Terraforming Mars

[sanman]

So now that the Phoenix Land has all but confirmed to us that there's plenty of water on Mars, this will then spark increased interest in colonizing it.

So the main obstacles to Mars being habitable are:
1) Low atmospheric pressure
2) Low temperature
3) poisonous atmosphere
4) absence/scarcity of liquid water
5) absence of magnetosphere due to non-molten core

Other than those things, Mars doesn't seem like such a bad place.

So here are some proposed solutions:

Evaporate the icecaps, to liberate CO2 and H2O, which would raise the atmospheric pressure and temperature. Then we could seed the place with photosynthetic bacteria and vegetation that could transform the CO2 into a breathable oxygen atmosphere.

To evaporate the icecaps, we could perhaps use a well-placed nuclear explosion to propel some large chunk of rock or ice towards Mars, and drop it on the icecap(s). A suitably large mass could impact with enough kinetic energy to evaporate enough frozen material to warm the planet and build up its atmosphere to suitable pressure levels.

The question is, what kind of impact would be optimal for our purposes?
What kind of impact would enable us to obtain returns on our efforts the quickest?
How much would we want to raise the atmospheric pressure?

I presume we would like to make surface conditions as close to Earth-like as possible (STP, and abundant water supply), and in the quickest timeframe possible.

What would happen if we attempted to use a nuke to knock one or both of the moons, Phobos and Deimos, out of orbit to collide with the Martian icecaps? Could this be done?
Would it contaminate the orbital space with debris and create a severe hazard to spacecraft?

Would we be better off using nukes on some chunk(s) of ice from the asteroid belt or from Jupiter's rings, or Saturn's rings, to send this(these) towards Mars?

Or would we be better off using nukes directly on the icecaps to melt them?

Or should we use microwave lasers to zap and heat the ice chunks to propel them towards Mars?
Or should we use microwave lasers to zap the Moons and drop them on Mars?
Or should we use microwave lasers to directly heat the icecaps from orbit?

Can we engineer extremely hardy and extremely active extremophile bacteria capable of converting a CO2 atmosphere into oxygen in an accelerated amount of time?

Could we place a large solar-powered satellite close to the sun, that could generate a magnetic field to deflect a significant portion of the solar wind much before it reached Mars, rather than trying to stop the solar wind near Mars itself?

Etc, etc.

What would be the best approach to take, to make the planet's surface most Earth-like, in the shortest amount of time?

[Cvan]

Giant polymer bubbles to live and create colonies within, plants, and cold fusion will probably be the best bets for terraforming anything like mars in the foreseeable future.

[B. Elliott]

One problem concerning the introduction of plants is the deficiency of nitrogen. IMO, also as Cvan stated, the best bet would be to construct small dispersed habitable colonies. That way, the resources that are available could be contained and controlled. Inducing a sudden worldwide even such as melting the caps by nuclear or impact means, is taking a big risk. With system as dynamic as Mars (more so for Earth), producing large-scale planet-wide effects would involve a high level of risk or chance... rolling dice. Making accurate predictions for an event such as that is impossible, IMO.

Our best bet is containment; biting off what we can chew.

[DaveC426913]

So now that the Phoenix Land has all but confirmed to us that there's plenty of water on Mars,It has?

[sanman]

"LandER," excuse me -- sorry about that.

Well, we've got snapshots of what looks like ice -- what are the odds on that?
Plus the orbiters have been giving strong water signals for some time now.

So what could be catastrophic about melting lots of CO2 and H2O at once? Will it kill the planet? Looks pretty dead already to me.

It seems like it will take quite some time, effort and resources to develop an economic and efficient spacefaring capability. But it wouldn't take a whole lot of extra engineering to drop multiple large H-bombs on Mars. Just send some MIRVs. Actually, make them the burrowing bunker-buster warheads.

Start a greenhouse-gas chain reaction.

It seems to me that the more that is released at once, the more likely there will be a runaway effect that cannot be easily/quickly undone by refreezing or other atmospheric loss.

This would give us time to seed photosynthetic bacteria and have them spread, to start converting the CO2.

Hopefully large swathes of liquid ocean would represent a less reflective surface than the ice, thus capturing even more solar energy for further warming.

What if instead of nuking the icecaps directly, we nuked or otherwise dropped a large ammonia chunk onto Mars?
That would elevate the nitrogen, while the impact energy could warm the planet and revive some tectonic/volcanic activity.

But the key is not to overdo it. That's why I'm wondering what the optimal chunk size is for just the right impact, that wouldn't go too far. Maybe we could do multiple impacts from multiple ammonia chunks.

Surely we could find some suitably large ammonia chunks in the asteroid belt nearby, or in Saturn's or Jupiter's rings. Nuke them at just the right angle and timing, so that they'll fly into Mars' orbital path. Maybe if the impacts could warm the planet enough, we wouldn't have to hit the icecaps.

We can construct our dispersed controlled compartmentalized gentle colonies once we've gotten the heavy duty planetary bombardment over and done with.

Then those colonies will have more to work with -- more atmosphere, more ocean, etc -- things which they wouldn't otherwise have off the bat. That way, they could focus more on planting plants and disbursing bacteria, to process that atmospheric and oceanic bulk material into something more human-friendly.

[B. Elliott]

"LandER," excuse me -- sorry about that.

Well, we've got snapshots of what looks like ice -- what are the odds on that?

With the data available thus far, it's most likely solid ice CO2. As I stated in a post in the Astronomy section, approximately 25% of the detected CO2 is annually distributed into the atmosphere which then later condenses back into solid CO2 at the polar caps. There may be considerable amounts of water present, but so far nothing has been verified.

That way, they could focus more on planting plants and disbursing bacteria, to process that atmospheric and oceanic bulk material into something more human-friendly.

