TERRAFORMING MARS

[CreatedEvolution]

I am curious to see how terraforming mars has developed. It has evolved since ten years ago. they are now considering mirrors and radiation and releasing co two at the poles.

I am going to pretend I have six hundred trillion dollars to skillfully invest.

I would first invest in lasers in orbit on our planet.
Such as could we station a laser at the poles of Mars to use the laser so strong it actually begins to form magma where the laser is coming in contact. the goal is for the laser to cut into Mars deep enough where the magma pocket underground will form natural volcanoes to cool. How big of pool of magma will we need to release a steady amount of carbon dioxide.

If we find a laser that will cut miles deep before forming magma that is exactly what I am looking for. with these miles deep magma pool we may eventually create a soft spot for the remaining core to become naturally active to our man made pocket of magma.

how big will the laser have to be. could we consider combing one hundred space lasers. if each laser cost ninety million we could average the cost of each rocket laser at two hundred million. twenty billion approved for space lasers terraforming mars.

I believe if we have enough volcanoes matching our point five billion co2 released on earth a year that mars atmosphere would near level out to ours if it had an equal amount of co2 produced by active volcanoes.

I like choosing the poles of the planet because many co2 or ice has formed there and that will release additional steam and atmospheric gases adding to the atmospheric pressure.

Will any one take the fun task of estimating how strong a laser has to be or how much volcanoes we would need to terraform mars?

I think we could do it with just creating a few pockets of magma that will have many volcanoes each.

 

[Astraeus]

ChatGPT rose to the challenge:

Positive Aspects:​

1. Creative ambition​

The author is trying to think big: multi-orbital laser systems, magma activation, and CO₂ release from polar regions. That kind of exploratory mindset is essential in long-term planetary engineering discussions.

2. Real concepts referenced​

• Polar CO₂ deposits: Mars has frozen CO₂ (dry ice) at its poles. Releasing this could help increase atmospheric pressure.
• Terraforming through greenhouse gas accumulation: A valid direction discussed in real Mars terraforming proposals.
• Solar mirrors and focused heating have indeed been proposed before (by Zubrin and others).

---

Scientific and Engineering Critique:​

1. Misunderstanding of laser-magma interaction​

• Lasers can ablate surface material, but forming magma pools by lasering from orbit is orders of magnitude beyond current or foreseeable technology.
• Melting rock with lasers requires sustained, immense energy delivery over a narrow focal area. Even terawatt-class lasers wouldn’t achieve “miles-deep” magma drilling from orbit.
• Mars' crust is thick, cold, and geologically inactive. Heating it locally won't "wake" the core.

2. Core reactivation misunderstanding​

• The idea that creating surface magma pools will “reawaken” Mars’ core is not scientifically supported. Planetary cores require internal heat, mass, and differentiation—not just heat injection near the surface.
• Mars' core is partially solidified due to its small size and lack of sufficient internal pressure. You can’t relight it with external energy in this way.

3. Volcanic CO₂ estimates are massively off​

• Earth’s volcanoes emit about 0.3–0.5 billion tons of CO₂ per year. Mars would need many thousands of active, large-scale volcanoes to match this—sustained over centuries.
• Artificially initiating this scale of volcanism is beyond current planetary engineering capabilities.

4. Cost and scaling​

• Even generous estimates (e.g., 100 lasers at $200 million each = $20B) are wildly optimistic, especially without:
  • Launch costs
  • Power generation systems
  • Stabilization infrastructure
  • Targeting and thermal control
• Also, there's no real-world precedent for sustained megawatt-scale lasers in orbit with this kind of geological precision.

---

Summary and Evaluation​

This post is imaginative but scientifically flawed. It confuses key concepts in geology, thermodynamics, and planetary science. It also assumes futuristic levels of engineering control over planetary-scale processes without addressing power requirements, timeframes, or fundamental physical constraints.


That said—it's a fun prompt, and if reframed properly, it could spark useful discussion. A more realistic version would be:

• Focused solar mirrors to release CO₂ from polar ice
• Greenhouse gas production (e.g., perfluorocarbons) by robotic factories
• Subsurface nuclear thermal energy used to melt permafrost and slowly raise pressure

 

[Catastrophe]

Here is the summary of my AI question:

Google Search

"Stationing a powerful laser at the poles of Mars to melt rock and create magma is a fascinating concept, but it's not feasible with current technology. While lasers can vaporize and even melt small amounts of rock for scientific analysis, according to a NASA blog post, creating large-scale magma bodies on Mars would require unimaginable energy and engineering feats."

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Here is the summary of my AI question:

Google Search

Cat