Jumpstart Mars Terraforming by awakening volcano(es)

[wenderro]

Hello there, my question is, could you awaken an volcano on Mars to kickstart terraformation? I know this is a very very controversial subject and most likely it wont work, however I would like to know why not.
From my very little knowledge, and because of the recent news that in Cerberus Fossae might have had an eruption as soon as 50k years ago, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210510192532.htm , could we drill and/or use nuclear bombs to create a new eruption? Could this be feasible in theory? I know that trying to awake Olympus or any of the big volcanoes would be futile, but since the last eruption was as soon as 50k years ago maybe this could be done? Also I like this because is relatively close to Arcadia Platinia, one of the likely spots of first landing (ice there at low latitude afaik)

For Mods: I'm very sorry if I put this in wrong category or something similar was discussed, I tried my best to search for it.

[Frogstar_Robot]

tldr; no.

Roughly speaking, the amount of gas emitted by one large volcano is about a billion times less than the amount of gases required to create an earth-like atmospheric pressure. Even if you were aiming for a partial pressure at low points, it's still a few million times less.

If you've got nukes, probably best to use them to melt the ice caps. But a brute force approach requires huge amounts of energy. Smarter methods like solar mirrors would be a better way to leverage the existing heat source.

The modern form of Earth took a few 100 million years to create, artificial terraforming could be quicker but still we are talking about a multi-century task requiring multiple methods.

[Phil Stooke]

Wenderro, any difficult problem like this benefits from some experiments to see if it might be feasible.  I notice that you are from Romania, and luckily there is an extinct or dormant volcano nearby that you could test your idea on: Ciomadul.  Let us know how you get on with this rather fascinating idea.

[KelvinZero]

A common scheme to warm mars is to bash it with asteroids or comets.

Possibly shaping those impacts to dig a really deep hole right down through the crust and releasing heat from below could have more effect than just delivering their energy to the surface? Often dust clouds from eruptions actually end up cooling the surface on earth though.

[Vultur]

Often dust clouds from eruptions actually end up cooling the surface on earth though.

Yeah, volcanoes on Earth have both warming (CO2) and cooling (acid gases forming aerosols in the upper atmosphere) effects, and the cooling is often the major effect - at least on "our" timescales (eg "Year without a Summer" after the 1815 Tambora eruption). I think the CO2 is important mostly on a much longer (geological) timescale.

Probably be better to cook CO2 out of the carbonate rocks at places like Nili Fossae. But there aren't enough to get an Earth-density atmosphere, too much was lost to space. But if you use comets to add volatiles...

[davamanra]

I don't pretend to know a lot about planetary geology, but the idea of terraforming Mars, from what information I have gathered is not promising. 

First, 4 billion years ago Mars might have had the conditions to be hospitable, but this was only temporary. 

Mars has 38% the gravity of Earth, so a lot of it's atmosphere would have been vulnerable to being blown away into space by solar winds.

Mars probably had a molten core and been much more geologically active than it is today, but with out this geologic activity, there is no dynamo effect thus no meaningful magnetic field around Mars.  This compounded with the weak gravity allowed solar winds to blow the vast majority of Mars atmosphere into space.  This is important because what ever attempts humans might make to replenish Mars' atmosphere will only be temporary.  Without a magnetic field and adequate gravity, this atmosphere will again be blown into space and depleting whatever atmospheric ingredients, including water, might be frozen in the crust of Mars.  We could repeat this effort in futility, but again all this will lead to is more atmosphere blown into space and less left in its crust.

IMHO it would be better to colonize Mars under sealed habitats.  We could still develop technologies to exploit Mars resources.  It would be more challenging, but we would be able to perpetuate this colonization strategy indefinitely. 

[ppnl]

Mars probably had a molten core and been much more geologically active than it is today, but with out this geologic activity, there is no dynamo effect thus no meaningful magnetic field around Mars.  This compounded with the weak gravity allowed solar winds to blow the vast majority of Mars atmosphere into space.  This is important because what ever attempts humans might make to replenish Mars' atmosphere will only be temporary.  Without a magnetic field and adequate gravity, this atmosphere will again be blown into space and depleting whatever atmospheric ingredients, including water, might be frozen in the crust of Mars.  We could repeat this effort in futility, but again all this will lead to is more atmosphere blown into space and less left in its crust.

Well temporary might be many millions of years. If we have the ability to create an atmosphere on Mars at all we certainly have the ability to replenish it faster than it is lost.

There are many reasons that terraforming Mars may be impractical or impossible. This isn't one of them.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Well temporary might be many millions of years. If we have the ability to create an atmosphere on Mars at all we certainly have the ability to replenish it faster than it is lost.