Again, the primary problem is a lack of sufficient amounts of nitrogen in the soil... which oxygen producing plants require.

[sanman]

Well, that's why I mentioned flinging some large chunks of ammonia (nitrogen source) down onto the planet. Again, with some sufficiently large chunks, their impact energy could also help to warm the planet, thus killing 2 birds with one stone.

So I'm just wondering what the right size of chunk(s) would be, to effectively do that.

I figure that it's best to get the heavy duty disruptive bombardment out of the way first, so that you get the major transformative upheaval events done with, and then while that's all settling down at least you'll have some bulk material (atmosphere + ocean) you can go to work on, using bacteria/extremophiles/lichens/etc. Things might not exactly be at STP conditions early on, but perhaps at least suitably engineered extremophiles could survive in it and go to work, while things settle down.

Isn't there a possibility of nitrates and other nitrogen compounds in the soil, etc? Perhaps suitable bacteria can extract these as well, along with impact heating.

I'm thinking that as long as we can get some reasonable atmospheric pressure and an ocean going, then we can seed it with extremophiles to start multiplying and reprocessing stuff in bulk.

[DaveC426913]

How long would that take? And would we be patient enough to render Mars completely unhabitable (ammonia atmo, meteor impacts etc.) in the short-term, for that long-term gain?

[Ignition]

When does all this happens?

[sanman]

Well, we wouldn't make the whole atmosphere ammonia, because there would be a lot of CO2 and H2O liberated as well. Dropping some large ammonia chunks onto the planet would mainly mean providing a nitrogen source for nitrifying bacteria to break down.

And we'd only have to do that if we couldn't find enough nitrogen locally. Perhaps there are already sufficient quantities of nitrates in the soil for this to be done without ammonia-bombing the planet. Right now, nitrogen only makes up 2.7% of the atmosphere.

Anyway, since NH3 is lighter than CO2, the stuff would probably rise and stay in the upper part of the atmosphere, getting broken down by the solar wind and radiation.

Furthermore, Ammonia and CO2 can react to form Urea, which is a common fertilizer.

Is that so terrible?

[sanman]

Strange how life can survive in terrible extremes:

http://www.physorg.com/news131712233.html

How do we know a bacteria like this couldn't survive the Martian climate, especially if we engineered it further to boost its abilities?

[B. Elliott]

Is that so terrible?

No one said it's terrible. It's chaotic. Until we learn more about the planet, any ideas are purely speculation. When presenting an idea for even a theoretical experiment, you have to have at least a decent amount of valid information to even begin to make assumptions about the experiments effects. We could almost make up any outcome we would like at this point. Now, i'm not trying to give you a hard time or being conflicting just for the fun of it as i've had quite a few (a lot actually) ideas like this. It's just that I keep coming back to the same conclusion... that we don't understand enough about the planets makeup and cycles yet.

Strange how life can survive in terrible extremes:

http://www.physorg.com/news131712233.html

How do we know a bacteria like this couldn't survive the Martian climate, especially if we engineered it further to boost its abilities?

They're called extremophiles.

We're not sure that it doesn't currently exist on Mars. That question is and always has been open to speculation. We've actually found bacteria two miles below land before. And just recently, we've found organisms living a half mile beneath the ocean floor...

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080522-deepest-sealife.html

[D H]

Well, that's why I mentioned flinging some large chunks of ammonia (nitrogen source) down onto the planet. Again, with some sufficiently large chunks, their impact energy could also help to warm the planet, thus killing 2 birds with one stone.

Where exactly will this ammonia (or anything else you want to fling at Mars) come from? We presently do not have *any* ability to gather resources in space. Everything we send to Mars now comes from Earth, and our abilities are limited to sending a 350 kilogram mass to every few years. A 350 kg mass, or hundreds of 350 kilogram masses, regardless of makeup, will not make a dent in Mars' climate. By the time we have the ability to do make a dent in Mars' climate, why Mars? Why not make very large space habitats instead?

[sanman]

I feel that we don't have to go whole-hog and start lobbing city-sized chunks of rock at Mars. But we should perform experiments to lob house-sized chunks of ice at Mars, in order to develop the experience in orbital mechanics and astrophysics necessary to do these things if and when the time comes.

So while continuing to investigate Mars is doubtlessly worthwhile, investigating other things like ice-lobbing could be worthwhile too.

As far as the possibility of any life existing on Mars, I dont' feel that should force us to refrain from experiments in introducing and testing our own engineered terrestrial bacteria on the Martian surface. If our bacteria contaminate the planet, I don't feel that would be a bad thing, and actually it would be pleasant surprise in the sense that it would establish our foothold in terraforming Mars. If our bacteria were to supplant or extinguish any native organisms then it would only prove that ours are hardier, and thus better for the terraforming purpose.

So I don't see why we should have to wait to rule out the existence of life before conducting any experiments in testing bacteria on the planet.
Hell, if we had to first wait to disprove the existence of life there, we could end up waiting forever, because there'll always be some fanatic who'll complain that you haven't looked under this or that rock yet.

Mars being a planet, means that there are sufficient similarities to our own Earth to extrapolate a general understanding of the planet -- eg. if we can melt the icecaps, they'll release gas, etc, etc.

So I'm not saying we should just abandon all caution and proceed with reckless abandon, but at the same time we shouldn't be overly-fearful shrinking violets, when we might be able to conduct some bold path-breaking initiatives towards this closest home-away-from-home for mankind.

[sanman]

Where exactly will this ammonia (or anything else you want to fling at Mars) come from? We presently do not have *any* ability to gather resources in space. Everything we send to Mars now comes from Earth, and our abilities are limited to sending a 350 kilogram mass to every few years. A 350 kg mass, or hundreds of 350 kilogram masses, regardless of makeup, will not make a dent in Mars' climate. By the time we have the ability to do make a dent in Mars' climate, why Mars? Why not make very large space habitats instead?

