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.

 

Why not Nuke Mars?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Why dont they just nuke Mars to allow for a warmer more habitable planet.

They say that the Tzar bomb (the worlds largest detonated nuke) if fully fissible and exploded at 100 Megatons, would have released 25% of the total radioactive material already on the planet.

But...since they didn't make it fully fissible, and only exploded at 50 megaton, they were able to reduce the amount of radiation by 95%.

Why dont they just explode a heap of tzar like bombs on Mars to heat it up a bit ;P Melt that ice, at the polar ice caps, get it flowing again and into the atmosphere, heat up mars a heap, get a denser atmosphere on mars, let it trap the heat from the sun more, get it to temperatures where algae, moss, whatever, can blossom, and spread over the planet and get oxygen into the atmosphere. Make the planet habitable.

Wouldn't it sure speed up the colonization process?




posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
This is actually a proposed scenario for Mars.

One of the proposed plans, laid out in the Ride document, was to initiate thermonuclear explosions in the atmosphere of Mars and create a greenhouse effect that would facilitate the creation of a habitable atmosphere.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
And, how do we get it there? And if we get in range, how to we deploy it and get out of there fast enough?

The only thing that might be able do that is a Bomber version of the Space Shuttle, and I don't think the U.S. or any other country is about to attempt something so farfetched.

Face it, Mars is completely inhabitable.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This would be a very interesting way to start the terraformation of Mars.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Wouldn't it sure speed up the colonization process?


Sure it will by a couple of decades, but we won't be around to see life evolving on Mars.

And besides what is the point? Making Mars habitable will take milleniums and we will be long extinct before the process even starts.

My prediction is that humans won't habitate earth for more than two or three milleniums.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Unless we DO find out there really are Martians!!!

YEA RIGHT.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by htown
And, how do we get it there? And if we get in range, how to we deploy it and get out of there fast enough?

The only thing that might be able do that is a Bomber version of the Space Shuttle, and I don't think the U.S. or any other country is about to attempt something so farfetched.

Face it, Mars is completely inhabitable.


If we can send probes there why couldnt we send a warhead? seems 100% plausible to me... whether it will happen is another thing altogether but i think the theory works

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by specialasianX]



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article about terraforming Mars (nukes included):

www.users.muohio.edu...



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by htown
And, how do we get it there? And if we get in range, how to we deploy it and get out of there fast enough?

The only thing that might be able do that is a Bomber version of the Space Shuttle, and I don't think the U.S. or any other country is about to attempt something so farfetched.

Face it, Mars is completely inhabitable.




You really think that the latest Us fighter plane would be the F-22?

cmon. Technology is way more advanced than that. Though suppressed.

If the US or any nation said that it is going to go to mars, do these things to make mars habitable, and theya re going to use the worlds scientists, as much technology as possible, and will be looking at any and every persons reuests, on how thye can help to achieve this, and any technological advancements they can bring with them, to achieve this goal of making mars habitable, you will see a scientific phenominom. You will see science jsut pour out of the hearts and souls of people around the world, and just see a scientific marvel.

In fact, I dont understand why some countries dont go and say this. Technological achievement will occur, be brought out into the open, and will sure as hell make that country very techonologically advanced, and open about science.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
You can't just strap a warhead up with Jet Engines or something and expect it to work. You'd be dealing with no explosion on Mars then... it'd be on Earth.

Though with the way we think of things I'm sure someone will think... but I will still have to decline on the likelyness.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
We can't send shuttles there.




posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
DaRage... I study the Governments Conspiracy section... when I'm not with my friends or studying school work... it's this. I know how fast the government's armory is increasing in power. The most technical fighter is probably the Aurora XST or the SNX Sepia 145. I'm not saying it's impossible... but, think how long it would take... it wouldn't be something you go up there one day and the next day there is life.

I still stick by my prospective.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
This topic reminded me of a page I came across a long time ago. For the record, I dont agree with it, but I will present it for your viewing pleasure!


Did NASA Nuke The Face on Mars



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by htown
You can't just strap a warhead up with Jet Engines or something and expect it to work. You'd be dealing with no explosion on Mars then... it'd be on Earth.

Though with the way we think of things I'm sure someone will think... but I will still have to decline on the likelyness.


Jet engine? since when has a jet engine gotten us into space... let alone mars? its quite possible in my opinion to send a nuke to mars... the only risky part would be getting it out of our orbit... but i'm sure it wouldnt be too much of a problem as we can send humans into space with next to no damage caused to them... and i'm sure ifthey sent nukes there would be safety systems in place to stop them exploding upon leaving the atmosphere



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Your "prospective" does nothing but emphasize the lengthy timeline of the proposal. It does not show impossibility or improbability.

The proposal is legitimate...not a Popular Mechanics article. We have already sent explorers into the solar system with nuclear powered devices. It's just a matter of different types.

An Martian orbital vehicle with a nuclear device (and the proposal is for several) is not far-fetched.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
htown: i dont care about the Aurora, or the likes. I'm talking about the other black ops such as flying disks using gravitational waves as means of flight, or using technology that i dont know about that i've read and seena bout....how UFO's do lots of jumps, they are in one spot at one time, then disappear, and jump instantly into another spot of space.


The latest stuff isn't going to be anything powered by rockets, or engines with no moving parts such as the Aurora.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
my first post i said shuttle... ut edited it to say probe... my bad...

if done it wouldnt work in our lifetimes... or even the next... but the process would eventually (in theory) help make mars a better place to live



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I'm not talking about your every day Pratt and Whitney's. I'm talking about PDWE (Pulse Detonation Wave Engines) in four strap lining. Those have more thrust than the Space Shuttle.

But, how long would we have to wait after the nuke went off. You have to wait for the radiation level to go down... then wait to see what your dealing with... then deal with figuring what to do next, dy the time it would be habitable would be in 2500.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
We just got there with a rover that actually works for once....and you already talking about nuking it?...its not our planet to nuke....we've already #ed this planet...we shouldnt risk #ing Mars....i say let it be.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by dreamlandmafia]



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
uhhh...

dreamland, we've been talking about this since the 1980's. Nothing new here.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join