Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk's Latest Idea: Let's Nuke Mars
KindMind writes: The Register reports that Elon Musk, in an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, said that to begin with, human residents on the red planet would need to live in "transparent domes." Before a move to more hospitable habitats, one needs only "to warm it up" and Musk thinks there's a fast way and a slow way to do that. The fast way "is drop thermonuclear weapons over the poles" and the slow way "is to release greenhouse gases, like we are doing on Earth."
Get your ass to Mars! No, seriously go there, and stay there.
I am so tired of those commie bastards. the entire planet is RED and is deserving of our nuclear wrath
Pardon me for injecting actual science but Mars doesn't have an earth like dipole magnetic field. It can't support a Van Allen radiation belt like Earth. As a result, the solar wind is not deflected as well and the atmosphere is not sustainable. So adding a bunch of greenhouse gas would be pointless as it would just be blown away by the solar wind. So yeah, it's great to dream up ideas on how to make Mars a place we can live, it's also good to come up with ideas that might actually work.
Is Mars massive enough to have the gravitational pull to keep all of those greenhouse gases from escaping into space?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
magnetosphere is useful for keeping an atmosphere in geological time frames. As we are all finding out, man does not function in geological time frames, but much faster. An atmosphere on Mars would degrade over time, without replenishment if we don't have a magnetosphere. So basically, we'd need to crash a comet or two onto the planet every century. If we have the ability to create an atmosphere in the first place, maintaining it would be several orders of magnitude easier.
What is being proposed is terraforming, which even with nukes is not "quick" in human terms.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Someone you trust is one of us.
give da people aih!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Dear Mr. Musk,
on your idea to nuke the poles of Mars I was very intrigued. I would like to apply as a loyal henchman for your endeavour.
Key characteristics:
* no questions asked
* red shirt preferred
* no family ties
* screaming capability above normal
* natural aversion against superheroes
* weapon experience : none, but I can look (very) scary
Previous experience : none, but eager to learn.
I look forward to an interview in which I can explain my qualifications further.
Regards,
D. Nachos
The idea here is probably to release the carbon dioxide and water vapor frozen at the poles. The problem is I don't think that there is enough carbon dioxide there, and without massive amounts of carbon dioxide the water will freeze right out. I think the only possibility is to release a tailored mix of long lived gasses that will warm Mars as much as possible.
Mars can't possibly be kept warm without help. Many of the greenhouse gasses will break down eventually, and the solar wind will strip off even carbon dioxide. I suspect the rates of loss are such that they can be made up by an active society without too much difficultly.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Mars is smaller than Earth. Gravity-wise, Mars can't hold on to an atmosphere the way the Earth can. Plus solar wind, plus lack of protection from cosmic radiation.
It would be like living on top of Everest. O2 would be scarce, and it would bleed away quickly. Plus you couldn't stay out long without radiation shielding.
We can terraform Mars, but it would be expensive and not worth it. Easier and cheaper to do something about the runaway greenhouse issue on Venus; thin things out, reduce the atmospheric pressure, and there you've got something sustainable. Venus could even house enough solar to provide excess power to Earth, making it a useful colony. Mars would be like a welfare baby where we never stop having to provide for it.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
True enough. Honestly I don't think we'd need much motivation to nuke Mars from orbit, because nukes. It would mean testing dangerous technology right out in the open as it wouldn't be (exclusively, anyway) used as a potential weapon. There's a spacecraft depicted in Neal Stephenson's book Anathem that strikes me as already easy to conceive.
Hasn't anyone read the book? Those Martians have it coming...preemptive strike!
He has money. Therefore we must listen to him!
I think the problem would be with launching the nukes in the first place. NASA has had enough blowback trying to launch craft with tiny RTGs.
Because Earthlings will have to live underground on Mars.
yes, but there are organisms that would be happy to live in that, if it was warmer, that would then make oxygen atmosphere. it's happened before on another world near you
The quickest way to fund the manned space program is to alert the "blow crap up" political groups in the U.S. that the Iranians hid their nukes on Mars.