Ammonia ice chunks seem to have been detected in Saturn's rings. There are also many large ice bodies in Oort cloud at the outer edge of the Solar System. We may find some more frozen gas bodies in the asteroid belt beyond Mars. We should look at ways to trying moving some of these ice chunks towards Mars. Perhaps a space probe or group of space probes could use pulsed laser-heating or electron-beam heating to vaporize portions of ice into gas jets that could propel the chunks towards Mars.

Perhaps there may be other options, such as directly pushing against the chunks with thrust-producing engines, or harpooning the chunks and towing them. Perhaps explosives could be used. The chunks themselves should be able to provide propellant mass.

There may be a number of options worth investigating.

Btw, wouldn't building orbital habitats of any appreciable size also involve being able to gather resources from space? This would also further involve processing them in space into building materials, and then conducting assembly, all on a very large scale.

Lobbing chunks at a planet's gravity well, and allowing the planet to "process" these materials might be seen as a far simpler task.

[B. Elliott]

Or we could just skip beating around the bush and invent a "Genesis Device".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C93hOrYHdY

[D H]

Ammonia ice chunks seem to have been detected in Saturn's rings. There are also many large ice bodies in Oort cloud at the outer edge of the Solar System. We may find some more frozen gas bodies in the asteroid belt beyond Mars. We should look at ways to trying moving some of these ice chunks towards Mars. Perhaps a space probe or group of space probes could use pulsed laser-heating or electron-beam heating to vaporize portions of ice into gas jets that could propel the chunks towards Mars.

You can say all the "we shoulds" and "perhaps" you want. That does not change that what you said is science fiction, and soft science fiction at that. Where does the energy come from? Do you realize how much energy it takes to transfer even a smallish chunk of ice from Saturn's orbit to Mars, let along something big enough to make even the smallest dent in Mars' climate? Even if that energy comes from sun, it takes a lot of equipment to harness that energy, particularly so at 10 AU from the sun.

Btw, wouldn't building orbital habitats of any appreciable size also involve being able to gather resources from space? This would also further involve processing them in space into building materials, and then conducting assembly, all on a very large scale.
Not on nearly as large a scale as is needed to terraform a planet.

Why do you want to take on the astronomically immense task of terraforming a planet rather than take on the merely immense task of transforming asteroids into habitats? Our ability to terraform Mars is hundreds of years into the future. Building space habitats is science fiction also, but not nearly so much as is colonizing Mars.

[sanman]

I think leveraging all that barely frozen CO2 at the Martian polar ice caps is the key. It can be released to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. If you release enough, then it will increase the temperature which will result in even more thawing, and more gas release. I think we could even nuke those icecaps if necessary.

If we were to use a nuclear explosion, or even a nuclear-powered laser to shift Phobos (26km diam.) out of orbit and drop it onto an icecap, then it would melt all that CO2 and H2O. I don't feel it would necessarily cover the planet in dust, since it would be the ice absorbing the brunt of the impact. Besides, at only .01 atm, there's not immediately enough atmosphere to allow a lot of heavy dust to float around. It would take some time for the liberated gas to diffuse around the planet.

Phobos is already in a decaying orbit anyway, due to hit Mars in millions of years. We'd simply be accelerating the process.

But I think that ammonia chunks should be looked at, in case there's not enough planetary nitrogen. If there are nitrates in the ground, as there are in Earth deserts, then perhaps the desert covering the entire Martian surface may have them. If there are enough nitrates, then we can use nitrifying bacteria to liberate them. I think we need to first make a determination of where the nitrogen is on Mars, and how much is available.

[sanman]

Regarding the energy/effort required to transform an entire planet, I think that if we get some heavy lifting / upheaval out of the way first, then settlers could then settle on the planet while it's settling down, to live in domes. Human economic activity can exert a powerful effect.
Self-replicating bacteria and other CO2-loving organisms can exert a powerful effect.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JBIS...46..291F

http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math100/notes/zoo/andromed.html

Unless you plan to keep your orbital habitats in Saturn's gravity well, then you'll need to find a way to shift lots of nitrogen out of Saturn's orbit. I don't see why doing that is more difficult than shifting it to Mars. And if you tell me that your habitats will be much smaller, then I'd say you're condemning yourself to living in a bottle. Every time there's a solar flare, you'll be rushing for the imaginary protection of your "safety closet". That's no way to live.

[blimkie.k]

So here are some proposed solutions:

Evaporate the icecaps, to liberate CO2 and H2O, which would raise the atmospheric pressure and temperature. Then we could seed the place with photosynthetic bacteria and vegetation that could transform the CO2 into a breathable oxygen atmosphere.

To evaporate the icecaps, we could perhaps use a well-placed nuclear explosion to propel some large chunk of rock or ice towards Mars, and drop it on the icecap(s). A suitably large mass could impact with enough kinetic energy to evaporate enough frozen material to warm the planet and build up its atmosphere to suitable pressure levels.




Have you ever seen the movie the red planet (2000) if not you will probably like it, thats exactly what they do, cool idea.

[DaveC426913]

Or better yet, read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series. Epic three book tale of Areforming.

[blimkie.k]

Getting of topic how about Arthur C, Clarkes Space Oydessy Series. haha and now i have 15 posts and i can now post URL's !!!

[B. Elliott]

Good books.

Another good one is Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis. It goes pretty in depth into the composition of the bodies that lie within our solar system, which parts could be of use to us and what steps would need to be taken to harness them. It actually covers in detail the trouble with gathering resources from bodies that lie in the Oort Cloud, Asteroid Belt, Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, ect. It even covers the viability of gathering He-3 from the large gas planets.

