Heating Up Mars

Interesting idea.

My favourite notion of how to heat Mars -technology allowing in the next century, is to knock the right sized ice-moon -oh say Europa- out of Jupiter orbit onto a colision course with the red planet, I suspect before impact Europa will break up into smashing big bits, the kentic energy of the colision being sufficient to re-melt the Martian core, thus while introducing both massive amounts of new water, the core-melting would restart the differential in spin between surface and core prospectively regenerating Mars' long gone electromagnetic field, making it it a more radiation freindly environment, the additional mass retained subsequent to the colision (admitting some substantial ejecta offset) would also assist in retaining a greater density of atmosphere that should result as one of many chemical consequences of this impact.

Sure, it would be a masively unstable environment for a while, but by the standard of any gentler approach... voila, instant terraforming.

Of course the whole idea is ethically reprehensible - but if your going to terraform - nothing like doing it big time. I'd call it "Catastrophic Terraforming".

GPJ

You'd do it a whole lot easier with a few asteroids.
(Less Delta V required if you dont have to dip into a gravity well.)

Might even be practical to do it with earth crossing objects and solar sails.
(Make the disaster junkies breath easier too.)

More mass to hold atmosphere.....And a comet or two for volatiles.

I seriously doubt you'd get core melting though,
you'd loose the surface heat through radiation long before it
penetrated to the core, though there would be some gain through
deformation,maybe enough to melt sub surface water.

It's not a totally new idea, and if life isn't found on mars,
I, for one would not consider it 'ethically reprehensible`.

Practicality is another matter. - If you could match the velocities
so that you didn't significantly change the orbit and thus unbalance
the whole system.
And to make the surface livable, you'd have to somehow generate
a magnetic field.

- Something to worry about:
Remember that a more massive mars just might destabilize
the orbits of an asteroid or two. - It's NEVER that simple.

While the mass of Mars is only about one-tenth of Earth, its surface gravity is about 38%, which should be high enough to hold more atmosphere than Mars actually has, having only 0.6% pressure of Earth's atmosphere. Scientist believe the actual cause of Mars low atmospheric pressure to be the effect of the solar wind, normally diverted on Earth by our magnetic field, carrying off the Martian atmospheric gases.

We would not need to significantly change the mass of Mars to hold more atmosphere, at least temporarily, which could be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years! We simply need to get the greenhouse effect going to retain heat from the sun by vaporizing frozen gases (primarily CO2, a proven greenhouse gas!) at the Martian polar ice caps. With our nuclear arsenal, I think we are just the guys to do it too! A warmer atmosphere will then help prevent the gases from freezing once again, and the surface becomes more hospitable. See my other postings for more explanation!

And the fall-out from a 'small nuke or two` makes
the place more habitable how????

Remember that radiation due to the lack of a magnetosphere
is already a problem.

Well, we would of course use a "clean bomb" that left very little residual "fallout". Fallout is, after all radioactive particles, usually dust and larger particles from the surface which became irradiated.

Don't confuse radioactive fallout which can continue to be a source of radiation long after the blast, with the particle radiation and electromagnetic (E/M) radiation itself. We will be creating primarily energy in the form of heat (infrared) and other E/M radiation such as visible light, microwaves, gamma, x-rays. Of course there will be some alpha particle emissions, but hopefully they will be short-lived as well.

If our nuclear trigger material is totally consumed into a gaseous plasma (high energy simple particles, like hydrogen and helium ions), and we primarily have heat and short-lived alpha and electromagnetic radiation from the fusion reaction, which melts the ice caps and is absorbed by the release of atmospheric gases which had been trapped in a frozen state, we should have very little "fallout". This can be further safeguarded by making sure we have detonation far above ground, so that only ice cap melting and vaporization occurs, without creating a crater to spew up surface material.

Thanks Pragmatist! All points well taken. I would assume however that if we had the technological capacity to enact the scenario (solar sails being vastly more elegant for sure), that we would be able to forsee and avert the consequences of disrupting the orbits of such asteroids as might become a too-NEO!

I admit that I'm out of my depth on the asumption about core melting, although it seems to me that achieving such a result would be critical to protecting the planet sufficently from radiation for a food chain and human or humanoid-enegineered for Martian habitation to survive.

On the ethics thing - I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar (not that impressive really) on the basis of what we've seen so far from both the Rover(s) and current orbital Mars missions, that some life remains there. Primitive and simple for sure, but probably just a little more complex than we would have dared hope a few years ago.