So nukes aside, let's explore the other option... how would one produce greenhouse gasses on mars? I can't stand the bullshit rhetoric argument that we're pretty damned good at it here on earth, so it must be easy on mars..... On earth we have millions of people, on earth we have COAL, on earth we have industry driven by the consumerism of those millions of people... none of those things exist on mars. There is no energy on mars AT ALL except the sun hitting the planet, and here on earth, using the power of the sun has been argued as the REMEDY for greenhouse gasses! So WTF? Where does the energy and chemistry come from that will produce billions of tons of greenhouse gasses on mars? Sounds like unicorn fart futures are way up!
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
I have some bad news for you - entire space (and that presently includes Mars) is highly radioactive due to emissions from the stars. One nuke or a hundred won't make a dent in that and won't even come close to what Sun already emits toward Mars.
And yet, here you are, as an AC no less.
Yeah... the sand worms!
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
1. You don't know how to properly use the word irony. THAT is ironic. 2. You must be one hell of a credentialed climatologist in order to come up with these untested/unverified/unsourced theories while sitting at your computer on slash dot. Have a nice day.
You need to drink some water and go take a nap.
You need to jam a great big black dick up your ass
I was skeptical at first, but I just tried your suggestion and it worked! Thanks!
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
I think people are missing the sheer scale of this, what I assume is tongue-in-cheek. suggestion. We're talking about a planet here. It would take an awful lot of nukes to vapourise enough ice to create any kind of increasd atmosphere pressure, even if there was enough ice to do so. Afterwards it would be quite radioactive and there are no guarantees it wouldn't just quickly freeze again. You'd be much better served parking giant solar concentrator arrays above the poles and blasting away instead.
There's a spacecraft depicted in Neal Stephenson's book Anathem that strikes me as already easy to conceive.
That ship was actually based on a real concept.
(Also features in KSP :)
According to some quick internet research:
1) A 30x increase in atmosphere would be required in order to walk around with an oxygen tank unprotected without your blood boiling.
2) Melting the polar ice caps completely would approximately double the atmospheric pressure.
So it's unclear to me what advantage the nukes would bring.
This space intentionally left blank
Don't worry Elon, I have your Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator right here!
Please pull out your calculator and just try and figure out what even a 0.5 degree temp difference means when applied worldwide.
You're talking about much more energetic storms. Now judging by your Faux News brainwashed redneck post, I'm sure you live nowhere near a hurricane, but those tornadoes are more than likely to rip your trailer-home to shreds.
In fact, the only good news about Global Warming is that it will completely eliminate Florida. All the oceans have to do is rise a few more inches. Which is coming by 2050.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
That's right.
But what is really annoying is that Musk's publicist is great at getting him mentioned here even when he parrots other peoples' ideas (I think all of his business ideas come from 19th century World's Fairs- electric car, hyper loop, colonies on Mars..) or offers some of his own crackpot idea.
I also think Musk fanboys need to look up 'innovation' in the dictionary.
You need to jam a great big black dick up your ass
You need to return to your containment unit (http://www.4chan.org/b/) and stay there, or we'll be forced to use The Hose on you. Again.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
... 1. Scientist...enough said ...
People with you're attitude you scare me. Enough said.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Tongue-in-cheek? Yeah, maybe from most people, but this guy has a reputation for coming up with a crazy sounding idea, launching it, and then going on to the next crazy idea. Never underestimate the probability of what Elon Musk might start just cause it sounds like fun.
... 1. Scientist...enough said ...
People with you're attitude you scare me. Enough said.
Wow, I was so scared I used the contraction instead of the possessive. Fuck.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Most high energy radiation is blocked by a simple function of mass. Optical transmission has almost no bearing on other areas of the EM spectrum.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Musk is determined to become the new Chuck Norris meme. Magnetosphere? Musk himself is magnetic enough for two planets.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Reminds me a lot of the terraform Mars scenario in SimEarth.
Step 1: Hit Mars with a couple of comets (brings in water and stirs up dust) ...
Step 2:
Step 3: Prof-... er, I mean watch the forests of Mars burn because you left your oxygen generators on for too long
Lets you solve the lack of oxygen and other problems all at one go.
