Nuke the Red Planet?

Sticknmuv · Dec 30, 2008

Hi all, hope you're having a good holiday season.So i've got this crazy idea to nuke the red planet, Mars.  I am wondering what the community at space.com thinks of this idea?  Something i'd want to observe is the average temperature of the planet, is there an increase or a decrease?  If the the planets average core temperature increases, is it enough to melt the frozen ice under the martian surface revealing lakes and rivers, is it enough to melt the ice at the poles creating oceans on the Mars surface?  If the planet's average core temperature decreases would the planet experience an ice age, if so how much of the planet becomes covered in ice?  I believe for life to begin evolving on Mars naturally, liquid water needs to be present.  The problem with Mars is that it currently resides outside of the "habitable zone" where water can sustain liquid form.  Which means it could be 100's of millions of years before Mars naturally enters the "habitable zone."  Why not attempt to kick start evolution by blasting the red planet with a nuclear missile?

MeteorWayne · Dec 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi all, hope you're having a good holiday season.So i've got this crazy idea to nuke the red planet, Mars.  I am wondering what the community at space.com thinks of this idea?  Something i'd want to observe is the average temperature of the planet, is there an increase or a decrease?  If the the planets average core temperature increases, is it enough to melt the frozen ice under the martian surface revealing lakes and rivers, is it enough to melt the ice at the poles creating oceans on the Mars surface?  If the planet's average core temperature decreases would the planet experience an ice age, if so how much of the planet becomes covered in ice?  I believe for life to begin evolving on Mars naturally, liquid water needs to be present.  The problem with Mars is that it currently resides outside of the "habitable zone" where water can sustain liquid form.  Which means it could be 100's of millions of years before Mars naturally enters the "habitable zone."  Why not attempt to kick start evolution by blasting the red planet with a nuclear missile? Posted by Sticknmuv</DIV> A nuclear missile (not that we have any to spare or a way to get one there) is far too small to have any significant effect on the overall planet or atmosphere. It might create a short blip in atmospheric density, but would have no lasting effects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Sticknmuv · Dec 30, 2008

"It might create a short blip..." Does the quote "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" apply?  Short blip or long blip, could something productive come from the nuking experiment?

neuvik · Dec 30, 2008

Any material vaporized in the explosion will just condense after it has cooled.   Unless you had a massive strike, as in complete planetary bombardment sustained over a long period of time.  Even then I doubt any carbon, water vapor and other material released from the regolith will be sufficient in quantity to provide a green house type atmosphere.   The cost of such an endeavor would also be unfeasible.     <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"It might create a short blip..." Does the quote "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" apply?  Short blip or long blip, could something productive come from the nuking experiment? Posted by Sticknmuv</DIV> Nothing I can think of, other than making part of the surface radioactive.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

abq_farside · Dec 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi all, hope you're having a good holiday season.So i've got this crazy idea to nuke the red planet, ..... Posted by Sticknmuv</DIV> Why don't we just redirect a Chicxulub size asteroid towards Mars and see what happens?  I think it was only about 6 miles wide, surely we can do that! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let who you are keep you from becoming who you want to be! </div>

thnkrx · Dec 30, 2008

Kim Stanley Robinson in his 'Mars' series proposed the controlled diversion and impact of a great many icy asteriods/comets to hit Mars over about a two hundred year period, combined with a program of plants genetically engineered (more or less) to release Oxygen into the atmosphere.  I seem to remember some folks on another site a long time ago running through the numbers on this; they seemed to think it would work: assuming you had the patience to keep it up two or three hundred years.Mars, from what I've read, actually sits just barely inside the outer edge of the Suns 'habitable zone', and also just barely makes the grade (has enough mass) to retain a breathable atmosphere.  What it lacks, if I remember right, is a magnetic field.  Don't know how to get around that one; maybe set off a bunch of nukes under the mantle???

DrRocket · Dec 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi all, hope you're having a good holiday season.So i've got this crazy idea to nuke the red planet, Mars.  I am wondering what the community at space.com thinks of this idea?  Something i'd want to observe is the average temperature of the planet, is there an increase or a decrease?  If the the planets average core temperature increases, is it enough to melt the frozen ice under the martian surface revealing lakes and rivers, is it enough to melt the ice at the poles creating oceans on the Mars surface?  If the planet's average core temperature decreases would the planet experience an ice age, if so how much of the planet becomes covered in ice?  I believe for life to begin evolving on Mars naturally, liquid water needs to be present.  The problem with Mars is that it currently resides outside of the "habitable zone" where water can sustain liquid form.  Which means it could be 100's of millions of years before Mars naturally enters the "habitable zone."  Why not attempt to kick start evolution by blasting the red planet with a nuclear missile? Posted by Sticknmuv</DIV>   1)  A HUGE nuclear explosion, 239 megatons, larger than anything every done by a factor of over 2 releases about the same energy as a magnitude 8.8 earthquake, which has little effect on temperature.2) What possible point is there to this exercise ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