There are many reasons that terraforming Mars may be impractical or impossible. This isn't one of them.

I agree.
I think one of the biggest issues to solve for terraforming Mars is the (relative) lack of nitrogen.
It will likely have to be imported via asteroids. Mars does have a good amount of water and thus a good source of oxygen. There is also a sufficient source of CO2, from what I understand, but nitrogen...
Preventing the atmosphere from being blow off into space, is a much smaller problem in comparison. NASA had a relatively recent study about using magnets at Mars L1 to accelerate terraforming. Mars is actually replenishing its atmosphere constantly, but it gets blown away into space at the same rate. So an artificial magnetosphere would (relatively quickly) increase the density of the atmosphere, even without any additional measures.
Beyond that, I think that Margarita Marinova's and Chris' McKay's idea of using super greenhouse gasses like perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons would work really well.

[davamanra]

I appreciate your optimism and I have followed Chris McKay's work as well.  At first I was very optimistic as well.  Then I found new information, including discoveries made on Mars itself by the rovers and only then was my optimism dampened. 

I'm not saying that we could not terraform Mars, but to bring it to the point where it is habitable for humans would at least be challenging.  Also, I too desire the colonization of Mars just not the way humans colonized Earth.  No, I'm not some kinda tree hugger, but we should at least take some lessons from Earth and  proceed more cautiously with Mars.

My desire for Man to colonize Mars is so humanity has a back-up if something WERE to go wrong on Earth, humanity would still be a be able to carry on on Mars.  For that reason, I think it would wise to proceed more cautiously.

Having said that, I have found a few grandiose ideas that could address my concerns, and maybe in the future when technology advances to the point that these ideas can be turned into reality, THEN I will be optimistic.       

[RonM]

The biggest issue with terraforming is it should be done before building cities. Exploding volcanos, nuclear weapons, crashing comets, and flooding lowlands aren't good for urban development.

[laszlo]

The biggest issue with terraforming is it should be done before building cities. Exploding volcanos, nuclear weapons, crashing comets, and flooding lowlands aren't good for urban development.

The biggest issue with terraforming Mars is that it needs to be completed, or at least set on an irrevocable path, before the coming climate change-caused economic and population crash on Earth that will stop all space travel and technological civilization for millenia, if not permanently.

It's ironic that our inability to stop adding industrial waste gases to and removing them from our atmosphere, i.e., terraform Earth back to a pre-industrial state, is what will stop us from terraforming Mars.

[davamanra]

The biggest issue with terraforming is it should be done before building cities. Exploding volcanos, nuclear weapons, crashing comets, and flooding lowlands aren't good for urban development.

The biggest issue with terraforming Mars is that it needs to be completed, or at least set on an irrevocable path, before the coming climate change-caused economic and population crash on Earth that will stop all space travel and technological civilization for millenia, if not permanently.

It's ironic that our inability to stop adding industrial waste gases to and removing them from our atmosphere, i.e., terraform Earth back to a pre-industrial state, is what will stop us from terraforming Mars.

It would be interesting to find out what factors caused the various global warming and cooling cycles before Mankind was relevant.  There might be a solution in what to do and what not to do.   

[Frogstar_Robot]

The biggest issue with terraforming is it should be done before building cities. Exploding volcanos, nuclear weapons, crashing comets, and flooding lowlands aren't good for urban development.

The biggest issue with terraforming Mars is that it needs to be completed, or at least set on an irrevocable path, before the coming climate change-caused economic and population crash on Earth that will stop all space travel and technological civilization for millenia, if not permanently.

It's ironic that our inability to stop adding industrial waste gases to and removing them from our atmosphere, i.e., terraform Earth back to a pre-industrial state, is what will stop us from terraforming Mars.

It would be interesting to find out what factors caused the various global warming and cooling cycles before Mankind was relevant.  There might be a solution in what to do and what not to do.   

Assuming that is a genuine question, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is quite strong. Otherwise, the location of continental land masses and the effect of Milankovitch cycles is a factor.

Probably the biggest factor affecting the carbon cycle is the biosphere.

There was a study, which I can no longer find, which suggested that if life does not arise on a planet within a billion years or so, geochemical processes are likely to lead to runaway heating or cooling. If life does arise, to maintain a balance it must provide negative feedbacks to geochemical processes.

If Mars had developed a biosphere, then that might have been enough to sustain a life-supporting atmosphere. The fact that Mars didn't suggests to me that Mars never developed life.

