Has Mars suffered a nuclear explosion? What do you guys think?

a reply to: staywellinformed

I think it's an interesting theory, but there is no conclusive evidence that there are any outposts on Mars. Would be cool though, you know, for a trip down Imagination Lane in the sci-fi genre. We're still getting various evidence from the rover missions about various scientific data and so forth, but as much as I personally believe certain things, we simply don't have hard evidence to prove certain types of speculations.

Which is a shame, because Mars has captured the imagination of so many humans over the years and so many wonderful books and novels have come out on the subject. Which for me isn't a bad thing....I absolutely adore books.

a reply to: staywellinformed

Well, congratulations on your first thread staywellinformed.

However, in the interests of living up to your user name, I would recommend that you pay close attention to the wording of the article you linked to.

The comments attributed to the physicist mentioned in the article, include a segment having to do with a pair of anomalous nuclear explosions leaving no craters. As you are no doubt aware, most nuclear weapons produced and test detonated on this planet, have been designed to explode before reaching the ground, and would not leave craters anyway. They might leave a massive stain against the ground directly beneath the point of origin for the blast, but not a crater.

Although it is true that a nuclear weapon detonated at ground level would dig a huge hole in the ground, the only nuclear weapons ever deployed in war, left no crater what so ever, and were more effective as a result. If an explosion wastes its energy turning over earth, its lethality is reduced, unless one happens to be in exactly the wrong place, at exactly the wrong time to avoid its fury.

An airburst spreads the damage radius out much further, causing far greater devastation.

This means that the mans point is moot. Furthermore, two nuclear blasts on a planet like Mars, would have next to no significance what so ever, unless those nuclear explosions were several orders of magnitude greater in size than the Tsar Bomba, which is the affectionate name for a 50 megaton nuclear weapon, the AN602 hydrogen bomb. It was experimentally detonated by the Russians on October 30th 1961. The mushroom clouds crown was 35 miles high at its peak. It was, and remains to this day, the largest man made explosion ever created.

What the physicist whose comments are the basis for the article you linked to, is suggesting, is that a pair of much larger, and I mean thousands of time larger explosions, were set off on Mars. Let me just state for the record, that I could be proven wrong in the fullness of time when I say what I am about to say, but that I stand by my thinking on this...

First of all, no such detonations happened, because no such bomb would ever be built. Why? Because to build something like that would be risky, and wasteful. It would be much easier for a species which sought to destroy a civilisation, to put some sort of ion engine like device onto an Oort Cloud object, and steer it at ever increasing speed, toward the planet of choice. It would also have a greater impact than a mere nuclear warhead of any size, because you see, a kinetic impactor has FAR more potential for destruction than a nuclear weapon.

No nuclear weapon can penetrate the surface of a planet down to its molten guts, but a kinetic impactor certainly can. You find a hard, iron rich lump of space rock, and propel it toward a planet, and it will have an effect which will remind you of a .22 round hitting a melon. It will end every life on that world down to the last microbe on the surface, and what is more, it will throw up nuclear material from natural deposits in the crust of the planet, which will be pulverised at the site of impact, and thrown up into the atmosphere.

You find a lump of space stuff big enough, you could probably crack a planet into pieces with it using the same method. A warhead big enough to do anything like the damage of a cleverly directed Oort Cloud object would be something which no species would want to lug around with it, given the ease of availability of natural projectiles to do the job with.

I think he clearly has something to sell and i would hope most people on ATS would be smart enough to not fall for it.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: lostbook

Unless of course WE are THEM.

Well, we would be the survivors.

Well, I read the book and he's putting forth a hypothesis that 100+ million years ago, two very large nukes went off there in air bursts.

He's traced the fallout patterns of the Thorium isotopes and measured their decay rate to give the time frame. It is curious that the only good origin for that isotope is an artificial nuke... other high energy physicists are rather quiet about alternative explanations.

So, weird as it seems, this idea isn't baseless... but that doesn't mean there isn't a more acceptable answer as it is, of course, only a hypothesis.

But he's not just "selling a book" as the science backs him up... it's the history that makes it "impossible."

a reply to: Baddogma

It is curious that the only good origin for that isotope is an artificial nuke... other high energy physicists are rather quiet about alternative explanations.

Which isotope of thorium would that be, exactly? Which isotope has been found in unusual concentrations on Mars? Can you provide the source of that analysis?

a reply to: Phage

Actually, I'd love to have it debunked as I have run into walls trying to do so, myself... I bought the darned book to vet it, but alas, I am not educated enough and nobody who is wants to bother... which irks me.

So, Phage, I'd love it if you could direct that formidable intellect at this and give some context.

Thorium ...er 182 was it? (No -see edit below) I barely know my periodic table, let alone what nukes cause what isotopes.. . so without digging the tome out of my bathroom, I'll say it was 182 ...and have at it, sir!

Frankly, I hope he's wrong as that scenario is depressing...

eta: and the source of that analysis? Brandenberg, heh... I guess I'll have to look it up (he at least had citations and footnotes) but give me some time as it's sleepytime in my face of the globe.

etax2: I was WRONG and excuse my slip... it's based on xenon 129, krypton 84, (and other isotopes) and an alleged bomb made of uranium 238 and wrapped with thorium 229.. . the readings were taken from meteorites and started with the Viking data (I believe- will explore it more tomorrow when it's not so blury) onward.

a reply to: Baddogma

I know that thorium has been detected on the surface of Mars. I also know that thorium occurs naturally.

I do not know that any particular isotope of thorium has been identified on Mars. However, I do know that the closest Brandenburg seems to have come to actual science in regard to the question is making a prediction about his hypothesis that:

• Residues of Uranium plutonium fission will
found in surface layer
• Residues of Thorium-U233 fission will be
found in surface layer
• Large amounts of radioactive K 0.7Gyr
half life will be found buried in high
amounts at Acidalium site

spsr.utsi.edu...

In other words, he has nothing as yet, but a book to sell.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, see my messy edit above.. conflated thorium and xenon.. .oh my.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: lostbook

Unless of course WE are THEM.

I have been wondering if this could be the basis of the story of the floods and noah's ark in the bible?

I am sure I am not the first person to think this.