Asteroids' Contributions

EarthWolf · 2005-03-22 18:17:10

Hello,

When plans for terraforming pop up, asteroids fired into Mars' atmosphere to thicken it and increase oxygen and water levels are mentioned. But, does anyone know just how many mbars of water and oxygen a typical asteroid would add to the mix?

Cordially,

EarthWolf

chat · 2005-03-22 20:28:23

EarthWolf,

The outcome of an impactor at mars depends on a lot of different factors.

Composition of the impactor.(ice/rock/iron)

Size of impactor. (500m/1km/5km)

Speed of impactor.(6kms-200kms)

Type of collision.(direct/glancing/atmospheric absorption)

Released products from Mars. (gases/water and dust from mars from the impact)

Stability of new Martian climate after impact.(will it be thicker for a few months then freeze back to the poles)

Almost need a super computer to get a good guess at what any impact scenario would do to Mars.

Dook · 2005-03-23 08:00:45

I believe asteroids would mostly add rock/mineral mass. You need comets to add ice (water) to mars.

dicktice · 2005-03-23 11:33:29

Just ask yourself, how many human generations would it take for surface conditions on Mars to become as "hospitable" even as they are now, following such an impactor event. Fortunately, we haven't a clue how to go about such a childishly motivated experiment and, by the time we can, hopefully we shall have matured enought to resist the urge. Time, in this respect, is on the side of idiocy-in-space prevention--unlike the ballistic defence iniative, I might add.

chat · 2005-03-23 14:18:01

dicktice,

Although well planned comet or k belt object deliveries might be the only solution to a warmer mars.

I think a few well placed say 500m to 1 km impacts wont destroy mars or make for a hellish environment.

The mostly atmospheric absorption idea for mars with a bunch of small ice objects might be the way change to mars without destroying it.

Not going to happen in this lifetime though, so just an idea for super computer right now.

chat · 2005-03-23 14:23:00

dicktice,

Actually- steering comets to a new location isn't out of the reach of current tech, k belt objects are.
Also de orbiting either moon is within reach of current tech.

dicktice · 2005-03-23 20:55:47

Don't even think about de-orbiting Mars's moons! They are reserved for R&R worker vacation spots, accessed up Olympus Mons by means of maglev rail launched orbiters. Where have you been?

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 01:14:03

Kupier objects and chunks of ice are not the only terraform possibilities.
1. The orbital dumping of Earth coal into Mars atmosphere at the rate of one million tonnes per year for a thousand years will produce substantial thickening of the planetary atmosphere. Besides, the coal industry needs a future.

2. Mars only need one moon. Who wants to volunteer to ride deimos into the side of Olympus Mons? :up:

Austin Stanley · 2005-03-24 01:15:35

Although I am unsure as to the utility of directing an asteroid or comet into colision with mars, if an appropriet target was located (which would require quite a search), re-directing it's orbit would be well within our capability. Since the orbit only has to be modified so that it intersects that of Mars at some time in the future, the Delta-V is required is supprisingly small. A couple of nuclear weapons detonate on the surface of the object would probably do the trick. The trouble is picking an appropriet target in the first place.

Asteriods and commets are way far out there, and the iceburgs of the kupiter belt are even further out. The exact composition of any individual asteriod is not extreamly well known, and it is realtivly hard to study them due to there distance.

But again, if you had a target in mind already, changing it's orbit should be realtivly easy. Put some sort of warhead deliver vehicle aboard a Delta and point it at your target. Idealy the delivery vehicle would have a radar that would be used to enable the vehicle to accurately determine the position of the asteriod and then light up a final stage for the close rendevous and detonate. Not that difficult at all. Indeed give the light weight and power of modern nuclear weapons (300kt weapons are under .5MT), I would even venture to guess that objects out in the kupiter belt might be movable, if you could find one you wanted.

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 01:31:11

If we could target the Crater of Olympus Mons with asteroid after asteroid, we could collapse the inside of the mountain and create an atmospheric pressure well. :up: :up:

chat · 2005-03-24 04:19:40

dicktice,

*lol* i was vacationing on my homeworld, must have missed that news.
I have to agree with srmeaney, how many moons does mars need?