But either way, I think to "jumpstart" terraforming requires artificial creation of a denser atmosphere as well as introduction of suitable lifeforms.

[davamanra]

The biggest issue with terraforming is it should be done before building cities. Exploding volcanos, nuclear weapons, crashing comets, and flooding lowlands aren't good for urban development.

The biggest issue with terraforming Mars is that it needs to be completed, or at least set on an irrevocable path, before the coming climate change-caused economic and population crash on Earth that will stop all space travel and technological civilization for millenia, if not permanently.

It's ironic that our inability to stop adding industrial waste gases to and removing them from our atmosphere, i.e., terraform Earth back to a pre-industrial state, is what will stop us from terraforming Mars.

It would be interesting to find out what factors caused the various global warming and cooling cycles before Mankind was relevant.  There might be a solution in what to do and what not to do.   

Assuming that is a genuine question, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is quite strong. Otherwise, the location of continental land masses and the effect of Milankovitch cycles is a factor.

Probably the biggest factor affecting the carbon cycle is the biosphere.

There was a study, which I can no longer find, which suggested that if life does not arise on a planet within a billion years or so, geochemical processes are likely to lead to runaway heating or cooling. If life does arise, to maintain a balance it must provide negative feedbacks to geochemical processes.

If Mars had developed a biosphere, then that might have been enough to sustain a life-supporting atmosphere. The fact that Mars didn't suggests to me that Mars never developed life.

But either way, I think to "jumpstart" terraforming requires artificial creation of a denser atmosphere as well as introduction of suitable lifeforms.

The question is genuine.  I was aware OF the Milankovitch cycles from various ice and rock core samples, but didn't know the name.  Along these lines, has it been determined where the Earth is at along these cycles today?  This might help us determine which courses of action would be more effective.

That study makes perfect sense.  From what we know about Earth's biological and geological history, 4 billion years ago Earth could not support almost all of the life that we have today (in fact Mars was probably more habitable back then!)  I can imagine protein molecules building long RNA chains and creating a huge primordial soup in the oceans.  Then whatever factors brought about some kind of intermediate "life" molecules, primitive DNA, whatever, then life.  From there, In order to perpetuate these chemical processes sought out better conditions, not with any kind of intelligence or desire, but just because of entropy, the same way fire seeks out sources of more fuel or oxidizer to perpetuate its mindless self.  As this "stuff" got more sophisticated, it released waste products that then went about terraforming to be able to perpetuate these chemical processes.  Of course there's a lot more detail than this, but something along these lines.

Mars might have had a favorable biosphere initially, but my guess is primarily that lack of adequate gravity and its molten core solidified reducing its magnetic field, sealed Mars' fate.  Their MIGHT have been very basic life, but if the conditions changed too quickly, life couldn't evolve fast enough to keep up.

Agreed.  I believe it would be possible to terraform Mars a limited amount, but for the same reasons as Earth, we would need to create and evolve a primitive form of life that could thrive in some kind of intermediate state before unleashing it.  From there terraforming might have a chance to take hold and perpetuate.

Having said all that, Mars might develop it's own biosphere, but will it be hospitable for humans?     

[Frogstar_Robot]

I think it's fascinating question. At one time, it was thought that under the dense clouds of Venus, there may exist a lush jungle, and Mars may support widespread vegetation (but not canals, that was a translation error). There was genuine disappointment when the first probes should apparent

On paper, Venus, Earth and Mars are in the "habitable zone", (meaning the zone where water can be liquid), so the mystery is why only Earth apparently has life. It may not be one factor, but a "Goldilocks effect". For example, Earth has active plate tectonics which recycle crust, as well as move continents around, which has important implications for global temperature (since snow can accumulate on land masses). But is plate tectonics an essential feature, or just incidental?

It may be that Mars is close to being habitable, requiring only a small nudge in the preferred direction. OTOH, it's size and lack of magnetic field may mean it's atmosphere is inexorably stripped away and needs a regular addition of material from asteroids or comets to maintain it.

We know there are billions of planets in the Galaxy. Depending on who you stand on the Fermi paradox, if planets are relatively easily to terraform, that would suggest a galactic civilization could easily spread. OTOH, if it turns out to be really hard to terraform a planet then that might explain why a galactic civilization has not spread.

I see Mars as really a first stage experiment to find out how easy it is to terraform a planet, if indeed it is even possible, with our current technology.