3488 · Dec 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi all, hope you're having a good holiday season.So i've got this crazy idea to nuke the red planet, Mars.  I am wonderi................................ Posted by Sticknmuv</DIV>There's no point as Wayne said & also other points raised by DrRocket. You have hit upon two of the greatest obstacles to terraforming Mars.Mars has what, approx 10.7% of the Earth's mass, therfore relativly small surface gravity (37.8% of Earth's) & has no global magnetosphere to prevent atmospheric erosion from the Solar Wind. Also the volcanoes for all we know are extinct, though they could just be long term dormant, but FWIW concerning human terraforming efforts are effectively extinct. All the hype in the world surrounding this is not going to solve this. The best humans can hope for are domed pressurised cities & / or underground. Mars is like it is for a multitude of reasons. Lobbing & detonating nukes etc, at Mars is not going to turn Mars into Earth. How do you propose to reheat the Martian Core sufficiently to enable convection? The Martian core whilst appears to not be totally solid (based on rotational studies from the landers: Mars Pathfinder, both MERs & Mars Phoenix Lander), is certainly well on the way to solidification. Venus has not got a global magnetosphere either, (no convecting core) but has a vastly greater mass & gravity than Mars & in all likelyhood has frequent volcanism, so gravity overcomes much of the effects of the Solar Wind at Venus, despite being subjected to four times the pressure of the Solar Wind than Mars & has an atmosphere that is being replenished, unlike Mars. Andrew Brown.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

dragon04 · Dec 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why don't we just redirect a Chicxulub size asteroid towards Mars and see what happens?  I think it was only about 6 miles wide, surely we can do that! Posted by abq_farside</DIV>Why go to all the bother? If it doesn't break apart, Phobos will impact Mars in about 11 million years or so. Oughta be interesting. If it DOES break up, one could always just de-orbit the bigger chunks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

why06 · Jan 4, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no point as Wayne said & also other points raised by DrRocket. You have hit upon two of the greatest obstacles to terraforming Mars.Mars has what, approx 10.7% of the Earth's mass, therfore relativly small surface gravity (37.8% of Earth's) & has no global magnetosphere to prevent atmospheric erosion from the Solar Wind. Posted by 3488</DIV>If the point of this thread is to nuke a planet then Mars is as good as any. Pluas we have a lot of cameras and rovers there to observe the explosion in high definition and surround sound. However this another terraforming Mars discussion let us for a second forget logistical and technological limitation. If Mars needs a Magnetosphere why not supply it with one. A man made magneticfield the could block out neccesary cosmic ray and such. How much power would be needed. How much power does the earth use to generate its magnetic field? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 4, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the point of this thread is to nuke a planet then Mars is as good as any. Pluas we have a lot of cameras and rovers there to observe the explosion in high definition and surround sound. However this another terraforming Mars discussion let us for a second forget logistical and technological limitation. If Mars needs a Magnetosphere why not supply it with one. A man made magneticfield the could block out neccesary cosmic ray and such. How much power would be needed. How much power does the earth use to generate its magnetic field? Posted by why06</DIV>If you had that much power and technology to generate a protective magnetic field, you'd have enough to move Mars to a more hospitable orbit. There's not a significant enough dynamo to work with in Mars (that I know of.)  You'd be providing everthing necessary and if you could do that, you wouldn't need to do it in the first place.Terraforming, IMO, would only be efficient if you had to make relatively small changes.  That would mean that whatever was being terraformed would only need to be subjected to some "fine tuning."  Mars, IMO, is a little outside of the range of what I would consider "fine tuning" for all it's similarities to Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

3488 · Jan 4, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you had that much power and technology to generate a protective magnetic field, you'd have en........... Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV>Hi a_l_p, most excellent post & Happy New Year, hope you are having a good one.You too have hit upon a reason why terraforming Mars is a non starter in the usual sense. If the core of Mars could be:1). Totally remelted& 2). Getting the  newly remelted Martian core to convect (may happen naturally as the temperature re distributes, but may not, i.e Venus). Will not solve the relatively weak sunlight at that distance thus will not solve the average low temperatures (average approx -63 C) & very thin atmosphere. Mars would HAVE to be moved sunward to warm up sufficiently to make this even worth the effort.IMO terraforming Mars looks great on the Cinema screens, i.e Total Recall, but I think true science, laws of Physics & reality will prove otherwise.What you have said a_l_p reinforces my take on this. Andrew Brown.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