Drop one on the surface of mars and i bet mars changes, might be for the good or bad though.

Austin,

I guess it all comes down to how many are needed to change mars.

If its just 1 needed to do the job then finding a good candidate shouldn't be to tough.

Lots of near earth asteroids exist and i expect lots of near mars objects also, but i bet few of them are mostly ice.
Then again we might not need an ice asteroid to alter mars, just an impact of any sort.

srmeaney, after wondering why about the impact on Olympus mons it makes some sense.

Inside the dormant Olympus mons i bet its full of sulphur, co2, water ice etc.
Blowing away a few miles of the top would also alter the climate just in weather patterns caused by the size.

Might be the place for a large escape of gas, only down side is that its elevated so high the dust levels for an impact will also be elevated.

Not much thought has been given to what could be stored inside Olympus mons, it might be the key to teraforming mars with or without impacts.

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 08:07:01

Conceivably, Olympus Mons should be like a termite mound with lots of little spaces all through the ancient basalt (or whatever it is that's in there). There is an orbiting moon that is testimony to what has been ejected due to the original impact/eruption. If water is there, in those hollow cavities, then so is the possibility that life is in abundance.

Perhaps we should send a team to dig down from the top.

I would hate to knock the top off the only anthill only to find I had killed the only ants.

The nice people would hate me forever. The rest would be screaming "Where is my Buck Rogers ray gun? Why the hell are you wasting our tax dollars on all this touchy-feely crap when the red menace is real?"

We should deploy a mining team to dig a corkscrew-like tunnel to ground level from the crater. That would be a base of one hundred personnel. Tunnel cutters, Elevator to dump the dirt over the rim, A space station able to land in a crater, numerous back ups. A full survey of the core of the mountain is in order. Even if we are just looking for terraforming elements. The data we find will determine whether we slam an asteroid or moon down the mouth of the crater.

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 08:31:45

With an ant nest that big, the volcanic source must have hollowed out a sustantial part of the lithosphere. It might even be worth while hollowing out Olympus Mons to make a City devoted to mining all at the bottom of a pressure well. Eventually air pressure might even reach Earth sea level. Heat generated would make it close to tolerable. That would be the way in.

If we could create the pressure well and extract Oxygen from the excavated materials, we would be able to boost the estimated pre-terraforming planetary population to a million.

Dook · 2005-03-24 09:02:05

if an appropriet target was located (which would require quite a search), re-directing it's orbit would be well within our capability. Since the orbit only has to be modified so that it intersects that of Mars at some time in the future, the Delta-V is required is supprisingly small. A couple of nuclear weapons detonate on the surface of the object would probably do the trick. The trouble is picking an appropriet target in the first place.

If we were to direct a comet into mars to create heat, increase it's mass, and add water and hopefully nitrogen, the comet Churyumov-Gasimenko might just be the best choice.

It's orbit inclination is only 7.12 degrees and takes it across mars orbit. This comet makes a return every 6.57 years so we just need to pick the best time then slow it down. It is 2 miles wide by 3 miles long.

Austin Stanley · 2005-03-24 13:45:58

Sounds good. Incidently "slowing a comet down" is the ideal orbit changing situation. Since the nuke then only has to hit the leading edge of the comet, intercept gemoetries are MUCH easier and less Delta-V is required. In fact, with good terminal guidence I don't see why you could put the bomb inside a penetrator housing and blow it up well inside the comet giving an even push.

Dook · 2005-03-24 16:59:23

I think speeding the comet up would actually be a better choice. If you slow it down too much it comes towards the orbit of the earth. If you go around then come up behind the comet and push it to catch/meet mars and you push too much it takes it even farther from earth orbit.

chat · 2005-03-24 17:33:25

srmeaney,

I agree, if mars has any life left it will be inside the volcano.
Or if it ever had any the last holdouts would have been close to the volcano so the fossils will be close.

