Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

BobL · 2005-03-10 10:00:07

In The Case for Mars, Zubrin suggests employing various means to trigger the release of CO2 on Mars and thus raise the atmospheric pressure and overall surface temperature of Mars. Among these are the use of giant mirrors, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases over a long period of time to raise the avg temperature of mars so that a chain reaction of greenhouse gas release will occur, and several other methods that all must be incorporated on a vast scale to be effective. I was wondering if a more immediate solution to releasing CO2 on mars might be found in the use of nuclear weapons. Specifically, what would the effect be if a ten megaton nuclear device was detonated over either of the polar caps of mars? I havent really done any research as to what the effects of this might be, and it is my assumption that it would trigger the rapid release of greenhouse gases. Any thoughts?

Dook · 2005-03-10 11:59:56

You would vaporize a lot of the dry ice and ice you hope to change to gas and the gas that you do create would be radioactive.

I don't see it as an acceptable option, even the thought of slamming asteroids or comets into mars makes me cringe.

BobL · 2005-03-10 12:13:31

Thanks for the response, but Im just trying to find out if detonation of nuclear devices at areas of high concentration of CO2 would significantly alter the surface temperature and atmospheric pressure of mars. You do bring up a good point about radiation though, but Im still not sure as to how significant it would be in comparison to present surface radiation.
Can anyone tell me these things?
What would be the amount of gas released in relation to the megaton yield assuming a realistic efficiancy of energy transfer?
How would this alter avg surface temperature and atmospheric pressure on Mars?
How long would it take for any radiation in the atmosphere produced by such a detonation to dissapate?

Rxke · 2005-03-10 12:38:34

I think the net effect of a surface detonation would be cooling and lower atm. pressure.

Sure, the initial explosion would release heat, and quite a bit of it, but... It would surely also release heaps and heaps of dust into the upper atmosphere, blocking the sun. Mars is very very dry, the dust is very, very fine, so it would stay airborne quite long... So you could be looking at a severe global (Martian) duststorm, that stays global for quite a while...
insolation plummets, and the net energy thus 'lost' from the sun in that timeframe will probably be bigger than a 'measly' atomic explosion. You'd run the risk that the CO2 you released freezes solid quite rqapidly after the nuclear heat has dissipated.

I'm not a environmental/weather specialist or something like that, it's just a guess. But it's something to consider: if meteorstrikes on Earth could do this, (the big killers etc...) while Earth is a planet with abundant water in it's atmosphere, how much worse would it be on an arid 'superdusty' planet?

BobL · 2005-03-10 12:53:11

Im not sure anyone knows just how much dust would be released as result of an impact or detonation. I doubt (but if Im wrong please correct me) that a nuclear detonation at either of the polar caps would release enough dust into the atmosphere to significantly alter the global temperature of mars or even to alter it outside of a certain radius, and simply want to know how much gas it might release per megaton, and if any volume of gas produced by nuclear detonation would be significant enough to alter Mars temperature and atmospheric pressure.

Rxke · 2005-03-10 13:03:59

In theory, if you get the caloric value of solid CO2, you could calculate this roughly. Of course, the 'efficiency' of an explosion is not 100%, and the frozen CO2 layer won't be pure, too... so it would be wildly inaccurate.

Hmmm... any number-crunching lovers around here?

BobL · 2005-03-10 13:06:12

hey, cant spell everything right

Palomar · 2005-03-10 13:06:24

You would vaporize a lot of the dry ice and ice you hope to change to gas and the gas that you do create would be radioactive.
I don't see it as an acceptable option, even the thought of slamming asteroids or comets into mars makes me cringe.

*I agree with Dook.

Zubrin's plan (read that years ago) -- the use of giant mirrors -- seems a whole lot more sensible to me.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2005-03-10 13:09:45

Oh, http://online.unitconverterpro.com/conv … &val=]here a conversion table for megaton to joule or calories, for the brave of heart.

BobL · 2005-03-10 13:15:45

Your right, it does sound more sensible, if youre thinking in terms of unlimited resources. Zubrin says that in order for a mirror to be powerful enough to really make a difference, you need a huge 200,000 ton orbiting mirror. Ouch. If it is at all possible to raise the surface temperature of mars with nukes, heck, we could have a warmer mars for much less the cost of building such a device or say, moving a comet to hit mars, and we would probably have it a lot quicker too. Nuking mars and all seems ridiculous, I know, but its just speculation, an idea that Id like to see proved possible or impossible.