Of course that completely ignores the moon is the much more appropriate choice for colonization to begin with.
Quit spending money on space!
There are plenty of place on Earth we should be nuking first.
No. There are no cities, structures and forests to burn (or oxygen to support fires) on Mars to produce all of the soot needed to cause a nuclear winter
The bigger issue is probably the cool (at least as compared to Earth and Venus) Martian core, a majority of the original Martian atmosphere is probably still there, it has simply "sunk" into the planet without a hot core constantly ejecting it back to the surface.
Then just drill a big hole down to the center, throw in some nukes, fill up the hole and let the nukes go off. Problem solved. Try not to blow the planet apart, though. Maybe on second thought just throw loads of uranium in so it goes critical but not quite as violently.
Where do I apply to become a SpaceX engineer?
You and your "evolution" RELIGION are a Poison. If God wanted us to inhabit Mars he would have created EDEN there. Jesus didn't say anything about MARS so its not for us to use unless HE says so.
There you go, I suppose.
There's a stark difference between and idea and a workable product. Musk might have borrow ideas (ones never fully realized) but he's done more than just parrot the ideas, he's made them a reality.
As well, he's essentially open-sourced some of the core technology to allow many people to have access as it will drive the prices of these batteries and solar units down over time.
I mean seriously, he's a billionair spending his own money for the benefit of all humanity, and you can still find shit to nit pick?
Unreal.
Discovery from 2001 was a Nuclear Thermal propelled spacecraft (Hydrogen fuel heated by a nuclear reactor ala NERVA), although they never make clear if it was a solid core, or gaseous core reactor. It was not a nuclear bomb propelled craft (ala Orion)
I was in Las Vegas a few years ago and went to the Atomic Testing Museum. They had an exhibit and some models of the Orion program. Quite interesting.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
...we'd hate to have it blow up prematurely.
Sorry, I couldn't help it.
But seriously, Elon, keep doing what you are doing. And let's worry about un-fucking this planet before we start fucking up another one.
K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, emerged from Council chambers, and addressed the planet thus:
"IT'S HAPPENING!" thundered the Speaker's voice across the frozen plains. "The first blueworlders came in their natural static form, sending stationary representatives to orbit our world and settle onto our plains. You said that if all they could do was remain in high orbit or dig a little trench that was so tiny that any freshly-hatched podling could cover it over in an afternoon, that the obese and sedentary blueworlers were mostly harmless."
"WE TRIED TO WARN YOU, BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN! Then came the mobile ones. Brave fighters for the Martian Defense Force have deflected a few of them into deep space, shot others down in fiery blazes of glory, but still the invaders came. Their mechanized terrors evolved rapidly in size and capability with every wave - the first a small short-lived rock-pushing prototype, the second two larger and armed with gelsac-shredding drills, which left a trail of destruction in their wake during yeernaks of struggle, and the latest one descended from a skyhook, powered by Pew-238, and armed with a fully operational photonic weapon system."
"And now - now, after our atmospheric scientists have confirmed the effectiveness of their hundred-yeernak small-scale test on their own world - we have their declaration of intent to use chain reactions of core annihilation to scour the snows and release so much carbdiox that they create a greenhouse effect here - in order to saturate our elegantly-dessicated sands with the toxic and corrosive dihidrox filth that now covers three quarters of their hot, blue, gellhole of a world. THIS IS THE FUTURE YOU CHOSE!"
"BUT YOU CAN STOP IT, PODMATES! All it takes, all it takes, podmates, is an investment in advancing the tribalism of the organic self-replicators that tend to the blueworlders. The Blueworlder Social and Physical Sciences Committee reports that the self-replicators are flawed, critically so, and tend to devolve into tribal groups prone to infighting, primitive displays of aggression, and intertribal warfare. The only flag their mechanized monsters shall raise will be our own red flags, and they will raise our flag over their own world, hoisted by their own proverbial petards. REJOICE, PODMATES! WE SHALL BURY THEM!"
