Make mars alive again!

Trying to nuke Mars is just retarded. Imagine the rocket with the nuke failing to launch and hitting earth..

That's exactly what the ayy's would make happen too

>We need to build the magnetic field so that we can develop and grow things without them getting destroyed by the suns solar quiffs
Have you heard of hydroponics?

I mean, yeah, we need to do something about it if you wanna have picnics on the surface... Though even then, installing a magnetic field isn't the only option. There's been fanciful speculation about building floating barriers or even magnetic generators in geostationary orbit around the sun relative to Mars to cut down, and the like. Still (again, ignoring the gravity problems) it's entirely possible to build self-sustaining underground and underdome bases. Asking for a blue sky to wander under is just being greedy at this stage.

Albeit, having a colony at all is being a bit greedy at this stage, but by the time you get one, you'll likely have new solutions for that other item on the wish list.

Well it isn't all about human pleasure, imagine seeing the life that would grow if eruptions happened on mars again and a magnetic field came back? We'd be studying a smaller colder earth essentially with less gravity. Imagine the life we could study?

> but it wouldn't be natural

Bitch, we are nature! the holy lord Charles Darwin and Fredrich Neitzsche made humans evolve from finches and bananas and we made life evolve from that big red circle called mars!

>by the time you get one, you'll likely have new solutions for that other item on the wish list.
I suppose the one downside to that, is if you have one there, it might be in the way of whatever drastic terraforming effort you have in mind.

That underground network of 50 million folks on Mars might have complaints about raining nukes and asteroids down on them.

Why would the nuke be armed during lift off?

I, didn't complain about anything being artificial.

At the same time, any life that appeared after that we probably would have been put there, and in terms of real-time evolutionary experiments, by the time they come to fruition, you've probably already got the computational power at hand to predict every possible permutation. We're talking scales of hundreds of millions of years here, and you've got less than a billion before the sun radically changes the climate on Mars (frying the Earth in the process), so hopefully you're onto other solar systems by then.

I mean, full terraforming is something you'd eventually want - just gives you a lot more comfortable living space on the cheap, but even talking about underground colonies is largely speculation. By the time you're ready to start a full terraforming project, so many factors of new inventions and discoveries will be in play that it's difficult to begin speculating. By then we'll probably be kugelblitzing black holes in orbit for power and shit... Assuming mankind isn't wiped out or tossed into a dark age before any self sustaining colony happens.

Well now I don't think it will take millions of years to find bacteria cells, could they be half from our dirty airships? probably, but they wouldn't have had the initial reactant without our dirt and that's still a micro thing we could observe. There's always see how our own plants and creatures grow on a colder, lower gravity level planet as well.

I thought you were implying the benefit of terraforming Mars would be the opportunity to study the life that would evolve there. Macroevolution takes a lot of fucking time. If you just wanna watch bacteria evolve, it's much simpler to create extreme conditions in a lab.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1497204190824.webm

Well that seems reasonable, but the concept will remains of getting the drift started, perhaps focusing on ways to speed up the process on mars while exploring and studying responsive adaptations.

The idea of recreating the extreme conditions in a lab is a very plausible idea, but imagine recreating it in a lab and comparing it to the bacteria cells already on mars? The expectation is that they should be the same, but the possibility of anything different raises new questions for us to explore.

Midas well study the consequences of an expanding universe by watching the universe expand. There would be benefits to terraforming Mars, surely, but I think that'd be pretty low on the list - not to mention a potentially hazardous side effect.

Well that is where we need to ask ourselves what effects mars has on the earth and the moon gravitationally, and what effect it COULD have gravitationally. Morally I would say whatever happens is just part of nature, humans have evolved to the point of rejuvenating mars while causing ____ everywhere else, it's up to us and everything else to adapt based on that which happens in nature.

You aren't.
Magnetic fields don't reflect the sun's light
user, not only was the core not a documentary, it was a horrible movie

I haven't seen whatever documentary that is honestly, and it's not about reflecting the sunlight it's about the solar winds and things that the earths magnetic field keeps away from us.

Surfer because let's do something with sulfur .

>Mars
>plates

hen did this happen? Last time I sashaying any attention, there weren't plates on Mars.

I would agree that if you rule out nukes, you can't awaken a magnetic field on Mars.