Almost bound to be enormous amounts of sulphur rich magma and frozen gas inside the volcano.
If we do take the slow approach to teraforming it seems the logical place to start.

It also seems the logical place for an impactor for the fast approach.

I guess when the day comes that we either find fossils, life or no life ever the decision will be made as to what to do with mars.

Dook,
good candidate and good size for an impactor.
An icy comet is likely to mostly burn up on entry with some impact as well.
The impact of a 2x3 mile comet will release an good quantity of water, and the energy release will be gigantic at mars.

Sounds about the same size that removed the dinosaurs on earth.
That impact raised the co2 and sulphur level on earth for over 50,000 years with a nuclear winter of about 18 months.

On mars you could expect the co2, h20 and sulphur level to stay much longer than 50,000 years, and since its a comet losing maybe 50% of its energy in the atmosphere you could expect 9 months of nuclear winter.

You may also gain some nitrogen from the comet and from mars, but if you don't get any it doesn't effect the teraform just the bacteria needed for plants to live on mars.(IMO all plants on mars will need engineering anyway with or without amounts of extra nitrogen)

The numbers look pretty good that the introduced gasses from the comet and from mars impact will be higher than can be frozen in the 9 months of nuclear winter following the impact.
Mars has quite a few planetary dust storms so nuclear winter on mars will just be a longer dust storm.
Or the introduced h2o/rain and thicker atmosphere will end dust storms on mars and a nuclear winter might be brief.

With no nuclear winter its a guaranteed mars teraform.
That could be done by making the comet a temporary moon, splitting it into 4 or 5 smaller parts then de orbit them 1 at a time.
Or send the full comet and an explosion on the comet a week or so before the comet arrives to split it, then let the parts fall where they may.

Need a super computer though to see the likely outcome, and a good idea of what that comet is made of.

Austin Stanley,

Is it realistic to slow a comet enough to become a temporary mars moon?

Austin Stanley · 2005-03-24 17:43:56

Increasing a comets orbital velocity may, or may not be a better idea (I'm not going to argue the point), but it is certianly much harder to acomplish. To increase it's orbital velocity you need to aproach/land on the trailing edge of the comet. Which requires matching the objects orbital velocity, which requires ALOT more delta V. Or you could possibly time an interception with the trailing edge of the object, but these geometries would be VERY difficult to achive. Perhaps if the object was rotating you could impact it in the front and then wait till the rotation had it pointing the correct direction, but again timing the explosion would be difficult.

Austin Stanley · 2005-03-24 18:32:13

I'm not sure about the short term feasiblity of placing an object in orbit around a planet. Changing it's orbit to simply impact a planet is often easy, depending upon the objects orbit and location often less than 2km/s is necessary, sometimes much less. However, to put it into orbit around Mars you need to reduce it's over all orbital velocity (generaly in the neighboorhood of 15-45km/s) to that of Mars orbit, some 5km/s so a much bigger change is necessary.

--edit--

This is on top of the energy necessary to change the orbit of the object to intersect that of mars as well.

chat · 2005-03-24 19:50:43

Austin Stanley,

My thoughts on the temp moon at mars where that it might take an awful large amount of extra energy to park it into any orbit.
As a moon it gives you all sorts of control, but little other benefit.

Exploding the comet into many pieces a few days before impact seems more practical.
It seems an easier, more fuel efficient and less technically challenging way to get mars to absorb most of the comet energy into the atmosphere, and avoid a long nuclear winter.

I wonder what kind of bar pressure you get from a comet 2x3 miles spread over mars, with maybe the same sort of bar pressure boost from mars as it partially melts co2 and h20 from mars?

Impact and absorption scenarios will be quite different numbers and effects.

As soon as you get a melt of any sort on mars it starts a mini runaway melt.(or should)

Less dust equals more solar heat, but less dust also means less impact released gasses from mars.

Then again a water ice comet impact on the surface shouldn't make to much high altitude dry dust, but will make huge quantities of low altitude mud.

