NASA: Sun stripping away Martian atmosphere, left dry planet

[webfact]

NASA: Sun stripping away Martian atmosphere, left dry planet
By MARCIA DUNN

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — NASA's Mars-orbiting Maven spacecraft has discovered that the sun likely robbed the red planet of its once-thick atmosphere and water.

On Thursday, scientists reported that even today, the solar wind is stripping away about 100 grams of atmospheric gas every second. That's about a quarter-pound a second lost to the stream of charged particles shooting away from the sun at 1 million mph (1.61 million kph).

Big solar storms traveling at twice that speed increase the escape rate by 10 to 20 times — and more. Because of their prevalence billions of years ago, these storms would have been enough to gut the atmosphere of ancient Mars and transform it from a moist, warm place potentially capable of microscopic life to the cold, dry desert of today.

"I can't help but imagine hamburgers flying out of the Martian atmosphere, one per second," Maven scientist Dave Brain told reporters with a smile. "It's instead oxygen and carbon dioxide that are leaving the planet, which are important both for water and for the climate of the planet overall."

These latest Mars findings by robotic scouts such as Maven are a key part of NASA's push to send human explorers to the red planet in the 2030s. Just over a month ago, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter revealed evidence of salt water trickling down Martian slopes, at least in the summer. NASA's next mission begins in March with the launch of another orbiting explorer.

Principal scientist Bruce Jakosky and his team reported that during massive solar ejections of gas in March, the spacecraft noticed oxygen ions were flung higher into the atmosphere than expected. At the same time, streams of fast-moving magnetic activity shot 3,100 miles out into space.

That led the researchers to conclude Mars' atmospheric decline may have been driven in large part by major solar events such as this, early in the planet's history.

The atmosphere likely would have disappeared over a period of a few hundred-millions years. Mars no longer has a global magnetic field, but when it did 4 billion years ago, that would have prevented this wholesale loss of atmosphere, the researchers said. Earth's strong magnetic field seals in our own atmosphere, preventing direct erosion by the solar wind.

Jakosky said further analysis will allow scientists to better define the atmospheric escape rate of ancient Mars. In any event, given the current loss, the existing thin atmosphere would be gone in another few billions of years, he noted, although the gas is also locked up in the polar caps and in the subsurface.

Jakosky and Brain work at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Their findings appear in this week's Science journal. The issue includes four studies conducted by the spacecraft, which has been circling Mars and studying its atmosphere for the past year. Maven, about the size of a school bus, was launched from Cape Canaveral in 2013.

Maven also was able to observe a Martian aurora thought to be in the same category as Earth's northern lights. Researchers suspect the remnant magnetic field of Mars' crust is driving the auroras.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-06

[arjunadawn]

Is it valid? Does it make sense? Anyone? Anyone? ("Bueller? Bueller?") The premise seems valid but what is the message induced?

The message, for idiots, is that we are losing a lot of hamburgers (you really cant make this sort of patronizing up). Are we? Is earth losing its hamburgers?

In one year we will have lost roughly 1,693,440,000 hamburgers (grm/sec). Based on the data provided, Earth is inexorably losing hamburgers and although not suggested,

it will exponentially lose greater amounts over time until... So, what is wrong with this story?

No where in this very official sounding drivel have they mentioned atmospheric replacement rate. O2 CO2 are intimately related to oxidation, photosynthesis, sulfur, O3, and other natural processes which, when not calculated, give the buffoonish image of hamburgers flying off to space (This might have worked for lil Bobby at bedtime but it sounds foolish in print). The OP 1/2 achieves its explanation regarding Mars but Earth is still alive and populated, a living, dynamic organism, and failure to close the loop on the premise offered- hamburgers flying into space- you leave readers presuming earth will turn into mars; this is intentional. You have to intentionally avoid the replacement rate with such a story. It is hardly an accident.

Its intentionally faulty logic. Moreover, were it not part of the entire fiasco of NASA and other government agencies fraudulently selling a political scheme packaged as fear-mongering it may have been chalked up to editorial oversight. But it is part of a daily NASA drain on intellectual standards and word meaning. (Ex.1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20762-scientists-launch-investigation-into-climate-data-adjustments)

Edited November 6, 2015 by arjunadawn

[FangFerang]

No magnetosphere may be why we have not found life yet.

[FangFerang]

Is it valid? Does it make sense? Anyone? Anyone? ("Bueller? Bueller?") The premise seems valid but what is the message induced?

The message, for idiots, is that we are losing a lot of hamburgers (you really cant make this sort of patronizing up). Are we? Is earth losing its hamburgers?

In one year we will have lost roughly 1,693,440,000 hamburgers (grm/sec). Based on the data provided, Earth is inexorably losing hamburgers and although not suggested,

it will exponentially lose greater amounts over time until... So, what is wrong with this story?