When a junior analyst reminded K'Breel that maybe the real threat was the self-replicators, and that the creatures the Council had spent a full 30% of the planetary budget fighting, were not, in fact, the primary threat -- that their rapid evolution was actually the result of the controlled and directed guidance of thousands of organic minds working in concert -- and that his report, "Organic Blueworlders Determined to Strike in Homeland" had been summarily ignored, K'Breel had the reporter's gelsacs nailed to two small white rectangular posts and promptly incinerated in carbohydrox fires. Slithering back to the Council chambers as the posts smoldered in the background, the Speaker was heard to mutter "As if a small group of thoughtful, committed organics could change the fate of the world for the better or the worse; as if it ever has..."
An atmosphere on Mars would degrade over time, without replenishment if we don't have a magnetosphere. So basically, we'd need to crash a comet or two onto the planet every century.
If the Mars atmosphere was degrading that quickly (century timescales) due to the solar wind and no magnetosphere, then Mars would have no atmosphere right now. From what I have read, any changes we make would last a million years or so. The real changes happen when you tip the system into a new equilibrium. If you add more greenhouse gasses, then that causes warming. The warming causes frozen CO2 to pass back into the atmosphere, causing still more warming. The idea of thermonuclear bombs at the poles seems like an effective way of releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses (frozen CO2) into the atmosphere. To keep up the processes, you could probably release certain versions of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere over time. They are somewhat persistent and are extremely effective at trapping the Sun's radiation as heat. If we did start to set up settlements there, we could manufacture such gasses in situ.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Actually... you would need both.
Gravity to keep an atmosphere is easy. Hell even pluto has a detectable atmosphere even though it's smaller than the moon.
Solar winds do strip atmosphere and over time will leave you like mars of the moon.
Nuking the poles would release enough CO2 to start a warming process. This would cause more frozen CO2 to be released from the ground. Eventually you would start releasing water vapour. The initial kick from the thermonuclear bombs would likely start other feedbacks in the system.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
If he had said that he wanted to drill to the core of mars and inject fissionable material directly into the core to start it back up and hopefully jump start it's magnetosphere he would have had an interesting idea on bringing a dead planet back to life.
I have no words.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And the parent post demonstrates why America is languishing as a civilization. Behold the "can't do" attitude. Dream small. Spend big. (I'm thinking about the California high speed rail line here...amongst the slowest and most expensive in the world). America is becoming a corrupt small-minded oligarchy.
I think the poster is understating how much protection the atmosphere provides. The Earth's atmosphere alone provides radiation protection equivalent to about a three foot thick slab of metal. As for atmospheric degradation due to the solar wind, from what I understand, if we densified the atmosphere, it would take about a million years for the solar wind to undo the changes.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Show me calculations, not seat-of-the-pants assumptions. Because here's a factually supported assumption: if the CO2 and water vapor froze out of the atmosphere to start with, pushing it back into the atmosphere isn't going to reverse the feedback loop that caused those gases to freeze out in the first place. Nevermind that, for millions-to-billions of years, what has remained in the atmosphere has been lost to space so that your near-surface reserves are likely far less than those that were present Mars crossed its tipping points.
Where is the extra CO2 and water going to come from to generate a net positive feedback?
Also shows up in a book by Poul Anderson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
That's exactly it. The core has to be restarted for anything to work, to create and sustain an atmosphere from the sequestered gasses in the ground and magnetosphere. Yes, we probably can live on a dead world, but it will need constant replenishment from outside, like the space station. It's too labor intensive.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Am I the only one that think that Elon Musk has crossed the line from visionary to full blown nutjob?
Huh.. so what are your credentials?? Oh, right.
SJW
If raising the signal-to-noise ratio of Slashdot by discouraging shitheads from hanging around makes me a SJW, then so be it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Except most of his crazy ideas either never get implemented, or don't work. People focus on his successes so much they tend not to see his failures.
So. Most of my crazy ideas (or yours) never get implemented either. SOME of his crazy ideas have been implemented. Which is why he is funding a real rocket company and we... well, we're posting on Slashdot.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Using the term retard is a hurtful reference to those of the non-brain enabled persuasion. This means that you yourself are a Reactionary Derper.
He was asked what would be the *quickest* way, not what he thought was the *best* way.