No doubt one of my favorite books.

[sanman]

Here's an article from IEEE:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5676

Surely they're not a bunch of nuts.

And here are some Mars temperature maps:

http://tes.asu.edu/

So you can see some warm spots there which however get cold at night.
20C - you could be in your birthday suit in that kind of weather!

[B. Elliott]

So you can see some warm spots there which however get cold at night.
20C - you could be in your birthday suit in that kind of weather!

Then you would have to worry about getting severe UV sunburn within just minutes. That, and your face would have to be covered due to potential damage to your eyes blood vessels... due to the extremely low pressure.

[sanman]

This is also interesting:


The search for nitrogen compounds on the surface of Mars (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-3XSJX6S-9C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3030e21541150667b6356d540fac1589)

Rocco L. Mancinelli

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, U.S.A.

Available online 1 November 1999.

[sanman]

New technique pioneered for making large mirrors on the Moon:

http://www.physorg.com/news131808483.html

Could this be used to make large mirrors on Phobos for example, and then aimed at Mars?

[sanman]

Actually, perhaps one could even make large space solar arrays from thin fabrics:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52653

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/01/harvesting-solar-power-from-space/

[russ_watters]

So now that the Phoenix Land has all but confirmed to us that there's plenty of water on Mars, this will then spark increased interest in colonizing it. I think you were the victim of some sloppy news reporting. I saw articles that said it landed on 'a big slab of ice', without specifying it was dry ice. I figured, though, that if it really was water ice, it would have made the headline.

[Astroboy]

Ammonia ice chunks seem to have been detected in Saturn's rings. There are also many large ice bodies in Oort cloud at the outer edge of the Solar System. We may find some more frozen gas bodies in the asteroid belt beyond Mars. We should look at ways to trying moving some of these ice chunks towards Mars. Perhaps a space probe or group of space probes could use pulsed laser-heating or electron-beam heating to vaporize portions of ice into gas jets that could propel the chunks towards Mars.

Perhaps there may be other options, such as directly pushing against the chunks with thrust-producing engines, or harpooning the chunks and towing them. Perhaps explosives could be used. The chunks themselves should be able to provide propellant mass.

There may be a number of options worth investigating.

Btw, wouldn't building orbital habitats of any appreciable size also involve being able to gather resources from space? This would also further involve processing them in space into building materials, and then conducting assembly, all on a very large scale.

Lobbing chunks at a planet's gravity well, and allowing the planet to "process" these materials might be seen as a far simpler task.


sanman, you are quite the imaginative ambitious forum poster aren't you? You must be incredibly wealthy too considering what seems to be a lack of appreciation for source of wealth. i.e Where in the world would you find enough funds to execute these ingenious idea's?

[sanman]

How do you know we won't have a burgeoning private space sector in a few decades? The cost of operating in space may come down radically, and become more routine, just like laying deep sea cables, etc. It's not like we'll always be stuck using 1970s launch vehicles, etc.

For instance, Phobos is only 26 km in diameter, an altitude of 10K km, and an orbital speed of just over 2km/s. If we could slow it down, we could drop it on the planet, releasing enough energy to melt the icecaps and maybe even reactivate volcanoes.

I'm wondering though what would happen if we dropped its orbit to merely 500km altitude. Is it possible that it could exert some kind of lunar-style tidal pull, to reactivate Martian plate tectonics, and spew more carbon into the atmosphere, etc?

[D H]

For instance, Phobos is only 26 km in diameter, an altitude of 10K km, and an orbital speed of just over 2km/s. If we could slow it down, we could drop it on the planet, releasing enough energy to melt the icecaps and maybe even reactivate volcanoes.
This is the problem with science fiction. It is easy to say things like this. It is a tad bit harder to make things like this so. Making Phobos crash into Mars (targeting say 50 km above the surface) would require on the order of 1022 joules (http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F2*1e16kg*%28%282.13km%2Fs%29%5E2-%2842828+km%5E3%2Fs%5E2%29*%282%2F%289250km%29-2%2F%289250km%2B3450km%29%29%29). :eek: In comparison, launching the Shuttle into low-Earth orbit consumes about 1013 joules.

[B. Elliott]

Sanman, what exactly are you looking to get out of this thread?

[DaveC426913]

Have we learned nothing about conservation on our own planet? Are we now planning the wholesale destruction of another one?

If land for development is all we are looking for, there's plenty of desert and ocean floor, and mountain tops that are far, far cheaper and far more habitable than Mars.

But I don't think since the 19th century that we felt that any suitable falt surface of land was ours for the raping and mining.

OK, a bit of an emotional argument, but consider why we would want to reform Mars for living. All your arguments for Mars apply here on Earth better.

[sanman]

This is the problem with science fiction. It is easy to say things like this. It is a tad bit harder to make things like this so. Making Phobos crash into Mars (targeting say 50 km above the surface) would require on the order of 1022 joules (http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F2*1e16kg*%28%282.13km%2Fs%29%5E2-%2842828+km%5E3%2Fs%5E2%29*%282%2F%289250km%29-2%2F%289250km%2B3450km%29%29%29). :eek: In comparison, launching the Shuttle into low-Earth orbit consumes about 1013 joules.

Maybe we could chop/chip off part of Phobos, and drop that on the icecaps.

Btw, the largest thermonuclear weapon ever detonated was 50 Mt = 2.1×10^17 joules
and that was a half-century ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

I'm not sure what the practical limit is for a thermonuclear explosion, but I bet we could outperform it by thousands of times using today's technology.
Nobody would want to use such a weapon here on Earth -- but in space, etc, it might be a different matter.
If we could build and detonate a gigaton bomb on some large chunk of ice somewhere in the asteroid belt, or Saturn's or Jupiter's rings, we might be able to knock big pieces onto Mars.
So what if Jupiter ends up with one less moon? Big deal, it has plenty already. Jupiter's large gravity could keep most of the residual fragments in its gravity well, while the main chunk goes flying off towards Mars. Hell, Jupiter and Saturn have been smashing up moons left and right, with their powerful magnetic and gravitational forces.

Mankind hasn't really mastered controlled thermonuclear energy release so far, but the uncontrolled stuff we pretty much have figured out, and should be able to improve upon.

I wonder if it's possible to build a microwave bomb -- or channel radiation into a specific frequency that might evaporate ammonia ice in particular. Anybody know?

[sanman]

Here's another idea -- could we fire an Earth-based laser to divert a sufficiently massive comet to impact Mars?

Comets are of course frozen ice -- often ammonia, which is convenient for our purposes!

If we could find one large enough which was due to pass close enough to Mars, perhaps we could deflect it by heating it, using a long-wave/microwave laser fired from the ground.

A ground-based nuclear reactor or other power source (hydroelectric dam, etc) would avoid the cost of having to launch a reactor into space. Ammonia does have resonance in the Ghz microwave frequency, for heating purposes.

Having your laser operate on a microwave/long-wave frequency would reduce interaction effects with our atmosphere, and would allow you to deliver all your power to the target -- the comet.

Maybe you could locate your laser facility at the North or South Pole, to avoid effects from the Earth's rotation.

You could have your laser zap the target over a prolonged period of time, to gradually deflect it towards Mars.

And maybe we don't even need to exclusively look at comets passing close to Mars. Maybe we consider all known comets and their orbits, in connection with all major planetary orbits -- and then we play Minnesota Fats, exploiting the planetary gravity wells for gravitational slingshot effect.

We could do some combinatorial number crunching to deduce which optimal combination of laser-deflections and slingshots could get an ammonia-comet to hit Mars at the earliest date, within constraints of a feasible energy expenditure on our part.

So what about this idea? Could this work?

[Beer w/Straw]

I can't post links but my idea was move Mars closer to where Earth is after diverting a great many asteroids and comets into it. I wonder if the increased mass -to that as Earth's- would make gravity heat up the core for a magnetosphere to that of Earth's


~From old BBC article


Mankind will soon have the ability to move the Earth into a new orbit, say a team of astronomers. The planetary manoeuvre may more than double the time life can survive on our planet, they believe.

Using the well-understood "gravitational sling shot" technique that has been employed to send space probes to the outer planets, the researchers now think a large asteroid could be used to reposition the Earth to maintain a benign global climate.

In the past, some astronomers have suggested that Mars could be terraformed to make it more like the Earth. The Earth-orbital-migration technique, say the researchers, is a far easier way to provide living space for humans in a changing Solar System.

[D H]

From old BBC article
[I]Mankind will soon have the ability to move the Earth into a new orbit ...
Here is a link to the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1154784.stm

Some comments:
"Soon" to an astronomer, especially in the context of the far-from-imminent demise of the Earth via an expanding Sun, is not "soon".
The lead sentence is journalistic excess. There is nothing in the article that suggests that this will happen (or needs to happen) "soon".
This is not "soon" (quoting from the article): "Astronomers believe that in a billion years from now our Sun will be over 10% brighter than it is today."
This is not "soon": "To expand the Earth's orbit around the Sun at a rate that compensates for the increasing brightness of the star would require an asteroid encounter every 6,000 years, or about every 240 generations."
This is not "soon": "Humans would have many thousands of years to select the appropriate asteroid and develop the necessary technology to deflect the giant rock in the direction of Earth."
The article is essentially a bunch of scientists writing science fiction.

============================

For instance, Phobos is only 26 km in diameter, an altitude of 10K km, and an orbital speed of just over 2km/s. If we could slow it down, we could drop it on the planet, releasing enough energy to melt the icecaps and maybe even reactivate volcanoes.This is the problem with science fiction. It is easy to say things like this. It is a tad bit harder to make things like this so. Making Phobos crash into Mars (targeting say 50 km above the surface) would require on the order of 1022 joules (http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F2*1e16kg*%28%282.13km%2Fs%29%5E2-%2842828+km%5E3%2Fs%5E2%29*%282%2F%289250km%29-2%2F%289250km%2B3450km%29%29%29). :eek: In comparison, launching the Shuttle into low-Earth orbit consumes about 1013 joules.Maybe we could chop/chip off part of Phobos, and drop that on the icecaps.

Btw, the largest thermonuclear weapon ever detonated was 50 Mt = 2.1×10^17 joules
and that was a half-century ago. I'm not sure what the practical limit is for a thermonuclear explosion, but I bet we could outperform it by thousands of times using today's technology.

Last item first: In terms of the cited Tsar Bomba, the energy needed to drop Phobos onto Mars is 50,000 of those bombs. Do the math! It isn't that hard. A thousand-fold increase in yield? Recreating that bomb would be a challenge, let alone going doing 1000 times better. Using a very high-yield bomb for thrust? Bombs tend to radiate power spherically. How are you going to focus the power from a high-yield explosion to yield thrust? Bringing 50,000 high-yield bombs into space? Please. It will not happen.

============================

My objection to this thread (and the whole colonize Mars meme) is that it throws reality out the window. Attempting to even crack open the reality window doesn't work.

Reality check: The first human visit to Mars won't happen for twenty years minimum, more likely forty years or more away, and possibly never. Human colonization of Mars won't happen for a long, long time. Thinking about colonization now is ludicrous.
We don't know how to get there and back. We have never had a successful Mars return mission. We have never had an unsuccessful Mars return mission, either. Not knowing at all how to get there and come back is not so good for humans.
We don't know how to get there, safely. Mars missions have about a 50% success rate. That is good success rate for robots, not so good for humans.
We don't know what is there that will kill us. Mars dust and extremophiles are unknown hazards that we need to assess.
We do know many things there that will kill us (temperature, radiation, lack of atmosphere), and we don't know how to overcome those known killers.
We don't know how to manufacture the requisite items needed for sustaining life in space or in situ.
We do know that present-day technology would be hard-pressed to meet the challenges of a short-duration human mission to Mars.
We do know that present-day technology does not meet the challenges of a permanent human presence. NASA has developed extensive lists of things we know we don't know when it comes to Mars exploration. This accounting does not account for the things of which we are totally oblivious.

[Beer w/Straw]

Myself I didn't think it would be "soon", neither am I loosing sleep about the sun warming up.

But you didn't address all of my post. Is it feasible by way of a "slingshot" affect with an asteroid? Can someone tell me if mass is added to Mars. Its gravity is increased with its increase in size. That this could speed up the rotational period to that as Earth's which would seem to have an effect on a molten iron core. And have it as well with added friction from gravity make the core active again producing a magnetic field to that as Earth's as well?

Do you think Galileo might have wondered what it would be like to be on another planet even though in his lifetime he knew he would never get there?

[DaveC426913]

Is it feasible by way of a "slingshot" affect with an asteroid?What this is used to do is to move a planet to a new orbit. You could, over many thousands of years, move Mars closer to the Sun to raise its temp. However, at some point you'd be crowdinbg Earth's personal space, casuing orbital perturbations as well as quakes.


Can someone tell me if mass is added to Mars. Its gravity is increased with its increase in size.
Well in theory, but
1] Earth is ten times the mass of Mars.
2] The total mass of all the asteroids in the Solar System is less than 1/10th that of Mars. (ref (http://www.nineplanets.org/asteroids.html))



That this could speed up the rotational period to that as Earth's
No it wouldn't. In fact, it would slow it down.



which would seem to have an effect on a molten iron core. And have it as well with added friction from gravity make the core active again producing a magnetic field to that as Earth's as well?
Also no, but less so. The Earth started molten and has been keep from solidifying due to gravitational and radioactive effects. In theory, adding mass to a planets might generate some heat from gravitational compression, but you wouldn't be adding any radioactive material. And who knows how much you'd have to increase the planets mass to get it to re-liquify.

[Beer w/Straw]

Thanks for the reply.

I was going to post about super duper laser beams to melt Jupiter -a laser to be named after my cat no less but NASA wont return my calls- but I'll save that one my another thread.

[sanman]

Ion Beam for Ablation Propulsion (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200623/000020062306A0915942.php)

Hmm, that kind of sounds like the type of propulsion we want, to deflect a comet's path.
A beam of heavy ions accelerated to near-light speeds could transfer significant momentum or KE to a comet over time.
We could steer/aim it using magnetic fields, to hit the comet for a prolonged period of time, to shift its path.
We'd just need a big enough ion beam.

Hey, so what are those guys at CERN doing with their LHC, after they finish looking for the Higgs Boson?

But so tell me, in principle, couldn't we theoretically look for some combination of beam-deflections and gravitational slingshots that would reduce the energy cost of creating a significant impact between a comet and Mars, as compared to the energy cost of de-orbiting Phobos, for example?

[maze]

Deimos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deimos_%28moon%29) would only require less than 10^21 joules (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%281%2F2%29*%2810%5E15+kg%29*%281.35+km%2Fs%29%5E2&btnG=Search)

[sanman]

So that's only about 100 Space Shuttle launches, then. That kind of energy could be beamed over to Deimos from the Earth's surface, gradually over a period of time. If timed correctly, then Deimos could be collided with the Southern icecap to vaporize it. Or perhaps an arbitrary collision with Mars could reactivate volcanism, to spew out more gaseous material and give Mars some decent air pressure and temperature.

Then we could send in the photosynthetic bacteria, or thermophilic bacteria, to start reprocessing that CO2 into oxygen.

If we can spend all that money on building LHC, then why can't we spend similar money on de-orbiting Deimos?

[D H]

Deimos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deimos_%28moon%29) would only require less than 10^21 joules (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%281%2F2%29*%2810%5E15+kg%29*%281.35+km%2Fs%29%5E2&btnG=Search)
Your calculation is off by 50%; Deimos has a mass of 1.48e15 kg. Rounding 9.48 down to 9 is fine, but rounding 1.48 down to 1 is hardly ever fine. But you do not need to kill off all of the velocity. All you need to do is lower the perimars so the orbit is within the atmosphere. Call it 1021 joules (http://www.google.com/search?q=1%2F2*1.48e15kg*%28%281.35km%2Fs%29%5E2-%2842828+km%5E3%2Fs%5E2%29*%282%2F%2823460+km%29-2%2F%2823460+km%2B3450km%29%29%29).

So that's only about 100 Space Shuttle launches, then.
Say what? Getting a Shuttle into LEO requires 1013 joules. 10^{21}/10^{13} = 10^8, or 100 million Shuttle launches.

[maze]

Ahh, did I drop a constant? In any case...

You could get away with a lot less energy if you simply pushed one of the moons into an elliptical orbit to collide with the other one. And plus, even without a moon-moon collision, there's probably a way to rejigger the 3 body problem to make one of the moons hit mars without totally stopping one of the masses.

I'm betting you could do it for ~5*10^19 J

[D H]

You could get away with a lot less energy if you simply pushed one of the moons into an elliptical orbit to collide with the other one.
Making Phobos hit Deimos would take more energy than making Phobos hit Mars. Making Deimos hit Phobos might send some chunks hit Mars, but unless the bulk of the two bodies would not.
And plus, even without a moon-moon collision, there's probably a way to rejigger the 3 body problem to make one of the moons hit mars without totally stopping one of the masses.
First, you do not need to completely stop a body orbiting some planet to make it collide with the planet. You simply need to lower the periapsis to within the planet's atmosphere. It costs a lot more energy (in terms of fuel) to launch the Shuttle than it takes to make the Shuttle land. The atmosphere supplies the rest of the energy needed to slow the Shuttle to landing speed.

Second, the gravitational attraction between Phobos and Deimos is dwarfed by their attraction toward Mars. The "3 body problem" will not come to your rescue. And even if it does ...
I'm betting you could do it for ~5*10^19 J
For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this claim. So what? You have reduced the energy to a mere 50 million Shuttle launches.


=================================================

You pro-terraforming guys are, to be blunt, a bit nuts. The kinds of energies you and sanman are talking about harnessing are not only far beyond anything we are can achieve now, they are far beyond anything we can envision achieving far into the future. If I am lumping you two in with the "colonize Mars" crowd, my apologies. Many in that crowd are demanding that NASA not only develop plans for terraforming Mars, they are demanding that NASA divert their very meagre resources to this end starting now. This is, IMHO, simply insane.

[maze]

As has been stated previously, Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba), detonated in 1961, had a yield of 2*10^17 Joules, and the design was capable of 4*10^17 Joules.

Now 5*10^19 doesn't seem so large... a couple hundred Tsar Bomba's would do it.

[B. Elliott]

As has been stated previously, Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba), detonated in 1961, had a yield of 2*10^17 Joules, and the design was capable of 4*10^17 Joules.

Now 5*10^19 doesn't seem so large... a couple hundred Tsar Bomba's would do it.

And with the explosive energy of two hundred Tsar Bomba's available, how do you suggest using that energy in such a way that all of it can be directed as push in just one direction?

[D H]

Now 5*10^19 doesn't seem so large... a couple hundred Tsar Bomba's would do it.
Get real! To move Deimos,or Phobos, or some other rock, the energy has to be focused and constrained. In case you hadn't noticed, the Tsar Bomba is --get this -- a bomb. A very big bomb that releases an incredible amount of energy in an incredibly short interval of time and over four pi steradians. How are you going to direct the energy in one direction and keep the energy from blowing up the rock you want to move?

Not only is the Tsar Bomba a bomb, it is a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are banned from space. People protested against launching Cassini because it had a puny little RTG. What do you think the world's reaction would be regarding launching "a couple hundred Tsar Bombas" into space?

Where is the moderator for this thread?

[B. Elliott]

Not only is the Tsar Bomba a bomb, it is a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are banned from space. People protested against launching Cassini because it had a puny little RTG. What do you think the world's reaction would be regarding launching "a couple hundred Tsar Bombas" into space?

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

Article 3
3. States Parties shall not place in orbit around or other trajectory to or around the moon objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or place or use such weapons on or in the moon.http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_34_0068.html


Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_21_2222.html

[maze]

Get real! To move Deimos,or Phobos, or some other rock, the energy has to be focused and constrained. In case you hadn't noticed, the Tsar Bomba is --get this -- a bomb. A very big bomb that releases an incredible amount of energy in an incredibly short interval of time and over four pi steradians. How are you going to direct the energy in one direction and keep the energy from blowing up the rock you want to move?

One could place the explosives in a parabolic crater, and/or use 400 or 600 tsar bomba's instead of 125 to ensure enough energy is directed in the right direction. Wasting energy blowing the moon apart instead of pushing it is an issue worth consideration, however.


Not only is the Tsar Bomba a bomb, it is a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are banned from space. People protested against launching Cassini because it had a puny little RTG. What do you think the world's reaction would be regarding launching "a couple hundred Tsar Bombas" into space?

Well, thats not really a engineering problem so much as a political one.

[D H]

Thank you, B. Elliot! I was afraid I was the only voice of sanity in this thread.

Maze and sanman: What exactly is your intention here? If you want to discuss near-term policy, fine. Stop the science fiction if that is the case. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss science function, that is fine too. Keep it a bit real, and don't even begin to pretend that humanity should begin moving in this direction.

[maze]

I don't pretend to know what "humanity" should or should not do. It's just an interesting engineering thought experiment.

[D H]

No, its not. Engineering is deeply concerned with feasibility, cost, liabilities, and practicality. This thread has degenerated into the realm of science fiction.

[sanman]

Exactly, since this is a discussion board, we should not be afraid to discuss.

Suppose we could use a nuclear explosion to precisely split off a sizeable chunk of Phobos or Deimos, to send that spiraling down to Mars, and hit the icecaps.

Maybe dropping a whole moon is overkill. Maybe we just need a 1000-meter diameter chunk to fall on the icecaps, and also time it for the right part of the year, for best overall weather conditions.

An expanding CO2 gas cloud in the low Martian atmospheric pressure (1% Earth atm) would expand more rapidly to cover a wider area. If we were to create one at the right time of day, right time of year, etc, perhaps we could reduce the size requirements.

[D H]

This is a scientific discussion board. There are plenty of other boards out there where you can discuss pseudoscience.

[sanman]

Also, what about the idea of dropping some big nukes on Mars?
Perhaps something could be specifically engineered to minimize the production of fallout and residual radioactivity - not that Mars doesn't currently have high levels of radiation from space.
If you could create an atmosphere, you might improve the radiation situation overall.

The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated was a Soviet explosion in 1961, which was 50 Megatons, using a bomb that weighed 27 tons. But nobody has said this was 27 tons of fuel. I'm imagining that a lot of this was from the overall apparatus and casing, which would have been designed back in that very first decade of Soviet nuclear technology.

There were no supercomputers back then, or other modern tools to achieve the design efficiencies possible with today's technology.

I'm wondering if today it wouldn't be possible to build not just a more powerful and lighter weapon, but also to create a shaped explosion with a flatter, more lenticular shape to radiate energy horizontally more than vertically. That would cover more icecap area.
Maybe an appropriately shaped multi-stage bomb design could do that.

(Although blast radius in vertically downward direction could perhaps have the benefit of breaching the Martian crust to liberate geothermal energy. The Martian crust is also peculiarly thin in the northern polar region, at 32 km thickness. Also, creating lower depressions would afford higher atmospheric pressures and temperatures at those depths, which might be more conducive to liquid water and supporting life.)

[D H]

Stop with the nukes. It ain't gonna happen.

[maze]

This is a scientific discussion board. There are plenty of other boards out there where you can discuss pseudoscience.

I think you are confusing pseudoscience with impractical science. Rough estimates have already demonstrated that it is potentially feasible, if impractical, to effect serious change in the orbit of a small moon with energies available to us. If you are not interested in this subject, I recommend you stop reading the thread.

[B. Elliott]

I think you are confusing pseudoscience with impractical science.

Due to the fact that nukes in space are outlawed by the order of international space law, it's currently impractical and will remain that way intil those laws are changed.

[B. Elliott]

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, with an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

[maze]

Those rules apply to crackpot theories of the laws of physics, not strangely novel applications of correct laws of physics.

I find it hard to believe the level of hatred this thread is generating.

[D H]

It is not hatred, it is frustration. The thread started on a bad footing and just got worse.

Thread reported.

[B. Elliott]

Those rules apply to crackpot theories of the laws of physics, not strangely novel applications of correct laws of physics.

I find it hard to believe the level of hatred this thread is generating.

It's not hatred as I share the same dreams as you do and have had the exact same thoughts as you're having. It's just that you have to know where to draw the line with practicality.

[Astronuc]

The proposals for terraforming, particularly with thermonuclear bombs, were presumptive and didn't address some fundamental issues with respect to feasibility, particularly with respect to atmospheric retention. One must consider what is available to terraform Mars and the goal of such a program.


Mars information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
The solar day (or sol) on Mars is only slightly longer than an Earth day: 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35.244 seconds.

Martian year is equal to 1.8809 Earth years, or 1 year, 320 days, and 18.2 hours. Mars's axial tilt is 25.19°, which is similar to the axial tilt of the Earth. So a Martian winter would be nearly twice as long as one on earth, and perhaps much colder.

Surface temp.
min . mean . max
186 K 227 K 268 K
-87°C -46°C -5°C

So for humans to live in an environment similar to that of Earth, the max temperature of Mars would have to be increased by about 30-35°C, and ideally the minimum would increase by about 50°C, otherwise significant thermal differentials would drive extreme weather (i.e. high wind velocities). Given that Mars is 1.52 AU from the sun, it receives less than half the solar energy flux as the earth (~43%).


But one has to ask, why Mars doesn't have an atmosphere. Well, it simply doesn't have enough gravity to retain the light gases like N2, O2, and water vapor H2O. So, even if the CO2 on Mars was released and converted to O2, and the water was released as vapor, the O2 and H2O would simply escape to space, especially if the temperature were to be increased to levels experienced by Earth's atmosphere.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html

So the gravity would have to be increased on Mars by adding mass,
but then from where would the extra mass come. Phobos? Deimos? Asteroids?

Consider the following:

Mars - mass = 6.4185×1023 kg / 0.107 Earths
Equatorial surface gravity 3.69 m/s² (0.376 g)

Phobos - mass = 1.07×1016 kg (1.8 nEarths)
Deimos - mass = 1.48×1015 kg

The masses of Phobos and Deimos are inconsequential, being less than one ten-millionth of the mass of Mars.


Well - what about the asteroids?


More than half the mass within the main belt is contained in the four largest objects: Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea. All of these have mean diameters of more than 400 km, while Ceres has a diameter of about 950 km.

From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29#Physical_characteristics
The combined mass of the current asteroid belt is only a small fraction of the mass of the Earth's Moon - mass 7.3477×1022 kg (0.0123 Earths)

The mass of Ceres has been determined by analysis of the influence it exerts on small asteroids. The mass of Ceres comprises about a third of the estimated total 3.0 ± 0.2 ×1021 kg mass of the asteroids in the solar system, together totalling about 4% of the mass of the Moon.

Ceres - mass 9.43 ± 0.07×1020 kg, orbit semi-major axis 414,703,838 km
Kovacevic, A.; Kuzmanoski, M. (2007), "A New Determination of the Mass of (1) Ceres". Earth, Moon, and Planets 100: 117–123.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007EM&P..100..117K

Pitjeva, E.V. (2005), "High-Precision Ephemerides of Planets — EPM and Determination of Some Astronomical Constants," Solar System Research 39 (3): 176.
http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/EPM2004.pdf

4 Vesta - mass 2.7×1020 kg, orbit semi-major axis 353,268,000 km

2 Pallas - mass 2.2×1020 kg, orbit semi-major axis 414,784,000 km

10 Hygeia - mass 8.6 ± 0.7 ×1019 kg, orbit semi-major axis 469,345,000 km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moon_and_Asteroids_1_to_10.svg


Collecting all the asteroid mass in solar system, would yield about 4% (0.04) of the lunar mass, which is 11.4% (0.114) mass of Mars. So adding all the asteroid mass to Mars would increase its mass 0.04 * 0.114 = 0.00456, and that would still be insufficient to retain an atmosphere with density and temperature similar to earth. Even adding the moon with the asteroids would only increase the mass of Mars by approximately 12%, and it would still be insufficient.


What about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Well, they are a long way off, and one would have to lift the moons out of the gravity wells of Jupiter and Saturn.


Jupiter - orbit semi-major axis 778,547,200 km

Saturn - orbit semi-major axis 1,433,449,370 km