Nuke the Red Planet?

neilsox · Feb 5, 2009

Several percent of the total mass of the asteroid belt would need to land on Mars to increase the mass of Mars by 1% and the diameter of Mars by 0.22%. Even carefully timed and aimed impacts would move Mars closer to the Sun by a tiny amount. I do however believe humans will live below the surface of asteroids within a few decades, if Earth recovers from the present ecconomic down turn.  Neil

kelvinzero · Feb 6, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Several percent of the total mass of the asteroid belt would need to land on Mars to increase the mass of Mars by 1% and the diameter of Mars by 0.22%. Even carefully timed and aimed impacts would move Mars closer to the Sun by a tiny amount. I do however believe humans will live below the surface of asteroids within a few decades, if Earth recovers from the present ecconomic down turn.  Neil Posted by neilsox</DIV> I would argue very strongly that 'this economic downturn', 'this war', 'this global warming', 'this energy crisis' should never be used as an argument to slow space developments.<ul><li>Investment in space is only something like 1%. You cannot solve any significant problems by diverting this money.</li><li>This money pays the salaries of people and industries who took a decade or more to develop their abilities. You cut this money off and the factories get dismantled or used for other purposes. You sack your best and brightest every time the economy swings by a few percent and they will take their skills elsewhere.</li><li>Space is probably the only long term way to truely ace any of those problems I listed.</li></ul>

Vojta · Feb 7, 2009

I thought about this a while back and came up with an idea.  I you went to the asteroid belt and found a large enough metallic rock and got it into Martian orbit all you would have to do is wait a long time.  The gravitational tide caused by the asteroid might be enough to restart the core.  Sort of like the moons around Jupiter.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 7, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I thought about this a while back and came up with an idea.  I you went to the asteroid belt and found a large enough metallic rock and got it into Martian orbit all you would have to do is wait a long time.  The gravitational tide caused by the asteroid might be enough to restart the core.  Sort of like the moons around Jupiter.   Posted by Vojta</DIV> Such an asteroid would need to be a substantial percentage of the mass of Mars. None exist. In any case, it is unlikely even a huge one would lead to melting of Mars' core. At best it might cause near surface melting.In any case, if you are suggesting recreating a dynamo to create a magnetic field, that would not work. The dynamo is caused by convection either created by a huge thermal difference or a phase change. Neither would work in the core from an orbiting object. It's too late for Mars. <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>

kelvinzero · Feb 7, 2009

Hi MeteorWayne,It may not be practical, but wouldnt a very large object in a lowish mars orbit do all those things? I mean the tidal forces would create great heat, which could escape the surface but not the core, and also work to change the rotational speed of mars, affecting the mantle more than the  core and thus encouraging a different speed of rotation.

MeteorWayne · Feb 7, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi MeteorWayne,It may not be practical, but wouldnt a very large object in a lowish mars orbit do all those things? I mean the tidal forces would create great heat, which could escape the surface but not the core, and also work to change the rotational speed of mars, affecting the mantle more than the  core and thus encouraging a different speed of rotation. Posted by kelvinzero</DIV> It's just not realistic. The closest object in solar orbit is Pluto, with only 2% of the mass of Mars. Far too small to have any substantial effect even if you could move it there.Ceres, the largest main belt asteroid is FAR less massive, a bit more than 0.1% of the mass of Mars. <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>

kelvinzero · Feb 7, 2009

Lets see,First you devour Mercury with a swarm of von neumann solar butterflies, then you program them to all flock off to mars. Easy!No I agree it is probably not realistic.  The effort people will go to - nuking planets, slamming them with asteroids - to avoid just building a decent roof

MeteorWayne · Feb 7, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lets see,First you devour Mercury with a swarm of von neumann solar butterflies, then you program them to all flock off to mars. Easy!No I agree it is probably not realistic.  The effort people will go to - nuking planets, slamming them with asteroids - to avoid just building a decent roof