BobL · 2005-03-10 13:18:08

ugh... I came across that chart before I posted... trying to see if I could get some numbers to stick in... but Im afraid high school physics doesnt incorporate what I'd need to figure this one out.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-10 13:27:16

Terraforming will require a holistic approach, we can't look at it as thicken the atmosphere, then what? Melt the water, then what? . . . It has to be planned out as a complete operation, everything has to happen together. Nuking the planet (in the absence of any other measures) may kick all kinds of water vapor and CO2 into the atmosphere, but rather than furthering terraforming it'll just throw radioactive dirt around. When the dust settles the climate will return to present levels and whatever water refreezes will now be irradiated. Mars will actually become less hospitable. Using mirrors, artificial gasses and other means won't be instant but to use an old Martian proverb, Mars wasn't built in a day.

BobL · 2005-03-10 13:42:02

I agree. Nuking mars would definitely not be an immediate solution. Terraforming, changing an inhospitable planet into a hospitable one would require far more than just release of atmosphere and raising surface temperature and atmospheric pressure. All I want to know, once again, is how much gas might be released due to a nuclear detonation, and how this might alter the temperature and atmospheric pressure of Mars. I would also like to know how long it would take for any significant radiation produced to dissapate, and just how significant such radiation might be in relation to current surface radiation levels. Im not really concerned about the ethics of this, I just want to know what the outcome would be. I think that if nuking mars proves to be a possibility that may work, it could be incoporated into a larger plan for terraforming which I have yet to develop, and may not develop if this option proves totally unfeasible.

Dook · 2005-03-10 13:53:16

I can't help you with the amount of gas released from an atomic detonation but I would like to point out that the very large mirror idea and the super greenhouse gas figures are for each individually. If we combine the two (maybe a much smaller mirror in stationary orbit over a greenhouse gas factory) and maybe use some others (dark heat absorbing material spread on the poles) we may be able to terraform mars more quickly and effectively.

Earthfirst · 2005-03-10 13:56:46

Yo Bobl I agree with you nukes kick ass! I alwise disliked the keep mars red people because they are scared that some bacteria deep inside mars will get hurt. Boo Hoo! Nothing wrong with a little dose of rads. Fyi that gas that melts or sublimes from the heat of a nuke it self would not be radioactive rather the small particals released from the nuke would ba carried as dust. Most of would settle out over a wide area. Only ground zero would stay a little radioactive for a short while. The co2 gas and water vapour would be just fine since it self would not carry radioactive dust with it.
I am right and you are all wrong . Simple minded people are scared by big ideas, so just hide on the shortbus and let us deal with mars!

BobL · 2005-03-10 16:51:21

Thanks for all the input. Does anyone know any sites I can visit or books I can turn to to learn how to put this thing to the numbers and see if it might release a significant amount of atmosphere?

BobL · 2005-03-10 17:16:24

Also, how can I get an Icon?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-10 19:06:00

Hi BobL.
You're having a tough time getting an answer to your question! And I'm not going to help much either, I'm afraid.

But, just for background info., there's a lot of doubt about how much CO2 is available at the Martian poles anyway. It used to be thought that the northern cap was mostly water ice and the southern cap mostly frozen CO2. But a year or two back, scientists were changing their tune because observations were indicating the southern cap might also be mainly water ice.
Even before this change of tune, though, most authorities on terraforming were only talking about maybe 50 millibars of CO2 sequestered as dry-ice at the poles.

Even if your nukes were 100% efficient and you achieved your aims, there may not be more than a few millibars of CO2 in it for you anyhow.
I think that super-greenhouse gases and solettas are more likely to release useful quantities of CO2 by warming the whole regolith, where most of the reserves of gas are actually believed to reside.

See, you still don't have a straight answer to your question.

MarsDog · 2005-03-10 19:22:41

For CO2: http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html]571.3 Kj/Kg

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Teller.html]50 Megatonnes is 2.1x10^17 joules

Approximate from numbers given in above links.
And add more energy to warm it up to comfortable temperature.

===================================

Earth is near Ice Age conditions even with 1.500 watts/m^2.

So for Mars, that is the energy/m^2 input to aim for.
Around a large nuke every second ?