No where in this very official sounding drivel have they mentioned atmospheric replacement rate. O2 CO2 are intimately related to oxidation, photosynthesis, sulfur, O3, and other natural processes which, when not calculated, give the buffoonish image of hamburgers flying off to space (This might have worked for lil Bobby at bedtime but it sounds foolish in print). The OP 1/2 achieves its explanation regarding Mars but Earth is still alive and populated, a living, dynamic organism, and failure to close the loop on the premise offered- hamburgers flying into space- you leave readers presuming earth will turn into mars; this is intentional. You have to intentionally avoid the replacement rate with such a story. It is hardly an accident.

Its intentionally faulty logic. Moreover, were it not part of the entire fiasco of NASA and other government agencies fraudulently selling a political scheme packaged as fear-mongering it may have been chalked up to editorial oversight. But it is part of a daily NASA drain on intellectual standards and word meaning. (Ex.1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20762-scientists-launch-investigation-into-climate-data-adjustments)

Wow. I'm not impressed.

[Mudcrab]

If it happened to Mars, which sounded very Earthlike at one stage....why didn't it happened to us at a similar point in time? Mars had a magnetic field...where did it go?

Some very strange things mentioned in the OP. Not all make sense.

Why not just say we started off on Venus but the runaway greenhouse effect of our own causation made us leave.

This made us go to Mars, where we did it again but used all the water so we had to leave yet again and ended up on Earth which was quite attractive...a Garden of Eden in fact.

And that's where we all originated.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mudcrab

[Mudcrab]

If it happened to Mars, which sounded very Earthlike at one stage....why didn't it happened to us at a similar point in time? Mars had a magnetic field...where did it go?

Some very strange things mentioned in the OP. Not all make sense.

Why not just say we started off on Venus but the runaway greenhouse effect of our own causation made us leave.

This made us go to Mars, where we did it again but used all the water so we had to leave yet again and ended up on Earth which was quite attractive...a Garden of Eden in fact.

And that's where we all originated.

Could write a book about this.

Let me think....how could I start the yarn...need something punchy and attention grabbing.....'first we were stuffed it'......nah......'then we moved'.....nope...i know......'let there be light!'...that's got a nice ring to it.

Could be a best seller.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mudcrab

[Dustdevil]

Is it valid? Does it make sense? Anyone? Anyone? ("Bueller? Bueller?") The premise seems valid but what is the message induced?

The message, for idiots, is that we are losing a lot of hamburgers (you really cant make this sort of patronizing up). Are we? Is earth losing its hamburgers?

In one year we will have lost roughly 1,693,440,000 hamburgers (grm/sec). Based on the data provided, Earth is inexorably losing hamburgers and although not suggested,

it will exponentially lose greater amounts over time until... So, what is wrong with this story?

No where in this very official sounding drivel have they mentioned atmospheric replacement rate. O2 CO2 are intimately related to oxidation, photosynthesis, sulfur, O3, and other natural processes which, when not calculated, give the buffoonish image of hamburgers flying off to space (This might have worked for lil Bobby at bedtime but it sounds foolish in print). The OP 1/2 achieves its explanation regarding Mars but Earth is still alive and populated, a living, dynamic organism, and failure to close the loop on the premise offered- hamburgers flying into space- you leave readers presuming earth will turn into mars; this is intentional. You have to intentionally avoid the replacement rate with such a story. It is hardly an accident.

Its intentionally faulty logic. Moreover, were it not part of the entire fiasco of NASA and other government agencies fraudulently selling a political scheme packaged as fear-mongering it may have been chalked up to editorial oversight. But it is part of a daily NASA drain on intellectual standards and word meaning. (Ex.1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20762-scientists-launch-investigation-into-climate-data-adjustments)

You must be one of those who believe the six moon landings were faked.

[ableguy]

Is it valid? Does it make sense? Anyone? Anyone? ("Bueller? Bueller?") The premise seems valid but what is the message induced?

The message, for idiots, is that we are losing a lot of hamburgers (you really cant make this sort of patronizing up). Are we? Is earth losing its hamburgers?

In one year we will have lost roughly 1,693,440,000 hamburgers (grm/sec). Based on the data provided, Earth is inexorably losing hamburgers and although not suggested,

it will exponentially lose greater amounts over time until... So, what is wrong with this story?

No where in this very official sounding drivel have they mentioned atmospheric replacement rate. O2 CO2 are intimately related to oxidation, photosynthesis, sulfur, O3, and other natural processes which, when not calculated, give the buffoonish image of hamburgers flying off to space (This might have worked for lil Bobby at bedtime but it sounds foolish in print). The OP 1/2 achieves its explanation regarding Mars but Earth is still alive and populated, a living, dynamic organism, and failure to close the loop on the premise offered- hamburgers flying into space- you leave readers presuming earth will turn into mars; this is intentional. You have to intentionally avoid the replacement rate with such a story. It is hardly an accident.

Its intentionally faulty logic. Moreover, were it not part of the entire fiasco of NASA and other government agencies fraudulently selling a political scheme packaged as fear-mongering it may have been chalked up to editorial oversight. But it is part of a daily NASA drain on intellectual standards and word meaning. (Ex.1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html [url=http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20762-scientists-launch-investigation-into-climate-data-adjustments)]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20762-scientists-launch-investigation-into-climate-data-adjustments)[/ur

Go back to sleep.