The mistake you make is in thinking nukes somehow could do that.

Well there's something thick in the ground we would have caused to shift and cause volcanic eruptions if we decide to go that rout.

That was only my first initial idea only large bursts of energy that could cause a shift in the ground to cause eruptions. It has been made clear to me nukes aren't the best option here. . . .

Ok so what's the mechanism for starting up Mars' geodynamo using nukes. Certainly you must have some papers and simulations on this that show this is feasible if you really are proposing to spend trillions of dollars to do this

I have evidence in papers I wrote for a physical geology class, the grades here are not what is being asked for

You could just crash Phobos into the Mars surface. There you have your massive energy input and you even increased the gravity.

JOHJ

>Well that is where we need to ask ourselves what effects mars has on the earth and the moon gravitationally, and what effect it COULD have gravitationally.
I... Don't think you have to go there to find that out. We have that math... What are you even on about?

They think the canyons and some of the ranges are a result of tectonic plate movement in the distant past, but the planet is no longer geologically active.

>Magnetic fields don't reflect the sun's light
Light isn't the problem, radiation is. A magnetic field that traps plasma blocks solar radiation, ala the Van Allen radiation belts. Mars is a dead planet with stable core, so it doesn't produce a magnetic field the way say Earth or Jupiter does.

Well, it'd certainly provide more bang for your buck than any number of nukes, but it's still not going to get you the desired effect.

Well perhaps we can look at things like this iron-oxidizing bacteria I read about and if we can find a way to make them multiply and maybe give them steroids on mars we can have bacteria eat a hole in mars.

The other idea is sending two large machines to send angular force at each other an cause a large earthquake on mars that may create an opening starting point for us.

And how the hell would iron oxidizing bacteria eat a hole in Mars? How the hell are you going to make machines that 'send angular force at each other' to cause earthquakes? Have you considered doing any math at all to see if these ideas are feasible rather than just shitting over the keyboard and pressing post?

Volcanoes don't create magnetic fields, lad. You need a geodynamo, and I don't think 7 nukes would make that happen.

Well it's just hypothetical, if I made anything that could even get out of the earths atmosphere it would probably be a properly ventilated pvc pipe holding a shit of of diy model rocket fuel and some a tiny air dry connected to a solar panel that would propel the thing at a slow walk pace, not even touching mars until 1000 years from now if it went in the direction of mars at all.

The iron oxidizing bacteria is all I can think of to interact and eat the basalt layer of mars.

The machines to send angular energy would be crafted like some sort of demo machine that uses magnets to propel a heavily weight object up, and then back down to deliver the pound. I don't have a name for this but I recall seeing them at several museums I've been to.

Would the volcanic activity arising from the core create that?

>They think the canyons and some of the ranges are a result of tectonic plate movement in the distant past, but the planet is no longer geologically active.

Really? I thought I'd read that they no longer think that.

I don't know why you're so obsessed with drilling to the core... Even if you could do it, it doesn't get you anywhere - you'd have to re-liquify all the material between the core and the surface, and probably still have to do something to get the core and the surface moving at different speeds in a reasonable time frame. The deepest hole we've managed to dig on Earth doesn't even get through the crust (the Kola hole is 9 inches wide and only cuts a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust at 7.5 miles deep). Suffice to say, the logistics of digging and Mars are considerably nastier than digging on Earth.

And while Mars may have a cooler interior than Earth, you're still looking at massively increasing temperatures the further you go down (what-if.xkcd.com/135/), so bacteria are not a solution, not that such a hole help you in your end goal.

NASA's magnetic solar orbiter idea, as meme fantasy as it is, would be a much more practical approach.

I will admit the only reason I talk so much about getting to the core and trying to get eruptions to happen is because I just learned of what makes the earth's magnetic field in my geography class. I'm a business management major who ended up in a million science classes, and as an entrepreneur, when I learn of something new, I want to see how we can use it to go farther and answer questions. I made this thread -> earlier in the week because when our professor told us of the temp drop 3.8 billion years ago, I immediately started to comprise potential answers to these questions. tl;dr I've taken a lot of bio and now geography but I'm not a scientist, just a curious guy who likes it. I am interested in looking into that magnetic solar orbiter idea now.

