<strong><font size="2">This thread caught my eye sometime back. Nuke the Red Planet? Okay, here are my brief thoughts. Remember that I am the only genuine, bonafide, honest-to-God scientist out here so I will explain this in layman's terms: </font><font size="5">Have you lost your mind?!! </font><font size="2">In the early '60s the U.S. Air Force proposed nuking the Moon. Seriously. Why? Because we <em>could</em>. I live in south Florida, victim of some nasty hurricanes these past few years... and in decades past in my experience. Of course we wonder how science can provide a solution, and sooner or later someone will ask "Why don't they just drop a hydrogen bomb in the middle of a hurricane?" Answer: If you do that then you will have one helluva radioactive hurricane! Nuke Mars? Mars needs heat to sustain life because it is too far away from the sun. Nuking will just screw up an already sadly screwed up planet.</font></strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p>Mars is actually like a frozen little care package for future humans. Sooner or later, the Sun will become so luminous that we can't live on Earth.</p><p>Long before that, Mars will heat up as the Sun becomes more luminous and all that lovely frozen water and CO2 will be liberated. Then we can go up there and go sbout maing greenhouse gases if we remember how. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
<p><font size="3"><em>Nuke the Red Planet?</em></font></p><p><img src="http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/funny-pictures/Yankee-go-home-Mars.jpg" border="0" alt="yankee go home mars " width="520" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nuke the Red Planet? <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br /><strong><font size="2">Good one, friend Boris!</font></strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nuke the Red Planet? <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>That picture is just perfect.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Oh, ye of little faith. Here's Robert Zubrin's examination of the problem; http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm</p><p>he suggests that icy objects in orbit near Uranus or Neptune could be diverted fairly easily towards Mars, mostly because the Sun's gravity out there is fairly weak. These objects would make very large impacts on Mars; the energy of the impacts alone should be enough to melt large portions of the ice on and below that planet's surface.</p><p>How long would it take to lose the atmosphere of a terraformed Mars? I've heard estimates of millions of years to as much as a billion. Martyn Fogg has some useful equations for this; unfortunately the lack of any magnetic field introduces a variable into the mix, which makes it impossible to figure exactly how long the atmosphere would last.</p><p>My suggestion is that in the long run we could create an artificial magnetosphere, using solar powered superconducing loops in space; the total energy of a magnetic field is large, but not impossible to reproduce. That is, if we want to keep the atmosphere for more than a few tens or hundreds of millions of years- a lot can happen in that period of time.</p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, ye of little faith. Here's Robert Zubrin's examination of the problem; http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htmhe suggests that icy objects in orbit near Uranus or Neptune could be diverted fairly easily towards Mars, mostly because the Sun's gravity out there is fairly weak. These objects would make very large impacts on Mars; the energy of the impacts alone should be enough to melt large portions of the ice on and below that planet's surface.<br /> Posted by eburacum45</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Yeah... And I think the unspoken weakness in Zubrin's argument is that using massive impactors is not going to allow men to BE on Mars for a very long time after the impact(s). He refers to 40 such impacts. I see no profit in such an idea. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yeah... And I think the unspoken weakness in Zubrin's argument is that using massive impactors is not going to allow men to BE on Mars for a very long time after the impact(s). He refers to 40 such impacts. I see no profit in such an idea. <br />Posted by dragon04</DIV><br /><br />Not to mention if you missed and one of the impactors hit the next planet inward 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the point of this thread is to nuke a planet then Mars is as good as any. Plus 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 magnetic field the could block out necessary cosmic ray and such. How much power would be needed. How much power does the earth use to generate its magnetic field? <br />Posted by why06</DIV><br /><br />Surely we can produce a puny magnetic field with mid temperature super conductors very large scale. The cost would be huge and protection perhaps negligible. We can also send extra sunlight to Mars with statite mirrors somewhat like a solar sail. This is likely as effective as all of Earth's present nuclear arsenal, which would warm Mars perhaps 1/2 degree c = 0.9 degrees f for 3 years. We can build chemical factories on Mars to release artificial green house gas. All four would likely leave Mars with too little atmosphere and not warm enough for robust photosynthesis. We need to do lots of things very large scale, very long term to terraform Mars. Ask again about 2050, we may have some fresh ideas. Neil
<p><font size="3">Gee, what a LOUSY idea. Let's not nuke Mars until we know its dead. We have no idea yet whether there are live microbes underground. Based on the methane in the atmosphere, there is some evidence for a SMALL amount of microbe life (I know Silyene there are other non-biological hypothesis). Let's make sure the planet is truly dead, before we kill it. This is an especially lousy idea, because the best targets for nukes (icey places) are also the most likely spots for existant life. We already risk ending (intelligent) life on this planet by nukes, let's not go out of our way to end life on another planet.</font></p>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gee, what a LOUSY idea. Let's not nuke Mars until we know its dead. We have no idea yet whether there are live microbes underground. Based on the methane in the atmosphere, there is some evidence for a SMALL amount of microbe life (I know Silyene there are other non-biological hypothesis). Let's make sure the planet is truly dead, before we kill it. This is an especially lousy idea, because the best targets for nukes (icey places) are also the most likely spots for existant life. We already risk ending (intelligent) life on this planet by nukes, let's not go out of our way to end life on another planet. <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br />Well said! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gee, what a LOUSY idea. Let's not nuke Mars until we know its dead. We have no idea yet whether there are live microbes underground. Based on the methane in the atmosphere, there is some evidence for a SMALL amount of microbe life (I know Silyene there are other non-biological hypothesis). Let's make sure the planet is truly dead, before we kill it. This is an especially lousy idea, because the best targets for nukes (icey places) are also the most likely spots for existant life. We already risk ending (intelligent) life on this planet by nukes, let's not go out of our way to end life on another planet. <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br />Yep, I agree... well said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>
