Make mars alive again!

Also I'll state now that this is hypothetical, there aren't any benefits to doing anything like this yet unless we can put mars in the way of that asteroid that's suppose to fuck shit up in 2029

>>9019853
>create more gravity on mars
What did he mean by this?

File: images (6).jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>>9019865

Hmm, I think I was mistaken, I confused the gravitational pull from the "micro-star" we would be trying to create with the hydrogen bombs and helium tubes with the actual gravity that would exist on the planet

>>9019853
The only thing that will work is to bombard Mars with comets, asteroids, and moons for as long as it takes to increase its gravity to 1g and restart its core. The process from start to finish where you can breath outside and plants to grow would be around 300k 500k years.

Go home anon, you're drunk.

>>9019880

Nah, I'm procrastination on an 11 page human origins geography paper and 5 page GIS paper >:(

>>9019880

Well let's predict how far science could go in the next 50 years if scientist would stop fighting over the human gender. We can get to the moon at twice the rate we did 50 years ago from what I understand, Think about how much power we can fit into sizable things and how much smaller we will be able to contain force and power that can be used for moving things in space. Jack hammers have become smaller, not at the same magnitude as the speed of space travel, but still smaller. What I'm getting at is that it might not take as long as it would now in the future.

>>9019880

Well what other ways can we make co2 present in any form? What my thought is is what if creatures like fish could exist on land that got their co2 some other way than simply air.

>>9019853
anon, if a magnetic field around mars is your endgame, there's better ways about going about it that crating a molten core dynamo. you could bury in ground wires that circle the globe at different latitudes and run an electric charge through them making giant electromagnets. you could construct an array of satellites around mars that can produce a magnetic field (tokamak fusion reactors always looked dynamo-ish to me, maybe you can design one to do double duty). Nasa described a concept where you have a satellite in mars' L1 Lagrangian point that emits a large magnetic field and encompasses mars in its magneto-tail. Hell, you may as well build some orbital rings around mars that by design are huge orbiting electromagnets that encircle an entire planet. Any combination of these ideas would be way more feasible, energy efficient, and cost effective than trying to heat up mars' core. If your dead set on doing that though, i suppose you could take a giant moon like europa and put it in orbit around mars. thereby correcting its radical tilt a bit, heating up its core, and giving mars a ready supply of water.

How about we focus on tier 0.5 terraformation efforts before we start speculating about tier 1.5 efforts.

>>9019878
Stars have high gravity because they have high mass, not because they're nuclear engines. Mars would have exactly zero gravity if nuclear fusion was the cause of gravity. Hydrogen bombs wouldn't do jack in terms of gravitational effects.

>>9019853
>form a "micro-sun" star near mars

Nigga do you even know what a star is?

File: uranus blacked.png (125KB, 349x350px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 349x350px

>>9019853
Just Probe Uranus

How about we figure out how to terraform Mars a little bit before we contemplate how to terraform it fully on a tier 1.5 civilization scale.

No. Leave Mars alone. There's not enough gravity. It would be far easier to stay in space habitats. And don't suggest we should drop shit on Mars to bulk it up. You'll have to lob Mercury at it, along with every moon, asteroid and comet in the Solar System out to half a light year to get it up to a decent mass.

>>9019853
What the fuck are you smoking OP? That's retarded.

>>9021747

I like the idea with the satellites. from what I'm taking in is that this won't do anything for the gravity, but by heating the core up we could see the potential formation of the magnetic field we want to start blocking solar winds and also potentially seeing a polar seasonal pattern develop with I would assume shorter years but longer days.

