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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If the Nuke scenario worked to any extent.
There is another problem, no magnetic field..

Well, not exactly, there are some small areas
where the original magnetic field "fossilized" into
the rocks, some say there is enough protection in these
zones.

Could there be a way to deal with that problem..?


Oh, And Nutzo,

I always liked saying "wasps nests" couldn't think of a way to
fit it into the post, other than this though..




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Oh, And Nutzo,

I always liked saying "wasps nests" couldn't think of a way to
fit it into the post, other than this though..


How about this?

Nuke Mars? That's as crazy as sticking your head in a 'Wasps Nest'!




Nutzo



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Good one



Both are really bad ideas.

Imagine, in the future, you need to move a large population,
to Mars, to avoid extinction, maybe there is an asteroid on the way.

But you can't go, radiation levels are still
too high, and the water is polluted.
Because you were screwing around
with nukes, a few decades previous..



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
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?

Nuking it wold be a good ide but there night already be life there. If we nuke Mars then that life will probably die becuase of radition, or maybe it will feed of the energy released from the radiation?
I would like to see something llving like that!!



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Right just wanted to place a comment here......What if we do melt the caps get an atmosphere going has anyone ever thought why it lost the last one????
Because it has to low a mass to create a decent gravity to hold on to it as we melt it the more we let that valuable water float away it could power are bases let us drink and also let us explorer farer out.

Nuke it and loose it i would say hmm what a half life of a typical nuclear pay load 500,000 years or so?

Anyway lets face facts in time we kill our planet or better still we dont get our tech better so we can leae our solar system the sun will expand get hotter and anyway the planets doomed because we have a runaway green house effect due to the aging of our sun....face facts when its time to leave its time to leave we need new planets already habitabal



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
WTF? Nuke mars? It isn't even our planet to nuke? That is totally f'd up! The planet will be come radioactive and no one will be able to live on it... nuking mars is a stupid idea... the point of colonising mars is so we can eventually live on it... it's our own fault that the earth is the way it is... really we should spend more time and money (are hello mr bush... billions of dollars on space exploration... how bout spending that money else where... making industry better for the environment) ... fixing our planet first.

[edit on 14/6/2004 by jameo131i]

[edit on 14/6/2004 by jameo131i]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I have a theory about those two probes on the 'lost' Mars Polar lander - and the planet-wide storm later on in time.

The word nukes figures in this theory!



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I would be making comments, but the nuclear science and the Mars science in this thread is so pathetic, I'm not even sure where to begin or bother.

So all I can really do is say to just abandon the thread all together, it is so chock-full of misinformed junk.

Just looking at several posts...

Half life of Uranium-235 is something like 4 billion years, but in a Nuclear bomb almost all of it is fissioned and so there is nothing left, what is left is irradiation that lasts about 10 years.

There is not enough gasses in the polar caps to make an atmosphere worth a darn.

There is no life on Mars. The only question is was there ever life on Mars?

Those are just a few errors I was bombarded with on just this page alone.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
I would be making comments, but the nuclear science and the Mars science in this thread is so pathetic, I'm not even sure where to begin or bother.

So all I can really do is say to just abandon the thread all together, it is so chock-full of misinformed junk.

Just looking at several posts...

Half life of Uranium-235 is something like 4 billion years, but in a Nuclear bomb almost all of it is fissioned and so there is nothing left, what is left is irradiation that lasts about 10 years.

There is not enough gasses in the polar caps to make an atmosphere worth a darn.

There is no life on Mars. The only question is was there ever life on Mars?

Those are just a few errors I was bombarded with on just this page alone.


Well, we all would shutter to think we have insulted your superior intellect. Every time I read one of your posts you are putting someone down, Im simply fed up with your highbrow attitude looking down at everybody from your princely perch. I expect more from a freemason and so does your lodge. Rather than put down everyone to make your point just make your point. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Kinglizard, first don't assume how I post is how I act, that's so annoying, it's like two people arguing over the internet that they can beat-up the other one.

Down to business, all this stuff that's filling up the forums with page after page of useless arguments, has already been covered in previous posts. Entire threads have been devoted to dispell myths about things being purported in this thread.

Hell I have a thread entirely devoted to understanding WHY terraforming Mars is next to impossible, unless we invent a "God machine".

Yet the arguments persist.

That is very draining on one's patience.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I think this thread is interesting.

And a good place for brainstorming, learning, etc..
So Don't kill it! please..

Also, has anyone calculated the number of Nukes it would take to have
ANY sort of affect on Mars climate of even the smallest amount?

What about Megatonnage per detonation, would you concentrate in certain areas, like the poles? or spread it around, with certain target areas picked out. for various reasons.

Just wondering..



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheConservative
This would be a very interesting way to start the terraformation of Mars.



not to mention make the planet unliveable because of all the radiation, yout have to wait thousand or millions of years for all that to go away



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

What if we do melt the caps get an atmosphere going has anyone ever thought why it lost the last one????


Sounds very "Total Recall", hehe...

Start the reactor Quaid....



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
You gotta be crazy. We cant even control the climate here on Earth (and it seems to be getting out of control as well), how could we possibly control the climate on another planet?
According to this nuke-theory we will never ever have a problem with "atomic winter" here on earth. We just nuke our own ice-caps and voila...Seems like there are just too many triggerhappy nuke-fanatics out there. Ever thought about the fact that maybe all this nuke-testing that have been going on here on Earth might be the reason why the climate is getting out of control?
Nukes should ONLY be used to possibly changing the orbit of earthbound objects when no other options are available.
"Nuking Mars, just to see what happens"... Jeezus, hope you will never become President...



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Deep Space informed the world in 1992 that a Cobalt Bomb had been dropped on the Face by the USA by one of it's "Lost" probes (to degrade the evidence). He put forward that this was the reason for "deterioration" in features from the Mariner/Viking images to the "Catbox" ones.

I have a whole heap of old e-mails from the odd prick...

I do not endorse this theory one way or the other.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by htown
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.
This is why our planet is messed up right now. Too many people like you don't think about the future generations. You only think of the now and don't care about your actions. So what if it takes 500 years and you won't see it. Imagine the possibilities of evolving a planet!



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
The meteor crater in arizona was equal to 2.5 megatons of TNT

The object that excavated the crater was a nickel-iron meteorite about 50 meters (54 yards) across
en.wikipedia.org...

A dozen or more 300 to 500 meter asteroides dropped on mars would do the same as using nukes but without the radiation.

These would be available from the near by asteroid belt that is between Mars and Jupiter.

Add a few comets and you have it.

Or you could use a couple asteroids the size that killed the dinosaurs
The Chicxulub impactor's estimated size was about 10 km (6 mi) in diameter and may have released an estimated 400 zettajoules (4×1023 joules) of energy, equivalent to 100 teratons of TNT (100.000.000 megatons) making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful then the Tsar Bomba or Emperor Bomb, had a yield of only 50 megatons
en.wikipedia.org...

It would be a lot easier to move a few large rocks down the gravity well then move bombs up it. You could even use the nukes to move them with out making mars radioactive.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I don't really know how nuking Mars would work out, but I certainly know that we are a long, long way from terraforming planets.

Not only is our technology too primitive for this, but we are also too socially immature to expand out onto other planets. Until serious issues like war, famine, disease, prejudice, etc. are gone or down to a minimum, then we can start discussing these things seriously.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by htown
 


Just like space flight was impossible *rolls eyes* Dont say anything is impossible, because someones going to find a way to do it sometime.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join