Posted by kelvinzero</DIV> Or taking care of our planet for the next few billion years until the sun becomes a real pain in the sky.... <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>

crazyeddie · Feb 9, 2009

Replying to: <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?  Posted by theodoric</DIV>I think a better use of asteroids would be to try to thicken the atmosphere of Mars by sending small, icy ones into trajectories that bring them in slowly on courses that just graze the atmosphere, so they burn up and release their water and gases just before impacting the surface.  This plan would be much more manageable than diverting large, massive asteroids, and it wouldn't tear up the surface of the planet as much. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gfreetek · Feb 16, 2009

Fortunately, I wrote my dissertation on "...The Application of Desert Reclaimation Techniques To Ecopoiesis On Mars," so have studied the subject in depth. 'Ecopoiesis' is a 'softer' term for terraforming, meaning the 'making of a home,' without the invasive, transformative connotations of terraforming. Ecopoiesis supports the notion of protected, enclosed habitats, e.g. underground and/or dome-covered compounds, protected from the existing conditions of Mars, so that the presence of settlements would have a minimal impact on Mars itself."Nuking Mars," in addition to having a negligible and short term effect on global surface temperatures (most of the thermal energy released is as a radiant flash, very little would be absorbed by the crust, and would cool rapidly) would result in massive clouds of lethally irradiated dust being kicked up into the atmosphere, probably covering Mars in a radioactive dust storm that would filter out the already scant sunlight, plunging temperatures at the surface even lower, and presenting any would-be future inhabitants with a less than desirable top-soil to grow their Martian crops in, should said radioactive dust storm ever settle.Furthermore, any interest in visiting Mars would most likely be scientific, with teams of geologists (soon to be areologists) eager to study rock formations in the Martian landscape. Not much to study if you blew it up....And, as pointed out, there might actually be something living there already! Even if there isn't, why deny future generations the pleasure of trying to find the elusive "Loch Mars Monster?"The "loss of atmosphere," some people seem concerned with is a combined function of Mars' low gravity and incident sunlight, which very gradually depletes the water vapour in the atmosphere of hydrogen atoms; incoming photons 'knock' the atoms at the upper limits of Mars' atmosphere out in to space. The rest of the atmosphere is quite safe. The only other 'atmospheric loss' is through chemical weathering of the regolith, but this is not a loss to space, only to the ground; life cycles or processing could potentially release such gases back into the atmosphere again.One unaccounted for benefit of impacting the surface of Mars, be it with nukes, icy or metallic asteroids, is outgassing; a hard enough strike against the crust would vapourise gas-forming elements from the weathered regolith and breach to the Martian mantle, releasing further atmospheric elements in a similar way to vulcanism here on Earth. Since Mars no longer has vulcanism, die-hard terraformers might wish to consider a program of impact outgassing to replenish atmospheric elements and raise overall air pressure (and therefore surface temperature). Rather than randomly peppering the surface with redirected asteroids or comets, which would represent a considerable hazard to anyone on the surface, an exhaustively studied and remote site of little further geological interest could be selected as a repetitive outgassing target, and an orbital railgun could be used to accurately impact this target with metallic projectiles formed from mined asteroids or materials acquired from surface mining operations (William Gibson gave me this idea in one of his cyberpunk novels - "Mona Lisa Overdrive," I think...?).The Martian atmosphere is thin - around 6 millibars, depending on the season, but comprised mostly of carbon dioxide, so that there is roughly the same amount of CO2 in Mars' and Earth's atmospheres. Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, so converting the available CO2 to oxygen via photosynthesis would result in further cooling at the surface of Mars. Adding atmospheric elements, e.g. nitrogen, water vapour (also a greenhouse gas) or oxygen not sourced from the existing CO2, and thereby raising the atmospheric pressure, would lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect of the existing CO2, which becomes more effective at higher pressures, leading to an increase in surface temperatures.Nitrogen makes up about 70% of Earth's atmosphere - instead of nuking Mars, if you were really committed to terraforming to the extent that humans could walk around on the Martian surface without any protection from the environmental conditions, you'd need to think of a way to pump Mars' atmosphere full of the missing nitrogen. Maybe there's enough nitrogen fixed in the soil there already to do the job....I've posted these and other thoughts about space exploration and the future of humanity on my (new) blog site:http://www.gfreetek.blogspot.com Please visit and feel free to add your comments, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with me! Respect,gfreetek