>>9022733
hi. me again. there would be no real way to give mars more gravity without increasing its mass. you could increase its mass by crashing a moon or planet (like europa or mercury) and/or a bunch of asteroids (like ceres and so on) to physically increase its mass. the problem is, is that when you move large celestial bodies you must do it very slowly. Movement takes energy, and energy translates into heat. it you were to magically move the earth, for example, suddenly and quickly the result would be that you liquefy the entire mass. the second problem is that you would still have to 'crash' the bodies together anyway, which would cause a great deal more energy and whatever wasn't outright vaporized would liquefied, flung into space, or simply to hot to live on for a few centuries. you could slowly move other large bodies into orbit around mars and then deconstruct them piece by piece and take them to the surface of mars, increasing its mass, and thus increasing its gravity, but i really don't see why you would do that. the above scenarios would be even more difficult than trying to jump start mars' core. if you want to be near or on mars and have earth like gravity there are two ways to feasibly go about this: one, construct orbiting habitats that use centrifugal force to simulate earth gravity that can cleverly send you to and from the surface of mars somehow. or two, build a large colony on mars shaped like deep bowl and spin that to create centrifugal force which when combined with mars' natural gravity would feel pretty much like earth's. this is interesting because with liquid water at the bottom of the 'bowl' it would mound up creating a giant liquid lens. there are design concepts for liquid mirror telescopes that use this exact principal. i tend to like structures that can perform double duty.

>>9022798

Both of these are great ideas, and if we did the first one maybe we could send large bodies of ice formed by technical water useless to us on earth that we could then melt on mars to add to the mass while filling in fissures and cracks on the surface of mars that could wash up new specimens to study, possibly fossils even that we could study in these colonies you mentioned.

>>9022817
you could send ice and extra water to mars' surface, and it would help, but i wouldn't expect any noticeable change in the mass or gravity by doing so. to get earth's gravity mars would have t be about the same size as earth. mars is currently about one third earth' size. if you want oceans on mars there should be enough water in and around the surface to make a shallow ocean in the norther hemisphere. but you had better have a magnetic field, warm temperatures, and thick atmosphere first or it will just re-freeze, sublimate, and eventually exit mars' orbit. also before what you said about causing seasons with mars' polar tilt. well, mars already does have seasons but they're are too wildly extreme. a large moon in orbit would help to regulate that, making martian seasons milder

File: ce04747eee0c1ce62ea4b6e825c79d70.gif (2MB, 289x163px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 289x163px

>>9022867

I see, now if mars is a third the size of the earth, then we need something with a third the size of the moons worth of mass orbiting mars. perhaps we could has a large ball filed with Sodium bicarbonate,oxygen, and sugar that we send to orbit mars, and then when it reaches the orbit, we ignite it from the inside to burn and produce an extensive amount of carbon ash to add mass to the ball. It would need to be properly insulated of course to avoid the thing just exploding, but that's the first idea that comes to mind in created an orbiting object with extensive amounts of mass around mars.

>>9022891
wow, thats a creative idea. those elements would be difficult to procure in such quantities, however. and i dont think igniting it would actually add any more mass to itself. it just takes a diffrent form

>>9021645
Wtf are you talking about?

>>9019880
Would you really need 1g to get some volcanism started? Also, wouldn't it be cheaper to just drop ice on Mars to thicken up the atmosphere? Is the rate of atmospheric depletion from solar wind really so bad that we can't replenish reasonably?

>>9023063

Well my thought was the expansion in the ball would create pressure, that would increase the volume which would make the ball have a denser mass, yes?

>>9023080

I had a big serving of chinese food since I wrote that post but if my memory serves me I was talking about giving living specimens access to things that would be converted to o2 in the same way fish get o2 from the water

>>9023087
Best way would be micro organisms, but the environment is too harsh, you need it to be above freezing and you need a pressure that's not near vacuum.

>>9023087
nope. a larger volume wouldnt give you greater mass. a hot air balloon as a big volume but very little mass. a kg of pure gold has a small volume but a very great mass

>>9023092
this. once you bio-engineer the planet enough to the point where its analogous to the 'tree-line; of a very high mountain, you can introduce lichen and mosses and bacterium.

>>9023097

hmm, I think we would need another method to create density in the ball. Perhaps we could have another ball in the ball full of water or oils that could turn the ash made from the initial reaction into a mud that would dry into a concrete like substance that would provide more density than the sole ash?

>>9023115
again. that's not creating more mass, only changing its form. you technically cannot create or destroy any more mass than what already exists currently. if you really want mars to have a massive moon around it the i would just put Ceres or a Jovian moon in orbit around mars.