The surface gravity on Mars is 38% of that on Earth. It is not known if this is enough to hold a breathable atmosphere. Additionally, the lower gravity of Mars would require 2.6 times Earth’s column air mass to obtain 100 kPa pressure at the surface. Earth's atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg three quarters of which is within about 11 km of the surface. The atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner with increasing altitude, with no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. The Kármán line, at 100 km, is often used as the border between the atmosphere and outer space. So the atmosphere on Mars would have to extend to 260kms to have the same surface air pressure as Earth.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
In particular, those who see no value in space programs have no business commenting on proposals like this. If Mars is useless, then why not let Elon Musk waste his own money nuking it?
"Martians" could import hydrocarbons from Titan.
Haven't those poor people suffered enough over the centuries?
Y U SO MAD THO? XD XD XD
Really, kid, go back to 4chan. That's clearly where you belong. Or go do your homework or something.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
you are a mars climate change denier?
Won't anyone think of the poor Barsoomians?
Shouldn't we do a more thorough job of checking the place out for life, before we start painting the landscape with our most powerful weapons?
We should have waited.
~Saxifrage Russel
As I understand it, Mars has virtually no magnetic field so it receives the full brunt of the solar wind without much resistance. I recall reading (somewhere) that was theory as to why Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere any more. If you release all/most of the CO2 in the polar ice caps, what's to stop the solar wind from stripping that away, too? Plus, what little atmosphere is left on the planet -- still enough to produce the occasional dust storm -- would then producing storms with an exciting new ingredient: radioactive debris created by the nukes. Great.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Energy source: Nuclear. Chlorine is likely quite common. You'd have to find Fluorine...there is likely a lot there somewhere. Carbon, as you said can come from CO2. You wouldn't need to make that much. Some chlorofluorocarbons are extremely potent greenhouse gasses that have a long life in the atmosphere...half-life in multiple decades if not a century.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The idea itself is compelling, but you miss one very important little detail: Mars is WAY smaller than our planet. And I mean WAY smaller. It's a little over half the diameter of our planet. Its mass is 1/10th of the Earth's mass. Average density is 2/3 of that of our planet. Escape velocity is half of that we have here.
The problem ain't that it cannot create an atmosphere. The problem is that it cannot retain it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I find it pretty damn funny that alarmists have begun calling global warming climate change like skeptics have always called it. And now they're saying we're heading for amother Little Ice age like we 'realists' have always speculated. And now they're saying CO2 is the weakest gas like we've always said....
I find it pretty damn funny that "skeptics" think "alarmists" have just recently switched to climate change from global warming when the term climate change has been used at least since the 1950's. See: "Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154."
No scientist has said we're heading for another Little Ice Age, just that the Sun may enter a period like the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum and low solar output in general was not the cause of the Little Ice Age, just an exacerbating factor.
If we want life on Mars then we have to raise the co2 levels among other things.....
The CO2 level in the Martian atmosphere is already over 900,000 ppm. The problem is that the atmosphere is just so thin in the first place.
After we nuked the Poles we'd need to round them up on boxcars and transport them to a facility to be greenhouse gassed.
then baked in ovens until Atmosphere!
Hey God told Bush we had to go to Mars. After freeing Iraq from tyranny. You haven't been listening to His Burning Shrub.
Gravity on Mars is only 38% of the Earth's and has no magnetic field to absorb/reflect radiation form the sun so even if you created an atmosphere it would not be anywhere as thick as what humans are use to. Living on Mars is possible but it would not be that much different than if we colonized our moon since we would still have to live in shielded shelters and wear protective gear when going outside.
That said I am not against space exploration and even colonization of space but lets build on science facts and not some SiFi pipe dream. I think the main attraction, although that is subjective of using nuclear weapons is that they make a big bang and do have a wow factor.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
There is that indeed.
I think we shouldn't be trying to terraform Mars anyways until we've first ruled out the possibility of the existence of any native life. Evidence keeps coming in that makes the odds look better and better there may be something there, yet we have nothing to be able to say conclusively and decisively one way or the other. I think we should get that out of the way first.