It's not the volcanoes that make the magnetic field, it's the electric dynamo of the core spinning at faster rate than the liquid mantle it is sitting in. Volcanoes are just a side effect. Venus has volcanoes, but has no solar magnetic field generation, because it is virtually tidally locked (its day being nearly as long as our year). Io has its own magnetic field, but is inside Jupiter's bat-shit-insane magnetic field, as Jupiter has many different layers, some of which seem to spin in opposite directions from one another.

If you wanna read more about the crazy, but nonetheless more feasible, NASA fantasy idea:
phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

...

Alright faggots so you want Mars to have a geodynamo. Earth has a sustained geodynamo because of tidal forces from the moon.
Mars doesn't have a geodynamo because its got some weak-shit pussy moons.
So here's the plan, see
We deorbit Deimos and Phobos. Their impact gives mars an atmosphere
Then we find a suitably large object and put it in orbit around mars. the Kuiper belt is fucking huge so there's probably something large enough there
Once Mars has exactly one non-shit satellite, tidal actions should warm its internals over the next few million years, which will give plenty of time for the dust kicked up from us deorbiting Phobos and Deimos to settle.
Then we introduce bacteria, algae and niggers. And in no time it'll be Earth v1.2

It takes a smidgen more power than we can hope to generate to move something the size of say Ceres into the orbit of Mars. Shit maybe "weightless" in space, but there's still those whole mass-inertia problem involved. Then there's the time frame, not only to move the thing, but for it to take effect.

NASA's goofball plan still looks more feasible than that - but really, the atmosphere loss on Mars is so slow that one could easily replace it faster than it is lost. I dunno if you could generate a light material that would float on top of whatever oxygen-nitrogen-CO2 cocktail you were pulling out of the ice to block radiation (Venus's atmosphere blocks radiation well enough, even if you wouldn't want to breath it), but while the lack of magnetic field is annoying, it isn't fatal to the hopes of creating a long term viable colony. The low gravity is a much harder problem to get around, and while we know a lot about the effects of microgravity on life (which are bad), the long term effects of nearly half Earth gravity are a lot harder to study.

Don't worry about the time frame. Biological immortality will be a thing by 2300. And you'll be able to enter hypersleep with brain-integrated VR entertainment if you want to kill a few million years in perpetual orgasm.
The hard part will be convincing the United Earth Government's citizens to fund the multi-megatrillion credit terraforming campaign when Earth has already entered a post-scarcity economy. You think it's hard convincing young people to support social security?

Mars doesn't have moving plate tectonics. Thats why Olympus Mons is continually growing.

Heh, well NASA's goofball plan would still be cheaper than moving fucking Ceres.

Then again, the way the Pentagon's appetite for bloat projects is increasing, I suppose in this distant future they may choose to move Ceres instead. "We do these things, not because they are easy, but because you write us bigger checks than you do for the easy things."

humans might not be around millions of years from now

We might not. But we also might be.
If we find a way to extend the lifetime of our species indefinitely there's no reason not to invest effort in terraforming planets even though it's on a geological time scale.

They presented a conference paper, they are still assessing the simulation results to figure out how much it would cost.

I would imagine it is orders of magnitude more feasible than OP's batshit crazy plan. Building a giant dipole might be accomplished with thin superconducting cables. The big issues are keeping them at superconducting temperatures and the dynamics of such large flexible structures.

Aside from the idiocy of your plan OP, there's no reason to attempt to terraform Mars. It just isn't worth living on given how small it is.

Venus could be cool, but people shrink away from cloud cities even though they're basically a planet based Dyson swarm. So that's out.

Next practical habitat would probably be orbital rings. They still use Earth's gravity, so that's not an issue. They can be built as big as we want/need out of stuff we have today and Earth's magnetosphere will still protect them. And they also facilitate moving resources and people off planet for all those other projects people want to do; like colonize Mars.

Well it's not about us living there, it's about seeing what creatures begin to grow on mars and maybe getting a first hand glimpse of what may have lived on mars when it was geographically active

Knowledge for its own sake is a pretty good way to get turned down for a grant proposal.

This fucking thread.

Well we might grow people and creatures that can sustain temperatures cold enough to explore Antarctica and dig up the oil if that's enough to get a penny?