Boris_Badenov · Feb 16, 2009

Thank you very much, gfreetek, for an excellent essay & welcome to SDC. I certainly hope you stick around, we need your knowledge in our community. IIRC the only (available) sources of nitrogen in the Solar System are Earths atmosphere & Comets. In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Series they introduced comets into the Martian atmosphere directly, but on an angle that didn't allow them to impact the surface. Even before reading the Mars Series I believed comets would be the key to making Mars habitable, but I doubt introducing them "unprepared" is a viable option. If one were to release a substantial amount of Cyanide into the atmosphere it sure would ruin the colonists day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <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> </div>

pmn1 · Feb 23, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An asteroid impact large enough to heat (I assume that's what you meant) up the core would destroy the planet. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> How about just enough to start 'climate change'..any guestimate on how big and fast an impact would need to be - presumably would also depend on where it impacted?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gfreetek · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> How about just enough to start 'climate change'..any guestimate on how big and fast an impact would need to be - presumably would also depend on where it impacted?? Posted by pmn1</DIV> Any SINGLE impact to "...start 'climate change...'" to a significant degree would have to be something in the vicinity of the Cretaceous-Tertiary Event (AKA "bye-bye, dinosaurs!"), initiating a notorious period of mass extinction on Earth. Better make sure no-one's on the surface of Mars if you're dropping one of those! It left the approximately 300km wide Chicxulub impact basin in northern Yucatan, Mexico. It's believed that 65 million years ago, a 10 kilometer diameter asteroid penetrated Earth's crust at a speed of 15 to 20 kilometers per second; the kinetic energy equalled the energy of 300 million nuclear weapons and created temperatures hotter than on the sun's surface for several minutes. Incredibly, Mars has taken much bigger hits than this and survived (leaving the 2,300 km Hellas impact basin) - but probably lost its atmosphere in the process.Before we seriously consider a martian bombardment, we should consider the possibility of unintended side-effects. As previously pointed out, a really massive collision can entirely destroy a planet - where DID that asteroid belt come from...? A smaller, but still sizable collision might not destroy the planet, but could have undesired effects elsewhere on the planet's surface, not just at the impact site - check out the diagram here:http://books.google.ca/books?id=kAup0TOL09gC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=impact+outgassing&source=bl&ots=218_rgLq6_&sig=qeYdV3FxlRk_i2v-XMJbeTiIRF8&hl=en&ei=pq-jSdXHAYmMsAPIjdmjAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA542,M1and the text reads: "...an antipodal relationship between the Hellas impact basin and the Alba Patera volcanism on Mars was pointed out....the convergence of seismic waves was intense enough to fracture the Martian crust."Also consider the immediate cooling effect of the dust clouds in the atmosphere, along with other unpleasantness: http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/asteroid_text.shtmlThis submission also posted at http://www.gfreetek.blogspot.com

Kewell · Mar 2, 2009

What about injecting the planets atmosphere with methane, wouldnt this be a better alternative than nuking the planet?

yevaud · Mar 2, 2009

The problem with that is, that's a lot of Methane. How do we obtain it and then add it to the total Martian atmosphere? And then it'll begin to be stripped off by the solar wind and the lack of a geomagnetic field to assist in retaining it.

What we really require is continual outgassing to keep replenishing the atmosphere's lost species.

dragon04 · Mar 4, 2009

yevaud":qz86fm6i said:
What we really require is continual outgassing to keep replenishing the atmosphere's lost species.

I would be inclined to agree. Any single (or few) impact event significant enough to heat Mars to the degree (no pun intended) that it releases gas rapidly also would render the surface uninhabitable for a longer than desired amount of time.

There's no quick solution to replenishing the required volume of atmospheric gases to even the minimal pressures that would allow people to walk around without pressure suits.

Really, the solution can be found in situ.... Mars has plenty of one thing. Sand. Once one can manufacture glass, meaning mirrors en masse, one can start setting up something similar to the solar farms we see here on Earth. IIRC, one of those arrays can generate temperatures up to 5000 degrees F. That'll melt a lot of ice and liberate a lot of gas (and water) from frozen regolith.

HiGh_GuY · Mar 6, 2009

by TPOM » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:29 pm

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.