(More tape for the shoebox!)

Mars is so small that I thought it would be better to use a colission to knock it into orbit around Venus which would move venus into a higher orbit, teriform Venus and possably cool it off while leaving Mars as a moon above Venus. Mars would pick up more of an atmosphere in the process. Looks like a win-win to me unless the whole thing ran into earth. Can it be done with a pool shot?

Sabo,

You forget that the entire solar system is a dynamic balancing act.

Even if you could obtain and direct the energies required, (no small endeavor),
you run the risk of changing the entire system in ways not neccessarily
completely predictable. - (The system is classified as chaotic.)

The current mean orbital radii bear a regular mathematical relationship to
each-other. There are harmonic mutual gravity effects.

Moving one large object would have far reaching long term consequences.
Even substantially increasing the mass of Mars, as before discussed, would
probably result in a few asteroids changing orbits. - Kinda scarey.

What if it missed? What would be the consequence of Europa drifting around the inner rockies instead of Jupiter?

How about a middle ground, between "Catastrophic Terraforming", and the wimpy, "Oh...leth put up thome balloonth and thee what happenth!" ?

Well, what happens when our group of brave astronaut/colonists is out farming and a stray asteroid or meteor shower takes out the balloons and eliminates their precious sunbeam? Instant Corpsicle!

Here is a better idea. Let's make global warming work FOR us on Mars! If we explode a small nuke or two over the polar ice caps, which contain a small amount of frozen H₂O and a large amount of frozen CO₂, won't the resulting CO₂ gas and water vapor in the atmosphere lead to Martian global warming? We would need to be careful that we blasted only the ice caps, because resulting dust in the air from a hit on the soil/rock surface would have the opposite effect, causing the eternal Ice Age on Mars to continue , as well as making atmospheric conditions worse for studying the planet from above.

We may not be able to create a Garden of Eden, or a Tucson, AZ, but we might be able to make a Butte, Montana. And people do live there!

Or am I missing something?

Set up fossil fuel burning burning power stations...that should help, if indeed the CO2 theory is true . Use the power to charge up hydrogen power cells, batteries etc etc, ship these back to Earth and viola! pollution free power here, progressive terra forming there....just remember to put plenty of tape round the shoebox in which you're storing your conscience!

I think my idea is a little more practical. A few nukes could easily be carried as cargo on a single Mars mission using current technology, and launched from orbit with a ballistic trajectory aimed at the polar ice cap.

Whereas, the amount of fossil fuels necessary to make any significant increase in the CO2 levels of the Martian atmosphere would be enormous. Do you think we will find those fossil fuels on Mars? Doubtful. It would never be cost effective to carry fossil fuels to Mars simply to "charge up hydrogen power cells, batteries, etc"

But even if we could do that, why would your conscience come into play? Are you concerned about "life on Mars"? So far, all we have found is some fossilized microbes on a rock found on Earth which we "think" came from Mars.

Regarding fossil fuel on Mars. I doubt there is fossil fuel but I do think there is oil close to the surface...black tarry stuff. Of course, I think oil and fossils are unrelated except that there are a few similarities to the age of there occurrence. If this should prove true then heating the surface of Mars may only require the conversion of the planets oxygen to CO2 by burning the oil that may be there to boost atmospheric heat retention. But that atmosphere is so thin that I doubt lighting a match is possible. It may initially burn but sustaining a flame with anything short of a rocket motor would be doubtful.

You are correct. The atmosphere is indeed "thin". Not only is the pressure very low, less than 1% of earth, but the percent of oxygen is only about 0.15%, which make the partial pressure of oxygen on Mars unable to support breathing without oxygen supplement. So, even if fossil fuels or petroleum were discovered on Mars, they could not be burned without a large oxygen supply. My proposal to warm Mars by increasing the atmospheric pressure by release of CO2 from the polar ice caps could also release some water vapor into the atmosphere, but how much would be unknown. Rockets that land on Mars would have to bring their own oxygen for fuel combustion, just like on the Moon. But then, this thread was about "Heating up Mars" not providing oxygen for rockets and breathing!

By the way, what do you base your assertion that "oil and fossils are unrelated except that there are a few similarities to the age of there occurrence". Most scientists agree that oil (petroleum) is the result of the breakdown of organic materials, plants and animals, through pressure and heat over a long period of time. Chemically, there is almost no other way these compounds could have formed.

