Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
planetary.org
Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#2The article says so many things are explained about Mars, but now I am wondering why the same thing didn't happen to Earth's magnetic field, if there was a giant impactor, and why Mars doesn't have a large moon, if it had a giant impactor.
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#3The article says so many things are explained about Mars , but now I am wondering why the same thing didn't happen to Earth's magnetic field, if there was a giant impactor, and why Mars doesn't have a large moon, if it had a giant impactor.
The article explains the size differences very well.
And it mentions that mars' impactor only remelted half the surface, while earth's impactor melted the entire surface of the planet. Which is supposedly why earth's magnetic field stayed axially dipolar.
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#4Does this indicate that half of mars has useful enough magnetism to shield it from solar radiation for human habitation purposes? (I honestly don't know the answer or how to discern it from google).
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#5The article says so many things are explained about Mars , but now I am wondering why the same thing didn't happen to Earth's magnetic field, if there was a giant impactor, and why Mars doesn't have a large moon, if it had a giant impactor.
The article explains the size differences very well. And it mentions that mars' impactor only remelted half the surface, while earth's impactor melted the entire surface of the planet. Which is supposedly why earth's magnetic field stayed axially dipolar.
From what I've read, the size, speed, and angle of whatever hit the earth is not settled. But if we know that, as you say, half of Mars was melted, while all of Earth was melted, then that should put constraints on how the impacts differed, which is what I was curious about and is not part of the article.
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#6Everyone knows that terraformers are on the orther side bro
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#7Does this indicate that half of mars has useful enough magnetism to shield it from solar radiation for human habitation purposes? (I honestly don't know the answer or how to discern it from google).
The field is only 2.5% of Earth's. That's way too weak, I suspect.
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#8Does this indicate that half of mars has useful enough magnetism to shield it from solar radiation for human habitation purposes? (I honestly don't know the answer or how to discern it from google).
The field is only 2.5% of Earth's. That's way too weak, I suspect.
Might as well be living on the moon.
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#9Does this indicate that half of mars has useful enough magnetism to shield it from solar radiation for human habitation purposes? (I honestly don't know the answer or how to discern it from google).
The field is only 2.5% of Earth's. That's way too weak, I suspect.
Thanks for the reply. Any idea if it is even a meaningfully better neighborhood magnetically than the northern hemisphere?
Re: Why is only half of Mars magnetized?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article explains the size differences very well. And it mentions that mars' impactor only remelted half the surface, while earth's impactor melted the entire surface of the planet. Which is supposedly why earth's magnetic field stayed axially dipolar.
From what I've read, the size, speed, and angle of whatever hit the earth is not settled. But if we know that, as you say, half of Mars was melted, while all of Earth was melted, then that should put constraints on how the impacts differed, which is what I was curious about and is not part of the article.
Without knowing all that much, I know that Earth was much more massive than Mars even before Theia impacted. I assume with the extra energy available, it would be much more likely to melt all the crust. Also, our plate tectonics is still going on, so any evidence of a thin area of crust would be erased by now.