Mars Glaciers; Enough Water Ice On Mars To Cover The Whole Planet 1 Meter Deep

How long before Nestle stake claim on the water?

Hello ATS, I have to say this is a very interesting topic. So, say that we decide to terraform mars? And we start producing an atmosphere. technically wouldn't that be counterintuitive seeing that Mars lacks a magnetic field?

a reply to: gabe71886

I agree it would be counterproductive, it would be like just throwing those resources into space wouldn't it?

Maybe biosphere dome type structures using the water for power generation. It is/would be hugely helpful having freely available water because having to try to eke it out of a sterile landscape would be much harder, and we certainly couldn't take it with us right?

originally posted by: gabe71886
Hello ATS, I have to say this is a very interesting topic. So, say that we decide to terraform mars? And we start producing an atmosphere. technically wouldn't that be counterintuitive seeing that Mars lacks a magnetic field?

Not really.

The thing about Mars's atmosphere being lost due to the lack of a magnetic field is often simplified way too much.

The Sun more magnetically active at that time. It was spinning faster, creating a more powerful magnetic field that barraged the Mars surface with charged particles and UV radiation that was 200 times stronger than it is today. That played a huge role in stripping Mars of it's atmosphere. The lack of a magnetic field made Mars vulnerable but a more active Sun is what really did the damage.

The Sun as it is today is not nearly as active as it was then.

In addition Mars started out with a thicker atmosphere than it had, it could have weathered that early magnetically active period a lot better and would be doing just fine right now. It would still be losing an atmosphere but it would not have lost most of it.


As I stated before, Mars, Earth and Venus are all losing their atmosphere today at about the same rate.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JadeStar

Also we know that Mars once looked similar to that picture because there a mountain of evidence for ancient seas, rivers, bays, lakes, etc in the form of geology.

But just as readily could have been caused by rivers of liquid methane, ammonia and CO2 flowing out from the heat of a huge impacting meteorite.

Nope. That would look quite a bit different. Additionally liquid methane and ammonia would not exist in a liquid form for long under the temperature where Mars exists.

Mars is cold but not that cold.

We know it was water. That's not a subject of debate. The water on Mars was "persistent" as in lasting far longer than such impact outflow would. We're talking a billion year time scale or more. It's was there long enough to form minerals which only form with water present.

Also the geology seen is formed due to long term erosion, not flash flooding which again, to a planetologist looks much different.

Same evidence of "river channels" exists on the moon.

And those are quite different than what we see on Mars for the most part.

Sure, dry river beds and sediment layers, but rivers of what?

Water. There's plenty of evidence for it because our robotic surrogates on the planet have already sampled minerals which only form in the presence of water, standing water, rushing water, etc.

a reply to: JadeStar

Additionally liquid methane and ammonia would not exist in a liquid form for long under the temperature where Mars exists.

My point is it might (flow, crash and pool) around the dynamics of a large impactor. In fact how many theories surround the blue berries littering the surface? On earth these are caused by water, but on mars they are different composition possibly related to impacts by meteorites…

When groundwater flows through porous rocks, hematite spheres emerge from a chemical reaction causing iron minerals to precipitate into tiny spherules.
The theory suggested that water flowed on Mars in ancient eons.

article

So then precipitated from some liquid activity, is my guess. But not water.

a reply to: JadeStar

Replying twice…

Not like the moon? What made this?

originally posted by: gabe71886
Hello ATS, I have to say this is a very interesting topic. So, say that we decide to terraform mars? And we start producing an atmosphere. technically wouldn't that be counterintuitive seeing that Mars lacks a magnetic field?

originally posted by: JadeStar

Not really.

The thing about Mars's atmosphere being lost due to the lack of a magnetic field is often simplified way too much.

The Sun more magnetically active at that time. It was spinning faster, creating a more powerful magnetic field that barraged the Mars surface with charged particles and UV radiation that was 200 times stronger than it is today. That played a huge role in stripping Mars of it's atmosphere. The lack of a magnetic field made Mars vulnerable but a more active Sun is what really did the damage.

The Sun as it is today is not nearly as active as it was then.

In addition Mars started out with a thicker atmosphere than it had, it could have weathered that early magnetically active period a lot better and would be doing just fine right now. It would still be losing an atmosphere but it would not have lost most of it.


