kyunkyunkyu wrote: Nope, mega structure and planet cracker are much more advance since they involve space travel.

And re-melting a planet's core wouldn't?
It's not something you're going to do with a laser in California

Dragonoake wrote: And re-melting a planet's core wouldn't?
It's not something you're going to do with a laser in California

Yep:) Since planet cracker requires the spaceship to be able to move to a planet, do the cracking through laser or explosives etc, move out to a safe distance before the planet cracked (depending on how the cracking method is), and then return to get the mineral and so on.

To go to Mars takes 6-8 months, and then crack the planet, gather the debris, process them into solar energy collectors, and then go near the surrounding of the sun to position each energy collector to make Dyson Sphere. Not to mention what you said about taking half the solar system, meaning the asteroid belt, Jupiter, to Charon etc, not only it'll take years but also the impacts to the earth will most possibly be dangerous (losing outer system may make earth orbit closer to sun, Jupiter etc help taking care of intruder from outside the system, and so on).

While the core reheating at least borderline scifi, which can use available technology ("available" here doesn't necessarily mean "feasible"). Send missions to Mars many times, build hundreds (maybe thousands) of fusion reactors surrounding Mars supported by fission ones if needed, drill to core, if possible channel the plasma generated from reactors to the core, or else channel as much electricity as possible to the core to gradually melt the core. Once it is melted enough, place several nuclear explosives and ignite them one by one to create continuous shockwave that makes the molten core moves.

For the asteroid throwing, go from Mars to the belt, choose the asteroid and plan the motion and timing, use explosives to separate the asteroid from the belt, use jet thruster to control the movement of the asteroid to hit Mars in certain angle in order to add the surface rotation, and then repeat until the target results are satisfied.

As you can see, the megastructure would require the technology of Star Trek, and planet cracker requires that of Dead Space. While the core reheating uses the fusion reactor (planned to be completed in 2050) and the technology of the movie The Core and The Last Days on Mars, and also asteroid throwing uses that of the movie Armageddon and Deep Impact:)

Unless of course you know other hypotheses that make the former option more available and feasible:)

What if this requires no technology? Much like wind and rain, while might be possible to be manipulated by technology, it still does it's own thing at it's own time. Much like the plenty of times I've called on rain to move it's cold current to create rain in Vegas. Zero tech used.

I kind of view mars like a cell, and the core is like it's heart/nucleus. For whatever reason, it was extinguished. It reminds me of a superman movie where the beings were fighting for power and resources extinguished Krypton and had to flee to earth. There is a theory that Mars is much like Krypton in a sense that the beings there were war like, extinguished the planet and sought refuge here.

But if we were to say hey universe, we need to revive Mars for XYZ, I'm sure the universe would answer.

Barring a large impact event on Mars, I'm not sure there's not really any good way to restart the core of the planet. I hope like hell that fusion energy becomes practical, but it's been twenty years out for years, and I worry that it just won't be feasible. And given that it's a planetary core we're talking about, I'm not sure reactors are going to be able to heat up such a gigantic ball of metal, let alone get it spinning again.

I don't think our own tech is at a point where we can start aiming asteroids to hit targets. For one thing, when we landed a space probe on a comet in recent months, it was HUGE news because we'd never done such a thing before.

Second, in order to knock an asteroid with enough mass to make significant changes on a PLANET out of its existing orbit, and then aim it precisely at said planet, we would need to expend an amount of power that we currently haven't got the facility to generate.

It would be easier for us to figure out how to get humans alive from Earth to Mars, neither dying en route of an accident nor of killing one another from being cooped up together for too long, figure out how to ensure that they don't run out of food, supplies, medicine, etc., and getting them to start creating underground labyrinths for humans to live in. If we have conquered all of the above, then I'm presuming we'd figure out how to get a breatheable atmosphere underground so they wouldn't have to be in space suits all the time. Said underground labyrinth would, of course, also have figured out how to keep its air clean and breatheable like they do in the ISS, and we'd have to figure out how to get rid of rubbish since there aren't exactly trash collection services on Mars.

Once they actually got food growing underground,which would require grow lamps to replicate the sun's light, THEN we could start talking about bringing more people to settle on Mars, bit by bit. Personally, think we'd have to grow plants with lamps anyway, since the sun's potency is diminished on Mars compared to Earth, due to its greater distance.

I suspect that sun lamps would be needed by humans, as well, because WE need sunlight for serotonin production and to help stave off SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder).

But I'm throwing a lot of ideas at the wall right now, and trying to see what sticks. Either way, settling on Mars would be an endeavor that requires us to do a lot of prep work, using technology that we haven't finished developing yet.

Yep, that's why I mentioned that these are just theories, or maybe can be classified as hypotheses since they're borderline scifi:)
Let me see if I can discuss what I understand from that other community.

Samsara wrote:What if this requires no technology? Much like wind and rain, while might be possible to be manipulated by technology, it still does it's own thing at it's own time. Much like the plenty of times I've called on rain to move it's cold current to create rain in Vegas. Zero tech used.

I kind of view mars like a cell, and the core is like it's heart/nucleus. For whatever reason, it was extinguished. It reminds me of a superman movie where the beings were fighting for power and resources extinguished Krypton and had to flee to earth. There is a theory that Mars is much like Krypton in a sense that the beings there were war like, extinguished the planet and sought refuge here.

But if we were to say hey universe, we need to revive Mars for XYZ, I'm sure the universe would answer.