>>9023121

I think that would be the first goal then, based on what I learned in the thread I made a few weeks about about the earth being pushed away from the sun 3.8 billion years ago, we would need to send something at the right angle and right direction to cause a reaction that would ultimately fling the Ceres in the direction of mars's orbit. Now as much as I like to jump to nukes as my solution to everything, I know they wouldn't help us propel anything once in space, so all I can think if is a very large rocket at the right angle to fuck up the pattern of Ceres and then wrap around and push it in the right direction. Having tubes of fuel that don't fire up until it hit Ceres would be key to push it considering a man made device probably couldn't push such a large thing forever, so it's all about getting it started.

>>9023143
the most effortless, energy efficient way to move Ceres would be to put a less massive object with its own means of propulsion near Ceres to act like a tugboat to 'pull' it into mars' orbit. you could math out a proper trajectory easily enough.

>>9023166
this would take a very long time, although

>>9023166

> putting the means of projection on Ceres first before you start the projection rather than starting the means of projection from earth and hoping for the best

well shit. . .

>>9023173

It would take as long as it would take to get to mars roughly, 7-9 years maybe? Then we are waiting for the thing to be projected in the right direction. In the meantime we can do what anon said earlier about using satellites and things to make travel to mars itself for us shorter and start developing a colony to start doing research on the surface and measure how well Ceres is affecting Mar.

>>9023185
i think it would be much longer than 7-9 years because its not a constant steady velocity. you have to overcome Ceres' incredible mass in order to build up inertia. just doing that alone would be an endeavor. you would probably start by building a manufacturing facility on Ceres to construct a massive satellite that's uses Ceres' own ice for hydrogen fuel to propel it.

>>9023390

That could be a lot more efficient, it would allow us to gather information of Ceres as well before we project it forward at mars and we will then be able to observe how Ceres is affected by being in the orbital ring of Mars.

>>9024695
ceres wouldn't be 'in' the orbital ring of mars. indeed, the orbital ring around mars could be 80 km high or even less depending on how fast you spin it. ceres' orbit around mars would be much farther out and wouldn't have to much effect on mars' orbital ring if any. one really crazy thing you could do is construct one orbital ring around mars, one around ceres, and one more in geostationary orbit around mars and connect all three with elevators. this would eliminate the need for rockets for transporting cargo to and from their respective surfaces to one another altogether.

>>9025359

But how could we construct the orbital ring? Would we need some kind of generators that simulate mass in certain directions by having multiple high pressure force pumps lined up in a circle all aiming inwards of each other? (sorry if that wouldn't actually simulate mass, I'm thinking of ways to make a high amount of density without being having absolute density. )

>>9025378
well we could build and orbital ring today with existing technology. you start buy putting segments of metal wire into orbit and mending together until you have a complete ring of wire spinning at mars' orbital velocity going all the way around mars. you put and electric charge into the wire, via solar panels (fusion would be ideal) turning the wire into one big super electromagnet. using the wires' electromagnetic force you can float panels above it. you keep building more and more panels until you complete a second ring around the the wire that's spinning really fast. orbital rings have and inner ring, which is the electromagnetic wire spinning at orbital velocity, and an outer ring, which is floating around the inner ring. the outer ring would appear to the eye as not moving at all. if you were to stand on top of it, you would simply feel mars' natural gravity. since you're not moving at orbital velocity on the outer ring you could fall straight down to mars' surface and not burn up upon re-entry into mars' atmosphere since you are moving at any high speed at all. you would be up at orbital height relative to the surface but not orbital velocity. the best way to get started to construct such a mega-structure would be to set up construction facilities on Phobos and Demos to mine for all the raw materials needed to build it.

>>9025421
>since you are moving at any high speed at all.
'aren't' sorry typo

>>9025421

That sounds like an affordable option, a copper wire surrounding mars could probably be achieved in a few million, a lot but less than the previous ideas. We'd need to make a worm-like bot that dragged it around the orbit though, or a solar powered rock that held the wire ball in one spot and find a way to make the end rotate as mars rotates, but that would take an extensively long piece of metal that we'd need to pierce into the ground of mars. hmm. . .. .

>>9019853
>Consider the possibilities!
Literally don't exist, marsfag. This planet is an irradiated piece of shit lolonly0.38G dumpster. It has absolutely nothing to warrant any terraforming efforts in the first place. Even if all the popsci bullshit get invented (which they won't), it would still take hundreds of thousands of yers to make this shit into an even remotely livable permafrost barren tundra. You'd have more luck cleaning Venus.