Fossils are recorded evidence of the existance of organic life (again plants and animals) because over time, inorganic chemicals (material of rocks) substituted for the organic materials, taking the same form and shape, sort of like a 3D stone photograph, within layers of other, contrasting materials. That the two should be found to have occurred at roughly the same time is far from being a coincidence in my mind! I believe they are very much related.

Butte Montana? Surely Lerwick, Shetland Islands would be a better example?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in order for global warming to occur (like on earth), don't we need a layer of ozone as cover over the planet?? Isn't this the reason people are saying that CO2 is creating holes in the ozone layer, thereby causing global warming?? As far as I know, Mar don't have any layer like earth covering the planet.

MidniteFighter

No, you are confusing two different problems.

The ozone layer is part of the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, where the sun's energy has excited diatomic oxygen molecules, O2, so they split and combine with other O2 molecules to form triatomic ozone, O3. Ozone helps to block harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which could kill all life on earth were it not for the screening effect of the ozone layer.

"Holes" in the ozone layer can occur naturally, like over volcanoes which spew all kinds of chemicals into the air, which combine with the unstable O3 molecules. However, scientists in the 1970's and `1980's noticed that not only were overall atmospheric ozone levels diminishing (thinning), but seasonal holes, area of extremely low ozone levels, were forming, especially in Antarctica. The chief culprit appeared to be increasing levels of chemicals known as Chlorinated Fluoro-Carbons, or CFC's which were used as propellants in aerosol cans and refrigerants in air conditioning (A/C) systems, freezers, and refrigerators. CFC were released from these products in manufacturing during filling, and later when the systems wore out or were damaged and developed leaks. Automotive A/C systems were particularly prone to leaking and mechanics were often careless about venting CFC's when repairing/refilling these systems. Eventually, CFC's were banned and replaced by other, non-ozone depleting chemicals.

Ozone can be a greenhouse gas when ground level production of ozone from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from automobile and industrial pollution reaches the lower levels of the atmosphere and absorbs infrared heat reflected by the surface of the earth, trapping that energy in the atmosphere and raising atmospherica temperatures. However, scientists have identified CO and CO2 as being far more significant in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Like a greenhouse, which lets light and higher level heat energy from the sun insided, but reflects lower level heat energy which is re-radiated back from the surface, these gases trap energy in our atmosphere, raising average temperatures around the world.

So, to answer your question, no, CO2 does not create holes in the ozone layer, but it does cause global warming, by trapping reflected heat, like in a greenhouse.

Since we are talking about how to raise the surface temperature of Mars, so that it could be more hospitable to explorers and perhaps later more habitable by colonists, you need to understand that Mars has practically no atmosphere. While its atmosphere IS already mostly CO2 (about 95%), there is so little gas that the atmospheric pressure at the average surface level is about 0.6% of that of Earth. Since Mars' orbit is greater than Earth's, its average radiation from the sun is naturally less. Without an atmosphere to retain heat, the surface absorbs heat during the day and then re-radiates it into space at night. Why is there so little atmosphere on a planet similar in size to the Earth? Scientist believe it is because Mars core, while similar to the earth somewhat, and still partially molten, is not longer magnetically active (traces of magnetism remain in some materials formed millions of years ago) and the solar wind (high energy charged particles from the sun) began slowly stripping off the atmosphere (whatever it was) once Mars no longer had an active magnetic field to divert it.

Mars also has seasons like the earth and the extreme cold of the winter condenses CO2 in the atmosphere into solid "dry ice" in very thick sheets, forming the polar ice caps, which also traps some oxygen, water vapor, and other gases. When the ice caps partially melt each year (alternating between North and South, just like on Earth), gas from the melt builds up, causing winds of up to 250 mph, as the high pressure moves into the equatorial low pressure areas. Clouds of recondensing water vapor also form, but probably do not contain enough vapor to actually cause rain, as no liquid water has ever been found on the surface of Mars.

My thought, as originally expressed in post #2 was that one or more thermonuclear blasts over the polar ice caps could vaporize enough CO2 and the other trapped gases to raise the atmospheric pressure significantly, allowing more sunlight to be trapped and raising surface temperatures. Of course O2 for breathing would still be a problem, but we have overcome that by recycling O2 that we bring with us in space travel and undersea vessels already. Eventually, the solar wind would once again strip of the atmosphere, albeit very slowly. Perhaps that would be long enough to develop the technology to find and divert comets or other sources of water (perhaps from one of the moons of Jupiter as suggested) and to artifically create a Martian magnetic field.