If we don't, and there was life and we destroyed it, well, for one, is that moral? Even if it's only simple organisms, is it right to just blow them away? Especially we want to claim to care about, say, life here on Earth. What kinds of attitudes would we be putting out into the universe that might get us into trouble in the more distant future when maybe we could actually travel somewhere else with real, intelligent life? More "tangibly", we would be doing science a HUGE disservice by destroying an example of a second natural biosphere, something which would be of enormous scientific value in its own right to study.
The ruthless ideology of exploitation is what created a lot of the problems we have right here on Earth. Why should we continue it?
So I think we should get that down first. If there is life, we should try to find a way to preserve it. That may mean sacrificing terraforming, or even colonization at all, although I'd imagine that if we actually worked on understanding that life once we found it, we might be able to figure out a way to live on the planet without also denying it life.
And even evidence of past life could be vulnerable. In that case it's not so much a moral issue as an issue of scientific value. I think we need a prudent approach to Mars. I don't think we shouldn't go; I just think we need prudence and a measured plan.
Personally, I think the nukes should be used to resurrect Project Orion and send a manned mission to the Jupiter or Saturn system, or even further to Pluto or even Eris. THAT would be awesome.
Mars' once-liquid core cooled and solidified long ago, so Mars does not have a magnetosphere. Without one, keeping Mars habitable will always be an uphill battle.
Even if the material that they use for domes couldn't be both transparent AND block harmful radiation, (Which it could, making a special glass or even plastic that reduced radiation is not unfeasible. Even water can block radiation, though you probably need about a meter of it to reach earths' background levels when around Mars) All you would really need to do is apply a magnetic field to the dome, and include a material that gets rid of UV radiation, and presto change-o, that could do it.
I would imagine having a mostly sub-surface housing unit with smaller surface domes would be easier to maintain since the ground is better at shielding from the sun as well as space debris and wind storms. But that's beside the point.
the IQ of the /. crowd has apparently hit nadir
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Sadly there's also the problem that they are using the Disney magically enhanced nuclear weapons. Real nuclear weapons are about a million times less powerful. Elon Musk's idea is about as realistic as firing an assault rifle at the ground and using it to get yourself into space..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Dumbass. There are a lot of things wrong with idea which is incredibly stupid. The radiation from the bombs however would be almost totally irrelevant.
The real danger from radiation on Mars and on the way to Mars is NATURAL solar cosmic radiation, the shields against cosmic radiation would also stop any radiation from nuclear bombs. Fallout would be a small issue but the solution there is just to wait a year or two.
The real problem of course is that REAL nuclear bombs are not actually anywhere near powerful enough to do what Musk is suggesting..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
The first thing you need on Mars is an atmosphere. With virtually no atmosphere CO2 levels are totally irrelevant.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
A very good idea. Of course how do you steer or move a comet? About the only mechanism that has the power to do it today is 'Super Orion' - pushing them using lots of small nukes..
The other 'tiny' problem with Super Orion is that the ship has to launch from the Earth - and that means detonating dozens of small nukes in the atmosphere and in low orbit here. - Launching a Super Orion ship might (statistically) kill a couple of hundred or even a couple of thousand people over the world from cancer.
Given that pollution from cars kills about half a million people a year, and pollution from burning coal kills over a million a year, and smoking kills about 10 million a year, a few thousand is just statistical noise - but I bet people will still complain about it.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Fossil fuels are literally made from fossils of long dead organic organisms. If we found fossil fuels on mars the bigger story would be that there was enough life at one point to create it.
There are no such things as "Fossil" Fuels. An old myth that will never die it would seem..
Is this some Young Earth Creationist Conspiracy Theory?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Because 95% of 1L of gas is not the same as 95% of 2L of gas.
There he goes again with the insane anti-Muslim nonsense he's becoming so famous for. Brilliant work, sparky.
So, not only wrong, but you don't even have a clue what you're talking about.
So? That doesn't make drenching with fallout sensible. Doubly so since so many colonization plans depend on mining surface material or using it for construction. In either case, making it 'hot' is a really bad idea.
So, not only wrong, but you don't even have a clue what you're talking about.