TPOM · Jan 4, 2009

Terraforming Mars is a subject very dear to my heart.  Many top scientists have studied the subject and there is a consensus among a group of PHD's that have studied this subject that it could be done.  It is true that mars lacks a Magnetosphere and that any atmosphere would slowly get stripped away by the solar wind.  But that process is amazingly slow.  MAJOR LOSS OF NEW ATMOSPHERE MAY TAKE CENTURIES TO OCCUR.  The problem is just making the atmosphere.  There is reason to believe that simply installing factories whose sole purpose is the production of CFC's or other greenhouse chemicals may be sufficient to bring the surface temperature to the point where the dry ice that makes up most of the Martian polar ice would sublimate.  The CO2 released at that point would start a runaway effect that could raise the pressure at the surface to as much as twice earth sea level.  this would drive the temperature well above 0 centigrade allowing liquid water.  All this could be done in less than two centuries.  Furthermore It is something we need to do, that we are destined to do.  It is something that god and nature says we have to do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Buy My Book "The Purpose of Man"www.thepurposeofman.com </div>

why06 · Jan 4, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Terraforming Mars is a subject very dear to my heart.  Many top scientists have studied the subject and there is a consensus among a group of PHD's that have studied this subject that it could be done.  It is true that mars lacks a Magnetosphere and that any atmosphere would slowly get stripped away by the solar wind.  But that process is amazingly slow.  MAJOR LOSS OF NEW ATMOSPHERE MAY TAKE CENTURIES TO OCCUR. Posted by TPOM</DIV>TPOM makes a good point. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I can say with assurance that the rate mars will lose of its atomosphere cannot be any higher than the rate mankind is currently dumping CO2 into Earth's Atomosphere by the burning of Chemical Carbon- based fuels. If you think about it it can be a win win situation. Collect our pollution and use it to create a suitable habitat on Mars.  Also I believe there is a fundamental flaw in thinking here that a magnetosphere can only be caused by the convection of an iron core.... Look @ this quote...  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You too have hit upon a reason why terraforming Mars is a non starter in the usual sense. If the core of Mars could be:1). Totally remelted& 2). Getting the  newly remelted Martian core to convect (may happen naturally as the temperature re distributes, but may not, i.e Venus).by 3488</DIV> I believe a magnetosphere should be generated by whatever primary power systems there are available. On Mars I would assume that to be its dust storms. By seeding air with iron could the natural convection of the air lead to generating a large enough magnetosphere to partially protect the planet?     PS: a very belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

marsbug · Jan 5, 2009

A nuke wouldn't be enough by a long shot. A chixilub sized impact into an area with lots of underground ice could create hydrothermal systems and crater lakes that would stay liquid for tens of thousands of years though. If your interest was seeding life rather than terraforming that could be one way to go. Plus you'd get to observe a large impact on a terrestrial planet with an atmosphere, which would be very informative.  Another way to get liquid water would be to mix the perchlorate salts in the soils near the north pole with the ice sitting beneath it.I'm not convinced about terraforming even if the technical hurdles could be overcome. Personally I find the idea of creating a uniquely martian environment more appealing.

why06 · Jan 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Personally I find the idea of creating a uniquely martian environment more appealing. Posted by marsbug</DIV>From a biological perspective I can see the interest in watching life develop in an enviroment completely unique to that of earth, but at the same time you have to realize the the benefits a low gravity and atomosphere enviroment like Mars could bestow upon the space industry, particularly in building and launching intestellar space crafts that would be a logistical nightmare to construct on earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi a_l_p, most excellent post & Happy New Year, hope you are having a good one.</DIV>So far, so good.  I spent Christmas sitting by the bed of my last living blood relation in the hospital.  She's fine, made it out and is in good health now.  But, I now remember how grueling it is to be on pins&needles sitting in a hospital from 8am-11pm for a week wondering about someone's health.  Thankfully, everything is good there atm.  (I did manage to get a bit of reading in though.  I also discovered that hospital cafeteria food is actually worse than hospital food served to patients...)Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You too have hit upon a reason why terraforming Mars is a non starter in the usual sense. </DIV>I often think that it "could" be done but would simply require technological advancements we just don't have atm.  Could we start such a project now?  Maybe.  But, it's not practical.  That's a huge amount of resources that would have to be dedicated. If we could do that, efficiently and economically, we could just build an intersolar ship and set off exploring another solar system as well.  As far as Mars terreforming, it is definitely a "non-starter" right now. I think it's probable we'll eventually figure out how to make Mars a bit more habitable.  But, it's probably not going to involve any of the methods we're thinking about using today.  Or, at the very least, it won't involve anywhere near the same degree of resources.  We could probably convert everything on Earth towards terraforming Mars right now and maybe, just maybe, get something useable in a few centuries.  Or, we could simply do what we're doing, live there comfortably in our own protected environments and learn to "craw before we run" in regards to terraforming.  By the time we move towards terraforming, we'll be exploring other solar systems, IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