AMEN TO THAT.....exactly what i've been trying to tell people. When you break down the process of terraforming (at least for mars), its really more simple that some people believe....essentially it's a 2 step process

1.) creat artificial greenhouse gasses, (with a high co2 content) we're already experts at that, ever heard of a little thing called global warming?
2.)Once there is a sufficient ammount of co2 greenhouse gasses in the atmoshpher, the planet will heat up. which will cause the dry ice to sublimate and the underground water ice to thaw. Now you have a moist, co2 rich environment which is ideal for plant life. Then you send the plant life, which could be genetically engineered to be even more efficient. the plant life will convert the co2 to oxygen giving the atmosphere the 21% oxygen that us humans like to breathe

I've also seen ideas of how to create an artifical magnetosphere. The only thing that we wouldnt' be able change is the lower gravity.

MeteorWayne · Mar 6, 2009

HiGh_GuY":2fp6b8p1 said:
1.) creat artificial greenhouse gasses, (with a high co2 content) we're already experts at that, ever heard of a little thing called global warming?
I've also seen ideas of how to create an artifical magnetosphere. The only thing that we wouldnt' be able change is the lower gravity.

The problem is, we create Greenhouse gases here using materials concentrated within the erath over billions of years that were created by life. Coal, Peat, Wood, Oil, Gas....all were created by life. Mars has none (or very little) of that to use to create atmospheric CO2.

crazyeddie · Mar 6, 2009

MeteorWayne":19392rxj said:
HiGh_GuY":19392rxj said:

1.) creat artificial greenhouse gasses, (with a high co2 content) we're already experts at that, ever heard of a little thing called global warming?
I've also seen ideas of how to create an artifical magnetosphere. The only thing that we wouldnt' be able change is the lower gravity.

Click to expand...

The problem is, we create Greenhouse gases here using materials concentrated within the erath over billions of years that were created by life. Coal, Peat, Wood, Oil, Gas....all were created by life. Mars has none (or very little) of that to use to create atmospheric CO2.

What about CFC's? If the raw materials can be found on Mars (and there is reason to believe that with the planet's wet past and extensive vulcanism, there should be abundant mineral deposits), we can set up factories that turn out huge quantities of fluorine-based greenhouse gases. NASA did a study on this, a summary of which can be viewed here:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2 ... 2306.shtml

kelvinzero · Mar 7, 2009

It seems so much bother to go to to create a world that is still noxious to humans. CO2 is a poison in any significant concentration. I dont know about CFCs.

I think that behind the talk of nukes and asteroids is the assumption that this is easier than habitats and greenhouses. One thing I think is for sure is that by the time we were ready to terraform mars we would already be living there with a thriving industry, have mastered artificial biospheres by the hundred, have mastered genetic engineering of plants and even ourselves. My own guess is that our kids will be able to walk around in vacuum before we start employing 1950s style approachs to build worlds.

Its still a good dream but I think there is no easy way. We just have to learn to enjoy the hard way

HiGh_GuY · Mar 7, 2009

by MeteorWayne »
The problem is, we create Greenhouse gases here using materials concentrated within the erath over billions of years that were created by life. Coal, Peat, Wood, Oil, Gas....all were created by life. Mars has none (or very little) of that to use to create atmospheric CO2

Let me clarify.. we need a co2 rich atmoshphere sometime before "step 2" but it doesn't neccasarily have to be the initial atmoshphere building block. while the best method and/or initial atmospheric building block is debateable...the FACT is that there is already CO2 (dry ice) on mars, so if we can't find something to burn or realease from within mars. we could certainaly create some sort of heat producing power plant (maybe even concentrated solar power) to sublimate the dry ice to co2 gas. once the planet builds enough atmosphere, and heats up enough, we will no longer need the man made heat producing powerplant. because as TPOM mentioned, it will turn into a runaway or domino effect that will be self sustaining.

by kelvinzero »
It seems so much bother to go to to create a world that is still noxious to humans. CO2 is a poison in any significant concentration. I dont know about CFCs.