Now this is more philosophical/metaphysical point of view. Thus not sure how much "paranormal energy" (I'm not sure what it should be called:I) to be used for interplanetary event, to shield Mars as a whole from the impact of solar wind, restart the core movement and magnetic field, increase the atmosphere, etc etc. If you or anyone have good communication with immortals/deities, please ask them about it and whether they can help:)

Magemoss wrote:Barring a large impact event on Mars, I'm not sure there's not really any good way to restart the core of the planet. I hope like hell that fusion energy becomes practical, but it's been twenty years out for years, and I worry that it just won't be feasible. And given that it's a planetary core we're talking about, I'm not sure reactors are going to be able to heat up such a gigantic ball of metal, let alone get it spinning again.

Well, ITER did plan that the fusion reactor be feasible between 2030s and 2050s, not ure if they change the schedule:I However, the idea of core reheating is not using only one reactor, but many of them, positioned so that the core is enclosed by them. If the plasma from the reactor, with temperature more than 15 million degree Celcius, can be touched to the core, it will melt that area of the core easily. Thus, the core surface is melted segmentedly and with many reactors in other places of the core also melting the surface, it will spread and melt the core surface completely. Just an idea though, there are other ideas too, but I like this one:P

Likes2Read wrote:I don't think our own tech is at a point where we can start aiming asteroids to hit targets. For one thing, when we landed a space probe on a comet in recent months, it was HUGE news because we'd never done such a thing before.

Actually this shows that the tech has reached the point to land on asteroid:)

Likes2Read wrote:Second, in order to knock an asteroid with enough mass to make significant changes on a PLANET out of its existing orbit, and then aim it precisely at said planet, we would need to expend an amount of power that we currently haven't got the facility to generate.

Yep, may need a small nuclear explosive to separate one from its orbit. Afterward, however, a small nudge can mean a lot of change of free floating movement in space. But still, that needs a NASA-level rigorous calculation, planning, and preparation

Likes2Read wrote:It would be easier for us to figure out how to get humans alive from Earth to Mars, neither dying en route of an accident nor of killing one another from being cooped up together for too long, figure out how to ensure that they don't run out of food, supplies, medicine, etc., and getting them to start creating underground labyrinths for humans to live in.

That, I believe, is what that Mars One Mission is planning for:) Although, I thought the settlement will be in the form of camp, building, or bunker since they're easier to build.

Likes2Read wrote:If we have conquered all of the above, then I'm presuming we'd figure out how to get a breatheable atmosphere underground so they wouldn't have to be in space suits all the time. Said underground labyrinth would, of course, also have figured out how to keep its air clean and breatheable like they do in the ISS, and we'd have to figure out how to get rid of rubbish since there aren't exactly trash collection services on Mars.

Once they actually got food growing underground,which would require grow lamps to replicate the sun's light, THEN we could start talking about bringing more people to settle on Mars, bit by bit. Personally, think we'd have to grow plants with lamps anyway, since the sun's potency is diminished on Mars compared to Earth, due to its greater distance.

I suspect that sun lamps would be needed by humans, as well, because WE need sunlight for serotonin production and to help stave off SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder).

Underground is not a bad idea, but the problem that one mentioned is the possibility that the solar wind, radiation, and cosmic ray can penetrate the ground if Mars is not shielded. Therefore, the bunker idea may still be a safer bet. And if the bunker can handle all these problems, it'll be easier to build it on the surface rather than under it.

Likes2Read wrote:But I'm throwing a lot of ideas at the wall right now, and trying to see what sticks. Either way, settling on Mars would be an endeavor that requires us to do a lot of prep work, using technology that we haven't finished developing yet.

Exactly!! There're so many ideas and arguments, it'll be much more fun if the conflicting ones don't lead to personal emotion and that "you're stupid; I'm better than you because blah blah blah". Forgive me, I'm a bit tired lately and just got caught in the rain, it's freezing:I

Magemoss wrote:I'm not sure how well vegetation would grow on Mars, considering how far it is from the Sun, and the lack of soil bacteria.

Who said there is no soil bacteria? NASA? 1la 2wk

I would love to see trees on Mars 1lo

Izzy69 wrote:

Magemoss wrote:I'm not sure how well vegetation would grow on Mars, considering how far it is from the Sun, and the lack of soil bacteria.

Who said there is no soil bacteria? NASA? 1la 2wk

They haven't confirmed that there isn't any soil bacteria, they've been basing that information off of the presence of organic chemicals in the ground. Unfortunately, Curiosity doesn't have a microscope to actually look at samples, so we don't know for sure.

All that said, yes NASA is the one releasing this information. I see no reason why NASA would lie.

kyunkyunkyu wrote: However, the idea of core reheating is not using only one reactor, but many of them, positioned so that the core is enclosed by them. If the plasma from the reactor, with temperature more than 15 million degree Celcius, can be touched to the core, it will melt that area of the core easily.

Maybe, but you're still trying to heat up a 30' stone sphere with a butane lighter...
It could be done, given enough lighters and enough time, but is it really worth it?
I tend to look at this the same way I look at mega-structure: It's an interesting theory, but by the time we have the ability to do the actual engineering on such a massive scale, we'll have probably found a better way to solve the problem

Then, there's the question of how much energy you can put into it at a time without blowing up the planet: It could still take a million years...

And, if you do heat up the core, it will expand...
What happens on the surface when it does?

Likes2Read wrote:It would be easier for us to figure out how to get humans alive from Earth to Mars, and getting them to start creating underground labyrinths for humans to live in.

Conditions are favorable for the formation of lava tubes, so that problem may have already been taken care of