BobL · 2005-03-10 19:27:07

Thanks Shaun, thats a good bit about the actual amount of CO2 at the polar caps. To me at least, it just goes to show that we have along way to go before we can understand Mars well enough to terraform it to our needs. Do you know where I could find any data with regards to the distribution of Dry Ice on the Mars? Any spectrometer readings, educated speculation, etc.? Also, how many tons of CO2 would have to be released to raise the surface temperature by 5 Kelvin? What would be the change in atmospheric pressure if this amount were released? I think If I can get these data I can determine whether or not this idea is a possibility.
*Edit* Thanks MarsDog, Im sure those will be useful. Ill have to look at them but that may nail the lid on this idea. Thanks for the input.

BobL · 2005-03-10 19:35:01

By the way how did you come up with Earth being at near Ice age conditions? Where does it talk about how much temperature increase will occur in relation to the amount of CO2 released?

MarsDog · 2005-03-10 22:46:32

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID … SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN makes the case that agriculture saved us from the ice age

Trying to warm up Mars is like heating a house with no roof.

Greenhouses and caves, large shopping mall environments are feasible.
Warming up all of Mars is very difficult.
Even if you could do it, would the effort be worth it ?

=================================

Where does it talk about how much temperature increase will occur in relation to the amount of CO2 released?

There was an error in the prediction programs that predicted global warming. Discovered when random input data produced continued rise in temp. Apparently the error in the code was repeated in other programs. Time to cancel Kyoto because it was based on faulty predictions ?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-11 00:23:13

Hi again, BobL.
There's a 'Terraforming Calculator' at The Terraforming Information Pages site, which can help you see what effect introducing various quantities of different gases might have on the Martian climate.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg … html]CLICK HERE to have a look at it.

[Helpful Hint: Click on the 'User Guide' first to see how to get the best out of it.
If you're anything like me, you'll be amazed at the huge effect of even tiny amounts of 'CFC' in the atmosphere. Don't be alarmed by the fact that dangerous ozone-depleting ChloroFluoroCarbons are the suggested super-greenhouse gas for terraforming. Since the calculator was created, other types of environmentally friendly FluoroCarbon (called PFCs) have supplanted CFCs and are just as effective at retaining heat. (Obviously, we're not going to use CFCs, the same gases that has played havoc with Earth's ozone layer! ) ]

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-11 00:47:21

BobL:-

By the way how did you come up with Earth being at near Ice age conditions?

Bob's question arose from something MarsDog said:-

Earth is near Ice Age conditions even with 1.500 watts/m^2.

Technically, if either of Earth's poles has a permanent ice-cap, we're in an ice-age. For most of Earth's history, the poles have been ice-free. It's unusual for our planet to have even one polar ice-cap, never mind two, and Earth is currently very much colder than average.
If global warming were to lead to the melting of all the ice at the poles .. a big 'if' .. it would only be a return to 'normal' planetary conditions. Unfortunately, of course, the changing climate and sea-levels would be seriously disruptive to human civilization, if it all happened too suddenly.

BobL · 2005-03-11 18:16:02

Thanks for that site Shaun, that is very useful. However, I need to know the relationship between kilograms of CO2 released and millibars of added pressure for mars to work this out. Any suggestions?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-03-10 10:00:07

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#2 2005-03-10 11:59:56

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#3 2005-03-10 12:13:31

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#4 2005-03-10 12:38:34

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#5 2005-03-10 12:53:11

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#6 2005-03-10 13:03:59

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#7 2005-03-10 13:06:12

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#8 2005-03-10 13:06:24

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#9 2005-03-10 13:09:45

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#10 2005-03-10 13:15:45

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#11 2005-03-10 13:18:08

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#12 2005-03-10 13:27:16

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#13 2005-03-10 13:42:02

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#14 2005-03-10 13:53:16

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#15 2005-03-10 13:56:46

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#16 2005-03-10 16:51:21

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#17 2005-03-10 17:16:24

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#18 2005-03-10 19:06:00

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#19 2005-03-10 19:22:41

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#20 2005-03-10 19:27:07

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#21 2005-03-10 19:35:01

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#22 2005-03-10 22:46:32

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#23 2005-03-11 00:23:13

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#24 2005-03-11 00:47:21

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

#25 2005-03-11 18:16:02

Re: Nuke Mars - Use of nukes to release Martian CO2

Board footer