>micro-sun
The absolute state of /sci/ right now.

>>9025463
>You'd have more luck cleaning venus
Holy fuck how would you even start?

>>9025515

Well look at how hot it is? We just need to send a Europe sized brick of baking soda and oxy clean to burn all the bacteria. We'd end up with a big ass marble and the solar wind would just push the depress from Venus towards us probably.

>>9025455
i didnt want to give the impression that its more affordable than a satellite array, or underground electromagnetic rings. its not. it just has way more functions and versatility. you attach active support particle fountains, space elevators, have a sky hook near it, orbital habitats,and so on. a minimal orbital ring around mars would still be like 15-20,000 km long. orbital rings are thinking more in the long term for inhabiting mars.

>>9025572

I understand that, but in this case if it's as costly as the other options, it would seem as though it provide more long term benefits
than the other options which I like.

>>9025463

If you need a reason to go there and terraform. Step 1, do all the shit me and Dr.Anon are talking about. Step 2, breed small humans who can bare cold weather, but are conditioned for the lower gravity. Step 3, bring them back to earth. Step 4, watch them adapt a wave of small steelhead-pit bill humans who are tiny and buff who ca do things that require heavy lifting in small spaces.

>>9025583
dr. anon here. you certainly could begin construction on all concepts simultaneously. i always like the 'all-of-the-above' options. as far as reason why to bio-engineer mars: mostly just a pet-project for humanity. a labor of love. a living experiment. you would be able to do great research and learn a lot about biology and planetary science by doing so but there's no real potential profit in that. you could turn mars into a profit by making it a stepping stone to the asteroid belt and the outer solar system where there are tones of natural resources to be mined. you dont need to terraform mars to do that however. just building orbiting space colonies would be cheaper and more efficient.

>>9025596

The research possibilities are what I'm mainly interested in doctor. We could build telescopes on or around mars and observe super novas and other space occurrences from multiple angles at similar times, we can observe earth from a farther perspective, we can maybe even observe solar dust when it has reached father than the earth and even observe it's effects on the earth from another perspective.

There's also the possibility of storage for things. I always had the childhood fear of "what if the sun super-nova'd and the earth went to black in 8 minutes and we became cold and were forced to live in a severely cold winter tundra forever!", so we store the materials on mars to build the micro-sun so that we have a backup if our sun pooped.

>>9025615
sorry anon, i hate to continually rain on your parade, but but if the sun 'suddenly' supernovaed (which it couldnt) mars would be equally fucked. the entire solar system would just be obliterated. our sun most likely would condense into a white dwarf after its red giant stage. this would take billions of years. by that point worrying about storage would be but a trifle concern. and about making a 'micro-sun', thats not how stars work. stars only can exist because they are so enormously massive. you might (not likely) be able to make some kind of sun analog, but you would need to draw on a power source comparable to the suns energy output to get it rolling in the first place. a major catch 22. it would be easier to construct an interstellar colony ship and go set up shop around another star system. you seem genuinely interested in this stuff so i highly recommend looking up the youtube channel, Issac Arthur Science & Futurism. he has, like, a hundred videos explaining all the stuff we've discussed and much more in clearer detail than i can.

>>9025463

It's really too bad Venus and Mars didn't switch places when they were forming. Venus might be Earth 2.0 if it had Mars' orbit.

Dude. This isn't Hollywood. Stars shine because they are massive. There isn't by far enough hydrogen in our solar system left to make a star, not to mention on earth. The Greenhouse effect or nuking the poles is the most realistic way to have any good effect on Mars.

>>9026182
>There isn't by far enough hydrogen in our solar system left to make a star, not to mention on earth.
Well, there is enough, but it already is a star. And then there's Jupiter, but we're fresh out of monoliths.

>>9025925

Well we could do to Venus what Dr.anon proposed we do with Ceres and push it towards us.

>>9025643

Well it's back to space colonies and research i suppose. Perhaps the selling factor of a colony not affected by the past 200 years of coal fumes in the air would interest some people who want a world with clean. . . . well not air, but it's clean.. .