The title of the thread seems to have been deliberately chosen (click bait?) to draw attention. A title, something like "What size of detonation would be optimal for seismology on Mars" would have soon elicited the same amount of useful views without the image of great big 20th century Earthling boots clomping all over an unexplored planet. More like normal PF style.ElfredaCyania said:I know that I can't nuke it and no one can nuke it at least not soon. I'm not calling for nuking it. Rather, my interest lies in understanding whether the hesitation around this idea stems from its scientific merit and feasibility or primarily from regulatory and ethical concerns (or both).
It was indeed about the feasibility of the whole idea at the beginning, I thought there might be some technological challenge so we have a project like A119 to bomb the moon for a similar purpose but there's no Mars counterpart in history (not even a preprint). But the direction went to seismology after the conclusion that sending one isn't technically implausible. Also, seismology is the most promising and justifiable among all the potential areas. For now, the conclusion is that we lack sufficient data, mainly on the radiation to push the idea further. Even if we are going to choose the yield, it will be more about geology and seismology rather than aerospace engineering.sophiecentaur said:The title of the thread seems to have been deliberately chosen (click bait?) to draw attention.
Not to worry.ElfredaCyania said:Too bad I can't edit the title now