Very new to the secret genius society if you will!

Jun 17, 2020
6
2
15
I do a very intriguing question? I would like to know if it has been researched what is under the surface of Mars, and why would Mars be the best to habitate first? What I mean is why can't we literally nuke mars and create an atmosphere? Not sure if this is possible but definitely worth looking into. Ty
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
I think the inhabiting of Mars has been done to death.
Colonisation - possible.
Terraforming - impossible.
I cannot see how nuking will aid the former or the latter.
The problem is, if an atmosphere can be created, Mars is not going to keep it - lack of gravity.
 
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Mars also lacks the geodynamo that would be required to retain an atmosphere, in addition to its low gravity.

Cat, as we went over the possibility of life on Venus, and I wondered why earth is the only rocky planet with a natural moon, I began to investigate some more about that moon story. It seems that the earth may have turned out like Venus if it had not been for one or more planetesimals smacking into it. These delivered more iron-nickel core material, which built up earth's geodynamo much more than Venus ever would get. Otherwise, Venus might be a great vacation destination for those who like the heat!

So every time you look at the moon, thank it for being there!!
 
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
I cannot see how nuking will aid the former or the latter.

Nuking it might be the end result of the exploration of Mars. Surely no good reason to colonize it, though we might find useful minerals to transport back into earth orbit for processing. But getting at the minerals will require a very cheap approach, and subsurface nuclear detonations using "clean nukes" could be just the ticket.

We could excavate large areas with 50-100 KT fission devices that would open up vast areas of the interior rock for robotic mining. As long as the minerals are ejected away from the radioactive contamination, they should be safe for human manipulation. I would guess a good mining expert with explosives could create "shape detonations" to optimize such explosions.

And don't everybody frown on blowing up parts of Mars. We do it here all the time. It is in fact a cheap way of moving a lot of rock from one place to another place. Admittedly the nuclear aspect might be a tough sell, but no one is living there, so there is the cost benefit analysis. What will we find, and can we get at it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 17, 2020
6
2
15
I think the inhabiting of Mars has been done to death.
Colonisation - possible.
Terraforming - impossible.
I cannot see how nuking will aid the former or the latter.
The problem is, if an atmosphere can be created, Mars is not going to keep it - lack of gravity.
I will read up on terraforming. Correct on spelling please. What are the limitations of space travel at this predictive point?
 
Jun 17, 2020
6
2
15
Mars also lacks the geodynamo that would be required to retain an atmosphere, in addition to its low gravity.

Cat, as we went over the possibility of life on Venus, and I wondered why earth is the only rocky planet with a natural moon, I began to investigate some more about that moon story. It seems that the earth may have turned out like Venus if it had not been for one or more planetesimals smacking into it. These delivered more iron-nickel core material, which built up earth's geodynamo much more than Venus ever would get. Otherwise, Venus might be a great vacation destination for those who like the heat!

So every time you look at the moon, thank it for being there!!
Why even colonization of this galaxy. Why not look toward the milky way?
 
Jun 17, 2020
6
2
15
Why even colonization of this galaxy. Why not look toward the milky way?
Of course it looks like to me if there is advanced civilizations there not in our galaxy? Hopefully they will be peaceful if we do make contact. Being a sense of my own God. I would def heed caution to making contact to advanced aliens of any sort
 
I will read up on terraforming. Correct on spelling please. What are the limitations of space travel at this predictive point?
Terraforming or terraformation (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to the environment of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life. [Wiki]

You have reason to doubt our ability to spell?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
"What are the limitations of space travel at this predictive point?"

Unless we get into science fiction warp travel we are limited to "our" Solar System for as far as anyone can see. Leaving out FLT of course. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Apr 7, 2020
159
28
110
Lack of an active magnetic field or stronger gravity need not be uncrossable obstacles in establishing an atmosphere. If one can generate an atmosphere it would take hundreds of thousands of years, at least, to strip it back down again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Lack of an active magnetic field or stronger gravity need not be uncrossable obstacles in establishing an atmosphere. If one can generate an atmosphere it would take hundreds of thousands of years, at least, to strip it back down again.
This is quite true, but it depends on what kind of atmosphere you are supposing. Even little Pluto has an atmosphere, as does Titan, the moon of Saturn. Both are quite chilly and small, and their atmospheres are not conducive to life.

But then remembering Venus, and losing it's Mag. Field likely led to massive evaporation of oceans of water. The cloud cover and gravity would shield a runaway evaporation and loss, leading to a planet with liquid water on the surface for possibly 100s of millions of years. As noted in a prior thread, the surface water would eventually be lost to space via photo-dissociation.
 
Apr 7, 2020
159
28
110
This is quite true, but it depends on what kind of atmosphere you are supposing. Even little Pluto has an atmosphere, as does Titan, the moon of Saturn. Both are quite chilly and small, and their atmospheres are not conducive to life.

But then remembering Venus, and losing it's Mag. Field likely led to massive evaporation of oceans of water. The cloud cover and gravity would shield a runaway evaporation and loss, leading to a planet with liquid water on the surface for possibly 100s of millions of years. As noted in a prior thread, the surface water would eventually be lost to space via photo-dissociation.
Hi! I am assuming any civilization advanced enough to regenerate a thick atmosphere on Mars would be up to replenishing it at a constant rate as well. Of course we are probably centuries away from this so getting bogged down in the details is probably not too productive but it is fun!
I think there is so much we still don’t understand that it might prove to be feasible even sooner than we thought or harder than we thought. Still there is little doubt that there is still plenty of water on Mars and this could be added too by steering comets to impacts. Again that is sci-fi, for now, but won’t be for long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Hi! I am assuming any civilization advanced enough to regenerate a thick atmosphere on Mars would be up to replenishing it at a constant rate as well.

Still there is little doubt that there is still plenty of water on Mars and this could be added too by steering comets to impacts.

Crashing comets into Mars might be attainable with enough effort. If you are going to keep generating an atmosphere, the cheapest means is with water. Just not enough of them locally,

Of course silicate makes up a lot of rocks, and it contains oxygen. So O2 could be somehow catalytically released from rocks, but you would run out of rocks at some point. Keeping the population to a minimum would be ideal. The Martians could certainly learn something from Earthlings it would seem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts