It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: LeeAndrewCox
Forgive my ignorance but I though we couldn't live in places contaminated by nuclear bombs? Negasaki and Hiroshima seem to disprove this but, why contaminate in the first place.
Yes Bobw927 is right it would certainly destroy any evidence of earlier inhabitation by humans or whoever.
Surely Musk just has his own venture in mind and is hoping to clean up financially but if he hopes to do this perhaps he needs to think up something means that people would find acceptable. "Go outside and play in the nuclear contaminated garden" is hardly something one would want to tell one's kids to do.
originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: Shiloh7
I believe he said one bomb on each pole, north and south. That would only contaminate, or hide evidence, on or near the poles.
I don't see how this would work. Maybe he means multiple bombings over a number of years? Or one massive bombing with multiple bombs? I don't know, its just wierd to me. And seems irresponsible until we are sure there is no life or other discoveries that could be destroyed in the process.
originally posted by: pikestaff
Without the magnetic shield such as earth has, there is no point in trying to add more atmosphere to Mars, the solar wind will just blow it away, as it has done already.
Mars does not have enough gravity for an earth type atmosphere,
its present atmosphere is 0.015 that of earth's, that is one fifteenth of a pound per square inch.
Being so close to the asteroid belt, I would not put my faith in a pressurised dome either.
originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: LeeAndrewCox
Forgive my ignorance but I though we couldn't live in places contaminated by nuclear bombs?
Americans..if they can solve a problem by shooting it or blowing it up they are happy bunnies!
Why it might work
Right now, Mars seems like a dry, dead planet. But its polar ice caps contain about equal parts water and carbon dioxide.
Nuclear weapons could be used to vaporize them, releasing those materials into the atmosphere. Once the atmosphere got thick enough, the greenhouse effect would kick in: energy from the sun, absorbed by the planet and released as infrared radiation, would be trapped.
That would continue heating up the planet, releasing more carbon dioxide, setting off a chain reaction until, ideally, the surface pressure of Mars would increase enough for liquid water to exist — making it much more habitable for oxygen-producing plants.
“You could start turning Mars from a red planet into a green planet,” Michael Shara, curator of the American Museum of Natural History’s astrophysics department, told NBC News.
Nuclear weapons aren’t the only way that humans could melt the planet’s polar caps. Shara offered some alternatives, like finding a way to guide asteroids to Mars’ poles, or covering the poles in a fine, black dust to absorb sunlight and heat them up.
But many ideas involve transporting heavy equipment to Mars, which would be very expensive. Nukes are fairly compact and immensely powerful, offering a lot of bang for the buck.
Using nukes might not be the best public relations move. But modern thermonuclear weapons can be designed to leave very little fallout, Shara said, and wouldn’t pose much danger centuries after they hit.
It could take firing thousands of them over the course of decades to start the greenhouse effect, Shara said. After that, it might only be centuries before people could start buying vacation homes on Mars.
Why nuking Mars might fail
“It’s a clever idea in principle,” Shara said. “Whether it would really work, I don’t think anyone has worked up the physics in enough detail to say it would.”
Even the most advanced computer simulations would have trouble predicting the aftermath of starting a runaway greenhouse effect. Gary King, a microbiologist at Louisiana State University, thinks bombing the Red Planet would be reckless.
“Cloud formation could have a dampening effect, for instance, cooling Mars rather than warming it,” King told NBC News.
Plus, there are ethical questions to be considered, especially since we haven’t thoroughly explored the planet yet.
It would be good to know that there are no microorganisms left over from an earlier period still lingering in the ice, he said. “The odds aren’t high, but no one can say that they are zero either.”
Source: www.msnbc.com...