To much dust for to long and it might all re freeze back to the poles.

Those comet bar numbers would tell all.

srmeaney · 2005-03-25 08:26:52

Terraform slowly? The CO2 Needs alone will require the orbital dumping of Coal at a heavy lift launch rate of 30 tonnes x 100 launches per day x 360 days a year x 1000 years x 1.0 accuracy (a zero percent failure rate) just to melt the planetary CO2 in the hope we can produce runaway greehouse conditions using such a little amount of coal.

Like I said. Terraforming will be for the creation of environments that will support and nurture non human life. We need to realize that colonizing Mars and the other planets will be to this outcome alone.

ps. you could use a moon (rather than slam it into Mars) to deorbit incomming balls of ice so they are retrieved to deimos and fired slowly into the atmosphere of mars.
Bringing in ice fom the outer systems will involve a nuclear powered fully automated ice cream stick designed to go out to the rings of Saturn and build a big ball of ice around itself. It will then need to push that ice back into the Mars orbit for harvest at one of the Moons.

EarthWolf · 2005-03-25 14:47:43

Hello,

Hmmm, interesting. But, how long would it take to move these comets/asteroids into Mars orbit? Are we talking years in this case?

Cordially,

EarthWolf

chat · 2005-03-25 14:53:47

srmeaney,

Had a similar discussion about the nitrogen needs at mars.
It worked out to be 1 trillion trips to Jupiter and back to give mars its needs.

I think your correct in a teraform being a place life can exist and not a place man can walk outdoors unprotected breathing the air freely.

Mars being further from the sun and smaller than earth will never have the same atmospheric composition as earth anyway, not if its expected to stay warm.

Comets and asteroids k objects are the only way to alter mars IMO.

Since very large energies are needed to teraform mars i don't believe it can wait until a colony exists.
As soon as one exists the energy releases to teraform are to dangerous to the colonists.

srmeaney · 2005-03-26 03:02:53

So, we will probably have to decide on whether we wait a hundred years as the planet succumbs to orbital bombardment (wiping out any life that may be in the impact zone) and goes Greenhouse on us, or if we colonize now and terraform the friendly way with orbital dumping of coal for a thousand years.

Austin Stanley · 2005-03-26 03:23:47

Oh we are talking years if not over a decade in most cases (sometimes several decades) to change these orbits. The solar system is a very big place and it can take a very long time for an object to get from one location to another. In many (if not most cases) you wouldn't be making a standard hoffman transfer orbit anyways, but swinging by one of the gas giants for a gravitation assist, to let you do it with less delta-V. If you didn't have a problem with waiting a VERY long time (centuries and up) you could probably find a target that would require mere m/s change in Delta V. And if you were willing to extend to milleniums even less than that.

The actualy application of force happens in a short period of time however (if you use the nuclear method). Not to many blasts are required to give the comet/asteriod the necessary boost, but after you do so, it still takes a long time for the object to get where you want it to go.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-03-22 18:17:10

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#2 2005-03-22 20:28:23

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#3 2005-03-23 08:00:45

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#4 2005-03-23 11:33:29

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#5 2005-03-23 14:18:01

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#6 2005-03-23 14:23:00

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#7 2005-03-23 20:55:47

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#8 2005-03-24 01:14:03

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#9 2005-03-24 01:15:35

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#10 2005-03-24 01:31:11

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#11 2005-03-24 04:19:40

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#12 2005-03-24 08:07:01

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#13 2005-03-24 08:31:45

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#14 2005-03-24 09:02:05

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#15 2005-03-24 13:45:58

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#16 2005-03-24 16:59:23

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#17 2005-03-24 17:33:25

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#18 2005-03-24 17:43:56

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#19 2005-03-24 18:32:13

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#20 2005-03-24 19:50:43

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#21 2005-03-25 08:26:52

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#22 2005-03-25 14:47:43

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#23 2005-03-25 14:53:47

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#24 2005-03-26 03:02:53

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#25 2005-03-26 03:23:47

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

Board footer