L1, will alter paths 
of sun generated cosmic rays, charged particals, but will they be 
deflected away from Mars, or focus them on mars, or have little effect. 
think of orentation of the field to incoming particals, seems like it 
would need to be like earths, NS out of the galactic plane



some information here too
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/FAQs6.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59754

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:50:41 -0600, S Ergio wrote:

>mars is 92,900,000 miles from the sun and L1 was stated as 655,000 miles 
>out, or 0.7% of the way.

You're over 50 million miles short with that figure, that's about the
93 million miles Earth is from the sun. Are you getting these from
memory or a dubious source?

-- 
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59756

On 3/9/2017 1:04 PM, Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:50:41 -0600, S Ergio wrote:
>
>> mars is 92,900,000 miles from the sun and L1 was stated as 655,000 miles
>> out, or 0.7% of the way.
>
> You're over 50 million miles short with that figure, that's about the
> 93 million miles Earth is from the sun. Are you getting these from
> memory or a dubious source?
>

picked it from some website, and they are wrong,

is that my second mistake for this year ?  Oh no!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59761

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:31:54 -0600, S Ergio wrote:

>>> mars is 92,900,000 miles from the sun and L1 was stated as 655,000 miles
>>> out, or 0.7% of the way.
>>
>> You're over 50 million miles short with that figure, that's about the
>> 93 million miles Earth is from the sun. Are you getting these from
>> memory or a dubious source?
>>
>
>picked it from some website, and they are wrong,
>
>is that my second mistake for this year ?  Oh no!

I'm not keeping a count but two basic errors in the one thread is some
going. Perhaps you could notify your source website(s) :-)

-- 
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59762

On 3/9/2017 4:31 PM, S Ergio wrote:
> picked it from some website, and they are wrong,
>
> is that my second mistake for this year ?  Oh no!

That's at least your 3rd mistake, just in this thread alone. Where are 
you picking your sources of information from?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59759

On 3/9/2017 9:47 AM, S Ergio wrote:
> On 3/8/2017 9:44 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 3/8/2017 12:51 PM, S Ergio wrote:
>>> thanks for the info,
>>>
>>> that dude should have provided the numbers to back himself up, back of
>>> the envelope should do.
>>
>> I'm sure he has, this is just a popular science article which summarizes
>> his proposal, and gives you an idea about what some scientists have come
>> up with. It's up to you to go see his original proposal paper, if you
>> want more details.
>>
>>> so how much is the field 655,000 miles away from a one T source ?
>>
>> Actually the magnetic field strength drops away by a factor of inverse
>> cubed not inverse squared.
>
> so it is far weaker than d^(-2),
> for a rough order of magnitude, compair 1 mile out vs 655,000 miles out
> 1/(655000)^3  = 3.56 * 10^(-18)
>
> so if the source could generate a 1 T field a mile away, then 655,000
> miles away the field is 3.56 E-18, so the generator has no field on Mars.
>
>
>
>> But it really doesn't matter how strong the
>> magnetic field is at the surface of Mars, just so long as it's ahead of
>> Mars and it produces a large enough bow shock pattern, similar to how
>> the bow shock pattern is produced ahead of Earth, diverting the solar
>> wind away from Earth.
>
> but the L1 is not in the path of Sun to Mars, where particles go. It is
> at L1 way out of the way, 60 degrees off.
> diagram here;
> http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/lagrangp.htm

That diagram appears to be wrong, it has the L1 and L2 reversed. Other 
sources show the L1 is directly between the planet and the Sun.

http://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html

>>> how much fuel on board with the sattilite need to compensate for pushing
>>> particals around?
>>
>> Don't know, perhaps they'll find a clever way to use the magnetic field
>> itself as a propulsion tool to keep it stable in the L1?
>
> nothing to push aginst.   one has to eject mass.

Push against the solar wind. If Earth sailors found clever sail designs 
to sail against the atmospheric wind hundreds of years ago, I'm sure the 
same principles can work against the solar wind.

And who knows, maybe NASA will have completely proven that the EMDRIVE 
works by then too, and then there's another way to keep stuff in orbit 
properly. We are talking in the distant future for all of this stuff, 
after all. :-)


>>> Gamma rays are not deflected and come in at full strength to the ground,
>>> on earth the atmosphere protects us from 95% of them. so how much gamma
>>> can a crew take ? a year or two ?
>>
>> The magnetic field doesn't protect against any kind of EM radiation, no
>> matter what. All it protects against is the solar winds. This in turn
>> creates a shield of the upper atmosphere to protect against the high
>> energy photons from penetrating into the lower atmosphere.
>
> No such shield on Mars, need a lot of atmosphere, on earth yes, [that is
> why we are able to live on the surface of earth, atmosphere blocks most
> gammas]

Exactly, the Martian atmosphere is so depleted that we couldn't even get 
it to protect us against high-energy photons. So somehow, if we're going 
to terraform Mars, we are going to have put the magnetic shield up to 
give the atmosphere a fighting chance to thicken up, and then we have to 
thicken it up. If we thicken it, without a magnetic shield, it's just 
going to thin out again.