Yeah, but once the terraforming process is complete, Mars wouldn't be noxious to humans. Your forgetting about "step 2" growing plant life. Plant life acts as both co2 scrubbers and oxygen generators...since we all know that plants breathe in co2 and exhale oxygen. So as long as a plant lives, it will need co2, it will keep converting the co2 to oxygen until there is none left, at which point the plants would die from suffacation. So the higher the co2 consentration there is when all the dry ice has sublimated to gas, the more plants we would grow, to accomplish "step 2" in a reasonable ammount of time. There are also many other methods of converting, creating, and eliminating other gasses, we would want or not want.

by kelvinzero »
I think that behind the talk of nukes and asteroids is the assumption that this is easier than habitats and greenhouses. One thing I think is for sure is that by the time we were ready to terraform mars we would already be living there with a thriving industry, have mastered artificial biospheres by the hundred, have mastered genetic engineering of plants and even ourselves. My own guess is that our kids will be able to walk around in vacuum before we start employing 1950s style approachs to build worlds.

terraforming is a much better solution to permanent colinization of mars than building artifical biospheres, domes, bubbles or whatever else you might call an enclosed self sustaining structure. terraforming would be more pleasent, economical, and safe. how long would it take to build JUST 1 "biosphere" that can house... say 50 people ??? (remember this won't be regular construction like here on earth) now how much will that cost? initially and to keep it running? now multiply that by every single biosphere. It should take about 2-4 hundred years to terraform mars. then the whole planet is One big biosphere, and people can live anywhere. Now i can't give exact figures, because if i did, i'd be talking out of my a$$ but I'd be willing to bet my life, that in the 2-4 hundred years it takes to terraform mars, we could NOT build enough biospheres to house the same ammount of people that could live on mars, If the whole planet was terraformed...my point...terraforming is faster. Also i'd be willing to bet that terraforming mars, would cost alot less per person and per sq. ft. or acre then building biospheres. my point...terraforming mars is cheaper....

not to mention, its more visually appealing, comfortable, and overall more desireable. and safer, because in a biosphere, if something goes, wrong...a lot of people could die, where as while terraforming mars...but if you terraform, then something that might go wrong wouldn't matter so much, because people wouldn't be going there by the masses, until it was already completed.

neilsox · Mar 7, 2009

Adding green house gasses to Mars was discussed in Analog, perhaps 2 decades ago. Both Earth and Mars are likely into diminishing returns from carbon dioxide, so runaway green house is very unlikely. CFCs and similar compounds could add perhaps 5 degrees c = 9 degrees f to to the average temperature. Same for methane and ammonia totalling 36 degrees f if we find a 5th green house gas we can add to the atmosphere of Mars. Perhaps only 20 degrees f is possible to stay under the toxicity level of humans and most other Earth organism even with the help of modest genetic engineering. It is believed even one part per million adds a degree or two to the average temperature. We can also install staytite mirrors to reflect more sunlight, from space onto the day side of Mars. These have to be about a billion square miles each, or within a few hundred miles of the surface of Mars, in low Mars orbit. which means little energy is delivered about 15 out of the 25 hours of the Mars rotation. Likely we could heat a narrow band near the equator of Mars to 20 degree c = 68 degrees f each afternoon, which is warm enough for genetically altered Earth plants, and humans wareing nothing but a simple breathing mask. The genetically altered humans would breath 95% oxygen, and still have an oxygen deficiency that would require them to seek higher pressure perhaps once per hour.
According to early reports Venus has about the same number of tons of nitrogen in it's atmosphere as Earth, so likely some nitrogen can be released from the soil of Mars. Very likely sufficient nitrogen fertilizer is available for even large scale agriculture, on Mars. Even large scale it might take a million years to get oxygen content to 20% of the Mars atmosphere, so I agree with gfreetek, complete terraforming is not possible with technology likely in this century. Who can guess what may be possible in 2109? Neil

HiGh_GuY · Mar 8, 2009

by neilsox »
CFCs and similar compounds could add perhaps 5 degrees c = 9 degrees f to to the average temperature. Same for methane and ammonia totalling 36 degrees f if we find a 5th green house gas we can add to the atmosphere of Mars. Perhaps only 20 degrees f is possible to stay under the toxicity level of humans and most other Earth organism even with the help of modest genetic engineering

I don't know wether or not your suggesting adding co2 from elswhere, but plenty of co2 already exists there, its just frozen into dry ice. the coldest temp. on mars surface (obviously at the poles) is -170°F but that also changes, with seasons, and when moving closer to the equator. Sublimation point of dry ice is −109.3°F.(at EARTH's sea level) so we need the poles to be roughly 60°F warmer to start the sublimation....I would say that is possible.