[davamanra]

I think it's fascinating question. At one time, it was thought that under the dense clouds of Venus, there may exist a lush jungle, and Mars may support widespread vegetation (but not canals, that was a translation error). There was genuine disappointment when the first probes should apparent

On paper, Venus, Earth and Mars are in the "habitable zone", (meaning the zone where water can be liquid), so the mystery is why only Earth apparently has life. It may not be one factor, but a "Goldilocks effect". For example, Earth has active plate tectonics which recycle crust, as well as move continents around, which has important implications for global temperature (since snow can accumulate on land masses). But is plate tectonics an essential feature, or just incidental?

It may be that Mars is close to being habitable, requiring only a small nudge in the preferred direction. OTOH, it's size and lack of magnetic field may mean it's atmosphere is inexorably stripped away and needs a regular addition of material from asteroids or comets to maintain it.

We know there are billions of planets in the Galaxy. Depending on who you stand on the Fermi paradox, if planets are relatively easily to terraform, that would suggest a galactic civilization could easily spread. OTOH, if it turns out to be really hard to terraform a planet then that might explain why a galactic civilization has not spread.

I see Mars as really a first stage experiment to find out how easy it is to terraform a planet, if indeed it is even possible, with our current technology.

Yeah, wishful thinking by humans.  Still, in the 1950's all we really had was speculation, so speculate optimistically! 

That is where I'm leaning too.  We don't know all the factors necessary for sustained habitability but, at least in Earth's case, gravity and magnetic field are biggies.  Another factor I wonder about is having a substantial moon, that would cause a slight warping of the planet (kind of like tides) and this warping generates enough internal friction to sustain a molten core, thus sustaining the magnetic field.  Maybe a part of terraforming Mars might be to bring Ceres into a close orbit to Mars and that might stir up the core and make it molten again. 

When I look at the Fermi Paradox, I turn to the Drake equation as well.  Stars?  Lots.  Planets?  Maybe not as many as we like.  When you look at our place in the galaxy, there might be a galactic "Goldilocks Zone" as well.  The galactic core is very dense and planets may be rare, and the radiation might prohibit life.  Habitable, or potentially habitable planets, within this Goldilocks Zone?  Take the Solar System as a reference, 1 in 8.  Here's the kicker, at least for me:  Intelligent life and to the point where they have radio technology, and are in a position to transmit so we could receive them?  In the entirety of Earth's history,  We have only had radio for 150 years.  Let's be optimistic and multiply this by 100.  My math is rusty, but I think that's about 1 in 2.5 million.  Then we have to receive a signal to be aware of them.  I am optimistic, but tempered by these type of factors.  Are there planets out there that are as far along as we are?  Sure, Are they within our radio distance?  THAT'S where I sway toward the cynical side.

With our current technology, I don't see us terraforming Mars anytime soon, but we might discover ideas to put us on that path.  Possibly do the same things we are doing to Earth right now!     

[Vahe231991]

I found this scientific paper published in December 2022 that could have more bearing on the question of whether signs of recent volcanic activity on Mars could be of the building blocks for terraforming Mars:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-022-01836-3

[spacenut]

Mars might need to have an artificial radiation belt built with satellites to protect any atmosphere from being blown off by solar winds.  No sense building an atmosphere without having it protected.  It might take a very long time to build an atmosphere even using comets or asteriods. 

[Robotbeat]

Mars might need to have an artificial radiation belt built with satellites to protect any atmosphere from being blown off by solar winds.  No sense building an atmosphere without having it protected.  It might take a very long time to build an atmosphere even using comets or asteriods.

This comes up every single time terraforming is mentioned, but it's false, no matter how many pop-science articles mention it.

I'm begging people to look up the relevant timescales. The lack of magnetosphere only matters to the atmosphere on a timescale of dozens to hundreds of millions of years. That's the timescale that it took Mars to lose much of its atmosphere after its magnetic field was lost.

I used to think of schemes to build a big magnetic field by putting superconducting cables around the equator (which would be useful for power storage and transmission anyway), but even though it'd be easily within the capability of a Mars civilization, it's really not needed on any relevant timescales. MAVEN has measured the loss rate of Mars' atmosphere at 3000 tons per year. Mars's atmosphere has a mass of 25 teratonnes. Meaning that the current loss rate is only relevant over billions of years. Even with a larger atmosphere (and therefore a larger mass loss rate) or even one with greater temperature, you're still talking about a very low long-term loss rate on human timescales.

This talking point is just unscientific. Which is good news, of course, but space advocates shouldn't get in the habit of repeating misinformation like this.

[daedalus1]

Unscientific to display a graph that has a logarithmic scale that distorts visulal reality. Also mars didn't start losing atmosphere 4 billion years ago, that started sometime later when magnetic field was lost.