New theory unravels magnetic instability

spaceref.com ^ | 10 Dec 02 | Los Alamos

[RightWhale]

Venus has a tremendously huge and dense atmosphere. Most of it, 99.7%, would have to be disposed of somehow. It's probably all useful as a resource, a chemical mine. Can't help seeing Venus in the morning, it's brilliant like a tiny welding arc, makes Jupiter seem like a candle by comparison. That's all real estate going to waste. Terraform it and there is a second earth, a new world, a real one this time for us to inhabit and work our magic. Probably have Alqaida there, too, mumbling about some sacred something or other but reduced to wearing "The End Is Nigh" sandwich boards on streetcorners.

[Sentis]

Basic science when you burn CO2 you get Carbon ash and oxygen. I'm not talking about alot of Oxygen that isn't even the byproduct I want. We need the Carbon ash to increse the albedo of the polar regions. Once the albedo is increased the remaining CO2 and water will melt. As for retaining atmosphere mars will never be able to retain a stable atmosphere it will have to be renewed once in a million years or so as its gravity is not enough to retain it indefinatly.

Fallout isn't really a problem in a process that even with the nuclear option will take over 100 years. Also Mars has very little background radiation compared to earth. Life on earth actually needs some radiation to preform well. While massive amounts of radiation will be released it will not be near enough to poison the atmosphere or water that the heat from the explosions will release. I can get exact numbers but its been awhile since i've had this conversation and it may take a day or two.

[DannyTN]

Yes, I see that you are obsessed with the nuke thing.

I just think that options to terraform that don't use the word nuclear, and don't involve crossing the earth's orbit with anything of size are more likely to be taken seriously and win popular support.

That's what we need is a terraforming champion. Someone who can capture the public's imagination, can put a price tag to the effort and respectfully marginalize the opposition. By respectfully, I mean consider carefully valid criticisms of the plan and prepare contingencies accordingly.

[BlazingArizona]

Does anyone here, with professional experience in the field, have any thoughts as to whether it may eventually be feasible to shove Mars into Earth's orbit, thus causing it to acquire a climate similar to Earth's.

It would be easier - by many orders of magnitude - for humans to keep improving their technology of shelter, as we have been doing for millennia. Consider that we can now live comfortably in Arizona and Alaska, and can survive in Antarctica. Another generation, and we should be able to live comfortably on Mars.

[MHGinTN]

Are there archaea bacteria resilient to heat to the degree that they could be 'injected' deep into the mantle of Venus where they could be additive in terraforming Venus?

[DannyTN]

If you can cool Venus, won't some of the atmosphere condense. I say we build the sunblocker satelite and see what happens.

We can make adjustments as necessary to bring Venus to a new stabilization point. Once we see the real effects of what less sunlight does on the atmosphere, both in terms of density and content, we can plan for the next move.

[DannyTN]

Or can it be shoved into an orbit similar to Earth's that doesn't necessarily cross earth's orbit. But I agree with the other's that think terraforming in place is more feasible than moving the planet.
Let's move asteroids instead and use them as terraforming tools.

[Sentis]

The nuclear Warhead is the most useful tool man has ever devised and it has only been used once as a tool. I think a campaign that said something like "Using the Tools of War to create a New World" or to scare up Liberal support "Let us turn the evil sword of the capitalists into a plowshare to create a new world of social equality for all comrades"

[DannyTN]

How about build a massive lense that concentrates sunlight on the poles. Would that have the desired combustion effect?

If so, it would have an advantage. It would be slower than nukes, but it would be controllable, in that you could turn it off when you reach the desired atmospheric conditions.
It could also be repositioned so that instead of a concentrated beam at the poles, it can disburse to a wider range, increasing the sunlight and warmth for the planet as a whole.

[RightWhale]

You are correct. Mars needs more mass. Dumping junk asteroids there is a great plan.

[DannyTN]

What was the once?

I'm not opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I just see them as a liability in that their use is bound to create unneeded controversy. If you can do the same thing without them, you are much more likely to be able to build the plow in the first place.

And if you are thinking that if you can put the nuke to a good and noble use, that liberals will back off in their distaste for them, well, good luck with that.

[Sentis]

The only problem with a lense like that is that it is not currently within our technical abilities to build and put into place.

[DannyTN]

Are you sure we don't have that capability?

Isn't it as simple as hauling a lot of lightweight plastic or glass lens parts into space and then tying them together. And building a mechanism to help focus the lens and to move it into position.

The hardest part would be determining the optimal point to place the lens?

I hear Iraq may have a surplus of glass soon!

[Sentis]

The problem is without using Nukes there will never (not in our lifetimes) be a cheap enough solution for terraforming. Moving asteriods are fine but it's cost is astronomical (to add a bit of a pun). Putting nukes into space and sending them to Mars is expensive but compared to the price of flying out to the asteriod belt wrangling an asteriod and sending it towards mars it is less than nothing.

[Flying Circus]

You have your chemistry backwards. Carbon ash burns in oxygen to form C02 in a highly exothermic and very difficult to reverse reaction. A nuclear reaction would be sufficient to energize CO2 to decompose, but very little would reform to C and O2 because those products are disfavored both entropically and energetically.

[DannyTN]

Use the nukes to push the asteroids.

You get to explode your nukes, the liberals can't falsely complain that you are going to contaminate the planet. Everybody wins.

[Sentis]

it actually isnt that simple or we could already be using that technology on earth to create solar power grids that actually work. The size of the lense would have to be massive. Probably it would have to be at least 100 miles long and wide to affect the poles in anyway (I pulled that number out of a lower region of my anatomy but I bet I'm close). The costs of sending the lense to mars and then constructing it there is huge.

[Eaker]

Bump to read after a coupla drinks....

[RightWhale]

The costs of sending the lense to mars

Send nothing. Use local materials.

[DCPatriot]

"...whether it may eventually be feasible to shove Mars into Earth's orbit, thus causing it to acquire a climate similar to Earth's..."

SCREW MARS! Let's use Venus. *WOMEN* are from Venus.