<p>Ok. So after a few hundred years of exploring Mars, let's say we find no life, no microbes. Then directing asteroids and comets to Mars in order to terra-form it becomes a better idea, right? The comets would ADD extra water and mass, and the asteroids would ADD mass and valuable minerals, all increasing the hydrosphere of the planet and increasing its overall mass and density and therefore gravity. Sounds like fun to me. </p><p>But yeah, we better not miss. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div><p>Mars ain't going to be like Earth, nor there is any need to. A terraformed planet is just a planet made to be plagued by roaming humans that find it easier to own a piece of land (and even worse, to fence it!) than to give it a good use for the rest of the humanity.</p><p>A good Mars, and a more likely, cheaper and peaceful one, will be a not very different Mars where some fit plants and organisms can thrive, while we live together under the same sealed roofs and learn to value the resources we have. Those that wouldn't get used to a more civil style of life than that of our primitive resource-gatherer ancestors would still have the old, original, genuine, 100% Earth-like (minus pollution) Earth.</p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p> </p><p>
</p><p>There was a powerful faction in Robinsons 'Mars' epic that expresed a very similiar view. Eventually, the other people went right on and terraformed the planet anyways.</p>
<p>One of the several things I dont understand about this notion of turning mars into a green house, let alone a glowing-radioactive-green house:</p><p>If mars was warm with a thick C02 atmosphere and lots of liquid water, wouldnt any life just go wild and eat the atmosphere, sequesturing it and causing mars to freeze?</p><p>I was wondering if that could of happened; if a single microbe from earth could have turned mars into an ice cube overnight, geologically speaking.</p><p> </p>
</p><p>A glowing radioactive greenhouse doesn't really benefit anybody. Using nukes (as proposed by Robinson) to thaw out the aquafer and maybe see about reigniting the core is something else. But what the OP proposed would just turn a dead wasteland into a dead radioactive wasteland).</p><p>
</p><p>Nope. The critters in question - Algae, actually, though other microscopic critters could work as well, I suppose, along with plants) would take in CO2 - but they would also put out oxygen. So first you nuke the aquafers and drop some icy asteriods at selected locations, then you drop off lots and lots of Algae, turning all that water green with scum. Very overly simply put. And this whole process takes something on the order of several centuries.</p>
<p>Earlier last year I was thinking,if a large asteroid were to hit Mars it could jump start the planet by hitting up its core. A large asteroid could also release gases (if any) from deep beneath Mars surface that could create an atmoshere to hold in more sunlight. Could this be possible?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Earlier last year I was thinking,if a large asteroid were to hit Mars it could jump start the planet by hitting up its core. A large asteroid could also release gases (if any) from deep beneath Mars surface that could create an atmoshere to hold in more sunlight. Could this be possible? <br />Posted by theodoric</DIV><br /><br />An asteroid impact large enough to heat (I assume that's what you meant) up the core would destroy the planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<font size="3">Not really related to the thread, but it is related to your last post. While looking for things that might impact earth, it would seem that the search would also include things that might impact mars. Are there hazard scales like the Palermo scale for martian impacts? If so (and if you know), what is the current highest probability impact for Mars with a large body, say > 50 meters?</font>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not really related to the thread, but it is related to your last post. While looking for things that might impact earth, it would seem that the search would also include things that might impact mars. Are there hazard scales like the Palermo scale for martian impacts? If so (and if you know), what is the current highest probability impact for Mars with a large body, say > 50 meters? <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2"><font size="2">This</font> might help.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This might help. <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><font size="3">That is helpful, but my question is a little different. When a large object is found and its orbit is computed, along with predicting its likelihood of impacting earth, do they also predict the likelihood of it impacting Mars, or another planet for that matter?</font></p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not really related to the thread, but it is related to your last post. While looking for things that might impact earth, it would seem that the search would also include things that might impact mars. Are there hazard scales like the Palermo scale for martian impacts? If so (and if you know), what is the current highest probability impact for Mars with a large body, say > 50 meters? <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br />I've never hear of anyone who does this automaticall such as the JPL Sentry or NEODys calculations for earth.</p><p>At the NEODyS web page:</p><p>http://131.114.72.13/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo</p><p>if you look at individual objects it gives a list of close approaches to earth and other planets, but AFAIK, no one regularly runs the calculations. Here's an example...</p><p><u><font color="#810081">http://131.114.72.13/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2001WN5;main</font></u>http://131.114.72.13/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
How about we forget Mars and head to the asteroid belt. Lots of materials there. Maybe we could even just start throwing the useless ones at Mars. Over a bloody long time it might even end up a bit larger and closer to the Sun.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram