Mars Lost Its Magnetic Field – and Then Its Oceans

Re:Mars Lost Its Magnetic Field – and Then Its Oceans by aeternum on Sunday October 29, 2023 @06:09PM (#38063338)

Seems like redundancy could solve this. Instead of a single huge magnet you create a constellation of smaller magnets with aligned fields that orbit the LaGrange point.

We're decent at tracking large space rocks, and small space rocks will likely have to be dealt with anyway since some occur randomly.

It's somewhat interesting that terrorism already isn't such a problem for huge skyscrapers. Skyscrapers can be destroyed with just a small fraction of the explosive energy required to launch an orbital rocket yet it rarely happens.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mars Lost Its Magnetic Field – and Then Its Oceans by natpalmer1776 on Sunday October 29, 2023 @06:51PM (#38063636)

Your last paragraph is an excellent point that highlights the likely risk factor by using existing infrastructure as an example.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mars Lost Its Magnetic Field – and Then Its Oceans by Yizahi on Monday October 30, 2023 @07:37AM (#38068126)

Skyscraper are not a good or a primary target. Why bother with a tower if the same number of people can be hit easier on a surface - a demonstration, Sunday market, transportation hub etc. Also I suspect that a lot of conventional explosives is needed to topple one, and it also requires to have a specific faults. You need at least half a ton of explosives to maybe do something (basing on the amounts russia uses in their ballistic missiles against cities), and that is not guaranteed.

[ Parent | on HN ]