Well, instead of using nukes, why don’t we go with a scaled-up version of the proposed Energia “Polar City Illuminator”?
Just go with a “few”* more of these orbiting mirrors, focus the sunlight onto Mars’ icecaps, and start firing in the plant life when the planet gets wet and warm enough.
*Like, say, hundreds of thousands, or even millions. But hey, it’s cheap in the “long run”…
Perhaps we just need the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
Yeah but where are we going to find a planet X?
Terraforming Mars with nukes, as pointed out above, has all sorts of problems. Using comets, on the other hand, has some advantages. A comet hitting Mars would not only melt a bunch of local ice, but bring along a lot of gas of its own, including such greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide and methane. We could start fixing the atmosphere by seeding the craters with various cyanobacteria (formerly called 'blue-green algae), which live happily under extreme conditions. Some kinds metabolize methane, and others do photosynthesis. When we finally get a breathable atmosphere the same as Earth’s, I recall reading (no cite) that it could persist for a million years or so before it gets too thin for us. That’s hardly an emergency.
You don’ have to increase the mass of Mars in order for it to keep hold of an Eath type atmosphere- it would take millions of years for the atmosphere to evaporate;
The Earth has kept it’s atmosphere for *Billions * of years, with relatively little loss- how long do you want to live on Mars, after all?
It would be relatively easy to top the atmosphere up compared to the feat of importing the atmosphere in the first place…
the best way is to gather icy comets from the outer solar system- as well as oxygen and water, they contain the nitrogen Mars needs to dilute the oxygen and prevent constant fires and carbon dioxide build up.
This process is going to be very energy intensive…
so you need to dismantle the whole planet Mercury in order to build solar power collectors, or fuse a good proportion of the atmosphere of Jupiter.
Nobody said it was going to be easy…
Alternatives are -
you adapt the colonists to live on Mars as is-
probably by having a population of robots;
increase the atmosphere using easily available resources. melting the subsurface water by nukes, drop a few asteroids on the surface- always cheaper than making nuclear weapons, as it converts potential energy into kinetic and heat energy-
then you genetically modify the colonists to live in the resulting atmosphere, whatever that may be;
paraterraforming- large translucent tents containing suitable atmosphere covering self-contained biospheres- the ultimate expression of which is the World roof, a self-repairing polymer tent which covers most, or all of the planet;
Grind the planet upp to make self contained habitats in solar orbit, or more solarconnectors powering computer processing nodes - you can run millionsof virtual Matrix scenarios on the silicon extracted from a planet like Mars;
Leave it as is as a low pressure tourist attraction.
(all these options and more are explored in-
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
So how much more massive would mars have to be to hold a breathable atmosphere for a few billion years?
I would refer you to Titan- this is considerably smaller than Mars, with an atmosphere denser than the Earth’s.
(Basically, I don’t know, but it depends on many factors- composition of the surface, distance from the sun, tidal action)
anyone with aformula?
What would be the point of terraforming Mars, beyond the “because it was there” argument?
Is it so we’ll have another planet to absorb some of our population growth? To make even a small dent in that problem, you’d have to ship tens of millions of people to the new planet. How are you going to accomplish that? And don’t say “Mars Space Elevator”. “Welcome to the Mars Space Elevator. Which floor, please?”
Is it for a new vacation spot? What’s the point of going to Mars if you’re not going to see what Mars is really like? “Welcome to Disneyworld Mars.” And who can get that kind of time off from work?
What’s the point? Please tell me.
Seeing this thread, and stuff about terraforming in general, mattgg – similar questions arose in my mind, as well. But, they’re asking here if a nuclear device would work in theory. I hope it just stays a theory, IMHO.
Violence for the sheer and utter sake of senseless violence. Why do I get the feeling that I’m going to like this guy?
well a terraforming project would certaintly result in research in to cheaper rockets. perhaps after the project was complete a ticket to mars would be affordable for most people. as population increased other planets could be terraformed. by removing all the greenhouse gases it might be possible to terraform venus. this is assuming both planets are lifeless. any planet that has life i would highly object to terraforming.
Mars provides an opportunity to get away from Earth and all its hang ups.
Imagine a world were there is no such thing as historic lands or indigenous peoples. Image a place where new models of society could evolve out of existing structures much like the multicultural/tolerant societies of Canada/USA/Australia did from GB. A place we could populate with animals and plants instead of mowing them under. A place to begin to understand the idea of planetary stewardship.
Mars gives us the chance to find new viewpoints and new challenges.
You aren’t going to be able to terraform Venus easily- if you finally manage to strip away it’s atmosphere- perhaps by combining it with iron or sending it to Mars-
you would have to deal with the slow rotation of the planet.
It would be an gargantuan task trying to increase the rotation of something nearly as massive as the Earth.
But the reason is simple
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
Oh, I think you could break all the windows on the planet with a lot fewer bombs than that…
Sure. Everyone pick up a rock …
Why not work on fixing the problems on Earth? The resources and expense required to pull off such a project on Mars could do wonders for life on Earth. Exploring other planets is not a way to solve our societal problems and most likely wouldn’t do so. Say it does actually work, whatever country spent the time and energy to teraform Mars would claim it as their own colony which would just start the same arguments of who owns the land. Eventually those that first colonized the planet would argue that it’s their historical land and begin to fight to keep it.
If we don’t fix our problems here, we’re doomed to bring them with us to Mars or any other colony.
Posted by Toadspittle:
I understand the point about mass/gravity, but what’s the magnetic field got to do with it? I’m fairly certain Earth’s magnetic field plays no important role in holding our atmosphere (nor in shielding us from cosmic rays and solar radiation, The Core notwithstanding).
Who said stop working on fixing problems here? What makes you think its an all or nothing proposition?
I was only trying to point out that I disagree with your reasons for teraforming/colonizing Mars. From your post you say that the reasons to colonize Mars is to create a new start for society there, which I disagree with. If those are the only reasons to colonize the planet, then don’t waste all the time, effort, energy and money required when those resources could be better used here. True, working on the colony there does not mean forgetting our society here, but it does drain a lot of money and resources that could be used here.
Don’t get me wrong though, I love the idea of exploring and pushing our boundries! To keep pushing the limits of science and technology is a great reason to push further space exploration! But I totally disagree with the idea of using this to create someone’s idea of utopia and leave Earth behind.