>> Fortunately, gamma rays are usually an uncommon type of photons in the
>> universe, as most of the gamma rays occur inside the cores of stars
>> during nuclear fusion, and they all get diffused into lower energy
>> photons by the time they exit the star's photosphere. Most sources of
>> raw gamma rays are things such as supernovas and quasars, and those are
>> very directional in their nature. Another advantage is that these
>> sources of gamma rays are also pretty distant.
>
> the sun emits gamma, and being distant does not make them weaker,

The Sun emits a small amount of gamma, it mainly emits in the visible 
part of the spectrum, especially in the green part of it. Thus we've 
evolved to see in the optical ranges. If we grew up on a red dwarf, we'd 
evolve to see in the infrared and red part of the spectrum.

By and large, the gamma radiation produced in the core gets bounced 
around inside the core and the radiative layers, until it's been reduced 
down to at worst UV. 99% of the radiation coming from the Sun is in the 
UV, visible, and IR ranges. The remaining 1% is whatever else you have.

http://uv.biospherical.com/student/page3.html

And of course, distance makes radiation weaker, you pointed to it 
yourself, its intensity goes down by the square of distance. Gamma Ray 
Bursts are aimed directly at the Earth, that's why we see them as GRB's, 
otherwise we'd see them only as supernovas. But due to their distance 
from us, their gamma rays have little effect on us. If the GRB's were 
within a few thousand light-years of us and aimed directly at us, then 
we'd be in trouble.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/effective-destructive-range-of-supernovae.312925/


>>> and again, to cosmic rays, at what angle can they be deflected  from
>>> orgional their path, using a magnetic field, is it only 1 or 2 degrees ?
>>
>> Earth's magnetic field doesn't stop cosmic rays either, they tend to hit
>> the Earth relatively unopposed.
>
> they get changed, typically they smash into the atmosphere and cause
> partical showers, into thousands of less energetic particals, and hit
> the surface as a disk shape a few hundred meters across and about 1 or 2
> meters thick.

They can hit anywhere, it's just that the atmosphere is the first thing 
in their path. Some have been known to penetrate to the ground, hence 
the reason they try to put neutrino detectors deep underground to avoid 
detecting cosmic rays.

>> Again fortunately due to the fact that
>> cosmic rays are high energy particles produced by supernovas and active
>> galactic nuclei, they are relatively rare.
>
> sun makes a lot of them for local use, sun spots etc

Cosmic rays are interstellar, relativistic, and originate out of 
blackholes and supernovas. The Sun makes solar winds out of the same 
materials (protons and electrons), and they are sub-relativistic.

> so there are some questionable points that NASA guy's idea still has.
> I think he moved it from the surface, because the path would not be long
> enough to effect change, and moving to L1 is good for stability of
> orbit, but not for diverting particals in path from sun, then the loss
> infield strength...

As stated previously, the L1 is the one in the path of the Sun. So it 
will divert solar winds away from the planet behind it.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59760

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:37:48 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

>Push against the solar wind. If Earth sailors found clever sail designs 
>to sail against the atmospheric wind hundreds of years ago, I'm sure the 
>same principles can work against the solar wind.

Isn't this the ideal application of that magnetic scoop to collect
particles and an ion drive to keep it in position?

-- 
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59763

On 3/10/2017 12:38 AM, Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:37:48 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Push against the solar wind. If Earth sailors found clever sail designs
>> to sail against the atmospheric wind hundreds of years ago, I'm sure the
>> same principles can work against the solar wind.
>
> Isn't this the ideal application of that magnetic scoop to collect
> particles and an ion drive to keep it in position?

Even an ion drive will eventually run out of propellant. Then either you 
go up to refuel the ion drive, or just make it a disposable spacecraft, 
and when one runs out of fuel, you replace it with another one. Wasteful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59764

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 01:51:59 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

>>> Push against the solar wind. If Earth sailors found clever sail designs
>>> to sail against the atmospheric wind hundreds of years ago, I'm sure the
>>> same principles can work against the solar wind.
>>
>> Isn't this the ideal application of that magnetic scoop to collect
>> particles and an ion drive to keep it in position?
>
>Even an ion drive will eventually run out of propellant. Then either you 
>go up to refuel the ion drive, or just make it a disposable spacecraft, 
>and when one runs out of fuel, you replace it with another one. Wasteful.

That's why I suggested the scoop, to collect more propellant. I'm sure
I've seen a proposed spacecraft with a huge magnetic scoop collecting
particles to fuel the ion drive.

-- 
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59768

On 3/10/2017 2:21 AM, Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 01:51:59 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> Isn't this the ideal application of that magnetic scoop to collect
>>> particles and an ion drive to keep it in position?
>>
>> Even an ion drive will eventually run out of propellant. Then either you
>> go up to refuel the ion drive, or just make it a disposable spacecraft,
>> and when one runs out of fuel, you replace it with another one. Wasteful.
>
> That's why I suggested the scoop, to collect more propellant. I'm sure
> I've seen a proposed spacecraft with a huge magnetic scoop collecting
> particles to fuel the ion drive.

The propellant ions used are not just any old ions, such as hydrogen 
ions, they are usually more massive ions like Xenon. More mass produces 
more thrust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

However, I wonder if a large enough magnetic ring can be used like an 
ion thruster, only using the solar wind particles, rather than Xenon? 
Not only could they use the magnetic field to divert the solar winds 
away from the planet, they could also use it as thrust to keep the orbit 
stable at the L1 point.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.astro

csiph-web