As I stated before, Mars, Earth and Venus are all losing their atmosphere today at about the same rate.

Ok, however, your still not considering the fact that Mars haves no magnetic field. As you stated "Mars, Earth, and Venus are all losing their atmosphere today at about the same rate." Where's your proof of this? I ask because, considering that Mars does not have a magnetic field, technically, it would shed its atmosphere at a faster rate than Earth. Also, Venus really doesn't have a magnetic field, or have a dynamo at its core to produce one ( a dynamo requires three things: a conducting liquid, rotation, and convection). There's a plethora of issues that come with terraforming a planet that needs to be considered, Especially when it comes to Mars. Here's some literature on the subject.

www.science20.com...

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: gabe71886

originally posted by: gabe71886
Hello ATS, I have to say this is a very interesting topic. So, say that we decide to terraform mars? And we start producing an atmosphere. technically wouldn't that be counterintuitive seeing that Mars lacks a magnetic field?

originally posted by: JadeStar

Not really.

The thing about Mars's atmosphere being lost due to the lack of a magnetic field is often simplified way too much.

The Sun more magnetically active at that time. It was spinning faster, creating a more powerful magnetic field that barraged the Mars surface with charged particles and UV radiation that was 200 times stronger than it is today. That played a huge role in stripping Mars of it's atmosphere. The lack of a magnetic field made Mars vulnerable but a more active Sun is what really did the damage.

The Sun as it is today is not nearly as active as it was then.

In addition Mars started out with a thicker atmosphere than it had, it could have weathered that early magnetically active period a lot better and would be doing just fine right now. It would still be losing an atmosphere but it would not have lost most of it.


As I stated before, Mars, Earth and Venus are all losing their atmosphere today at about the same rate.

Ok, however, your still not considering the fact that Mars haves no magnetic field. As you stated "Mars, Earth, and Venus are all losing their atmosphere today at about the same rate." Where's your proof of this? I ask because, considering that Mars does not have a magnetic field, technically, it would shed its atmosphere at a faster rate than Earth. Also, Venus really doesn't have a magnetic field, or have a dynamo at its core to produce one ( a dynamo requires three things: a conducting liquid, rotation, and convection).

There's more to shedding an atmosphere than simply the lack of a magnetic field.

One has to look at proximity and strength of solar particles and UV at Venus, Earth and Mars as well as the very different composition of all three planet's atmospheres.

As for my proof that they are all losing their atmosphere at roughly the same rate....


ESA's Mars Express mission recently measured loss rates of a few grams per second for several ion species on Mars. This is about the same as the ion loss on Earth, which might seem surprising considering that Earth has a strong magnetic field for deflecting the solar wind. A recent calculation found the loss rate of neutral oxygen atoms should be about 100 times greater than the ion loss measured by Mars Express. Taking this as their baseline, the researchers estimate that Mars could have lost a 10-meter-deep layer of water from its surface over the last 3.5 billion years.

ESA's Venus Express mission took similar measurements.

See Astrobiology Magazine: Comparing Mars and Venus

Here's excerpt from an article on Space.com which states pretty much the same thing:

Space.com:How Vital Is a Planet's Magnetic Field? New Debate Rises

Our nearest planetary neighbors, Mars and Venus, have no oceans or lakes or rivers. Some researchers have speculated that they were blown dry by the solar wind, and that our Earth escaped this fate because its strong magnetic field deflects the wind. However, a debate has arisen over whether a magnetic field is any kind of shield at all.

The controversy stems from recent observations that show Mars and Venus are losing oxygen ions from their atmospheres into space at about the same rate as Earth. This came as something of a surprise, since only Earth has a strong dipolar magnetic field that can prevent solar wind particles from slamming into the upper atmosphere and directly stripping away ions.

Atmospheres are complex things and the solar flux is also a complex thing which has evolved over time. If you want to learn more about how they affect the escape of an atmosphere this Wiki page should help Wikipedia: Atmospheric Escape

By the way, studying the loss of Mars's atmosphere and its atmospheric history is also the primary mission of NASA's MAVEN spacecraft which arrived at Mars earlier this year.

Took you long enough to get done though...
a reply to: gortex

Mars has liquid water at the present time:

phys.org...