franontanaya · Jan 6, 2009

Occam's razor, people. Occam's razor.Trapping sunlight heat -> aerosols, life, artificial water tables with floors painted black.Managing radiation -> More kilometers of atmosphere (you get that with the lower gravity if you keep 1 atm at the surface, look at Titan), a vegetable cover, shielded buildings, rad-resistant species (you don't need to shield the whole planet!), shorter shifts outside of the city.Water -> There's lots of it there. And you don't want to create natural bodies of water that get salty, that's a waste.Atmospheric loss -> A warmed martian crust is going to release tons of gas at first, and then life is going to digest some more. Balancing the atmospheric composition would be a bigger worry (if we could get a real atmosphere to start with). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 6, 2009

One ought not to confuse good, entertaining science fiction with real science and real engineering. We have no idea what terraforming is beyond some vague concepts in science fiction novels, which define and end product (Earth-like) but provide NO definition whatever of the process involved. Not a clue.  Not the slightest idea. Our understanding of ecology is at the level of beads and rattles with respect to the interactions among the flora, fauna, chemistry and physics of the Earth.  We have NO idea what is required to make an alien planet inhabitable.  None.  Nada. Nyet.We don't have the lift and propulsion capability necessary to mount a manned expedition to Mars for even one astronaut.  Placing a HUGE amount of machinery on the surface of Mars is simply not within our capabilities now or in the forseeable future.  We don't even have a reasonable concept of how to do perform transport on such a scale.  Zero. Zed. If we had the propulsion capability, we still have NO IDEA what we would want to transport to Mars.  No concept of the principles, processes, or machinery necessary to establish an inhabitable environment on Mars. None.  Nada. Zilch.We have no reason to colonize Mars, unless one wanted to make it an exile for discredited (hence all) politicians.  Now that might be a good reason, but why despoil Mars, when Pluto is available ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ZenGalacticore · Jan 7, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A nuclear missile (not that we have any to spare or a way to get one there) is far too small to have any significant effect on the overall planet or atmosphere. It might create a short blip in atmospheric density, but would have no lasting effects. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> We have plenty of nuclear warheads to spare, and we know how to get them there. But one, or even a thousand nuclear warheads, wouldn't budge the orbit of Mars. (One out of three aint bad Wayne.)

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ZenGalacticore </div>

dragon04 · Jan 7, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have plenty of nuclear warheads to spare, and we know how to get them there. But one, or even a thousand nuclear warheads, wouldn't budge the orbit of Mars. (One out of three aint bad Wayne.)

Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV>We just need to hook a really long hose from Venus to Mars. Venus has too much atmosphere and Mars not enough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

why06 · Jan 7, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We just need to hook a really long hose from Venus to Mars. Venus has too much atmosphere and Mars not enough. Posted by dragon04</DIV>This has to be the first good idea i've heard this year. How come no1 else thought of that?<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

crazyeddie · Jan 7, 2009

Kim Stanley Robinson in his 'Mars' series proposed the controlled diversion and impact of a great many icy asteriods/comets to hit Mars over about a two hundred year period, combined with a program of plants genetically engineered (more or less) to release Oxygen into the atmosphere.  I seem to remember some folks on another site a long time ago running through the numbers on this; they seemed to think it would work: assuming you had the patience to keep it up two or three hundred years Nuclear bombs were also used in his epic on terraforming to melt permafrost.  Hundreds of hydrogen bombs were buried deep underground and exploded, all over Vastitas Borealis, creating a thermal pulse underneath the frozen aquifers, which melted, and the water was then pumped up onto the surface with oil rig-type derricks to form the Northern Ocean.  It's the only practical use for "nuking" the Red Planet I can think of. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jan 7, 2009

It's getting very Stranglovian... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Nuke the Red Planet?

Sticknmuv

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Sticknmuv

Guest

neuvik

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

abq_farside

Guest

thnkrx

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

3488

Guest

dragon04

Guest

why06

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

3488

Guest

TPOM

Guest

why06

Guest

marsbug

Guest

why06

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

franontanaya

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

ZenGalacticore

Guest

dragon04

Guest

why06

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page