The co2 toxicity level to humans is of no concern.. the atmosphere could be loaded with co2, and the plants would love it... trust me, i gave my plants way more co2 then recomended and they just grew faster and stronger....and the faster and stronger plant life grows, the faster the atmosphere changes from co2 to oxygen.
step one: create co2 which creates warmth, which creats moisture (melting of water ice).
step two: plants convert co2 to oxygen.
that's the simple version.

by neilsox »
Likely we could heat a narrow band near the equator of Mars to 20 degree c = 68 degrees f each afternoon, which is warm enough for genetically altered Earth plants, and humans wareing nothing but a simple breathing mask

plants (NON genetically engineered) can easily grow in 68°F. So i'm assuming that your saying 68 is the high, and the low will be much lower than what the plants are used to??? which is why they have to be genetically engineered?? so if you can genetically engineer plants to deal with this "low" then, why bother heating up a narrow band at all? just grow the plants there.

As for humans walking around with just a face mask...(i could be wrong, but i thnk i'm right) its not just the temperature, its that the atmospheric pressure is too low, so until the whole planet is terraformed, we're wearing space suits.

by neilsox »
I agree with gfreetek, complete terraforming is not possible with technology likely in this century. Who can guess what may be possible in 2109?

I'll Agree with the guys mentioned below

by TPOM »
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.

BenS1985 · Mar 9, 2009

I believe this is my third post, so bear with me:

Wouldn't it be plausible to 'transfer' atmosphere from other planets to Mars, to help terraform the planet, via freighters?

Idea: Build (either in-orbit, or launched via a space elevator) a rather large 'atmosphere freighter'. The idea would be to send such a freighter to Venus (which a similar composition to Mars' atmosphere - mostly Co2 and Nitrogen), and liquefy the Co2 for transport to Mars. In space, it may be a little different on how to compress/liquefy gasses from Venus, but I tend to think that, given the timeframe on when we'd even attempt to travel to Mars, it should be easily achievable in the next 50-70 years.

Liquid Co2 is quite dense, as 1 gallon of the stuff translates to 86,000 liters of Co2 @ 1 ATM, so it's a great way to transport large quantities of atmosphere from place to place. A large freighter with a storage tank at 1km long, and 400m in diameter would yield just over 125 million cubic meters of space for the liquid Co2. This translates to a massive 33 billion gallons of liquid Co2, or 2.85E15 of atmosphere if my calculations are correct.

Of course, you'd need multiple transports, making hundreds, if not thousands of 'drops' to pump the atmosphere up, but it wouldn't require very sophisticated equipment to do, AFAIK. I think that, along with other suggestions, you could warm the atmosphere up after a few decades to ensure the polar caps stay melted, also boosting the Martian atmosphere. There's no one real 'here's how to do it' way, but I think that building the atmosphere up by siphoning gasses from Venus would be a pretty good start, as it wouldn't take a lot of advanced technology, just time and maybe some faster engines to make the Mars-Venus transit quicker than current boosters allow. Such a fleet of ships could also be used for artificially adding atmospheres to other planets or moons if we should desire to.

Just an idea, but I'd like to hear other people's comments on this.

kelvinzero · Mar 10, 2009

What makes mars so attractive is that it already has all the necessary materials.

It probably costs a billion or more to deliver even a few tons from earth to mars.

HiGh_GuY,

You missed my points that if plants remove the CO2 the atmosphere loses its greenhouse effect (in my slightly earlier post) and whether or not terraforming is the cheapest way to inhabit the entire planet, all serious plans I have heard put terraforming as something to do after building a substancial population and industry there. Many posts imply that people think that by whacking mars with some big rocks all these steps become redundant.

Nuke the Red Planet?

neilsox

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

Vojta

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

gfreetek

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

pmn1

Guest

gfreetek

Guest

Kewell

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dragon04

Guest

HiGh_GuY

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

HiGh_GuY

Guest

neilsox

Guest

HiGh_GuY

Guest

BenS1985

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page