Nuke Mars

Discussion in 'Science' started by modernpaladin, Aug 16, 2019.

  1. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actally, simply directing them at the poles and letting them impact would be quite effective.....as long as we assure there is no life, which I think there probably is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2019
    WillReadmore and modernpaladin like this.
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,704
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you think its more than microbial?

    Would you oppose colonization of mars if it meant a native microbial life form would be extincted?
     
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It will be microbial or whatever the Martian version is. "Multi cellular" life is a possibility but I doubt much more.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any alien life form would be the most exciting scientific discovery since relativity, at the least.

    It's unthinkable that we would embark on a surface mission for any reason other than to carefully understand that life - its sources, its extent, considering its future, etc.
     
  5. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it's a bad plan, won't work. It would be a total waste of time, technology, and money. And make Mars even more uninhabitable in the process. Any gasses you managed to create would be lost to space, because Mars has no magnetic field, hence the solar winds would strip away any progress you made. Leaving you with no atmosphere, and no ice caps.

    Also, you're not considering the total cost compared to something like reversing deforestation on Earth, as suggested. Because even if you could create a viable atmosphere, you would still have to get people there (a lot of people, to make it worth anything more than a boasting point) and keep those people alive. Which would pretty much require a permanent supply line to be established. And we don't have an infinite amount of rocket fuel.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  6. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm really surprised that Musk would support such a plan, especially when even I know of a better one. Then again I've been told he's a much better business tycoon and showman than scientist. He IS revolutionizing the rockets we use to get into space
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
  7. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It won't work!

    There is no atmosphere on Mars because there is no magnetosphere to stop the Solar Wind from stripping it away.

    The only way to "terraform" Mars is to restart the magnetosphere and that will take way more than a few nukes.
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    NASA already has plans for creating Magnetic field protection on Mars which does not attempt the impossible reactivation of the Core. If they were to implement the idea then Comet bombardment of the poles might provide the rudimentary atmosphere and supplemental purposeful factory emission might eventually terraform the planet.
     
  9. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting alternative. Thanks for sharing. Just how big a generator would be needed to shield the entire planet and what it would need in terms of servicing, backups, etc still need to be determined but glad to find out that there is at least one feasible alternative out there.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  10. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The engineering and logistics would undoubtably be extreme and cost enormous.....but most dreams are.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is true and given what we have accomplished in the past this is technically feasible.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  12. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So.... Here is what we need to do. First thing.... Build a self supporting habitat on Antarctica. On that desert they have there. Seal it off from the outside so no air can escape.
     
  13. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A self sustain deep water habitat would be better.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't it make more sense to terraform earth first? We will need to. We can't even act to save ourselves much less terraform another planet.
     
  15. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It might not be quite as difficult or costly as you imagine. Research conducted on magnetic shield for spacecraft shows that an effective shield a few hundred meters in diameter could be generated using currently available tech powered by (at worst) around 5-10 kilowatts. The device itself would also be reasonably - I think fridge sized or somewhere around that? The key would be how well the shield can be scaled up. Do you for instance need a shield the same diameter as Mars up close to the planet or will a smaller shield a greater distance away have the same effect?

    Either way you would obviously have to scale up the device enormously (or use swarms of them???) to create the planet wide umbrella NASA is talking about. So it would still be a huge project but, that said it would also assist enormously with any terraforming efforts. The interesting thing would be calculating where to place it and then finding stable orbits that would keep Mars in the shade 24/7.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
    tecoyah likes this.
  16. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably easier and more reliable to use multiple devices and the LeGrange point was mentioned as the location for them. If they are solar powered devices then there will be a constant "push" by the solar wind which will need to be countered by some opposing force on a regular basis.
     
  17. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    deleted
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  18. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was going to post this earlier but had to check something.

    Gauss's law for magnetism
    [​IMG]

    B is the magnetic flux area density. The dA is a differential area element.

    This means the total magnetic flux required goes as the area. If we assume that a cross section of the protected area is a circle, the requirements go as the square of the radius. Mars has a radius of about 3,400,000 meters. Dividing the square of this this by the square of the NASA 150 meter radius, results in a factor of about 514 million. If it took 5000 watts to provide a 150 meter radius of protection, we might expect something around 514 million times the power to protect Mars. This all results in about 2,570,000 MW

    The largest nuclear reactors [single unit] can produce about 1000 MW. So it might require about 2500 of the largest nuclear reactors to generate the required magnetic field strength to protect Mars.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
    Diablo likes this.
  19. Diablo

    Diablo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not just take care of our beautiful blue and white planet instead?
     
  20. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    2500 reactors with an earthly cost of about 10 Billion each, is 25 trillion $. Now multiply that by maybe 100 to put them near Mars.

    I'd guess it would cost at least $2.5 quadrillion. So I get the one-time reduced price of only $833,000 for each and every American,

    For what again?
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  21. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't do your math but I'm disputing it anyway. You don't need a magnetic field near that strong. Earth doesn't have one or we'd be using it to make all our electricity instead of just move tiny needles. And a lot of the necessary power could be produced by the sun itself on photovoltaic cells.
     
  22. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  23. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just extrapolated on the numbers provided by NASA. Your beef is with them.

    It was stated that a magnetic field a few hundred meters in diameter sufficient to protect a space station requires 5-10KW of power. I used the minimum value of 5 KW.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  24. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  25. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't need that many if you locate them at the LaGrange point.
     

Share This Page