• db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’m doing neither one, but it’s pretty clearly not an idea for this time. We lack an awful lot to be able to pull off a project at that scale, but frankly that makes me more curious not less.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Even not underestimating the scale, I’m not sure it would work because all the debris would need to be ejected from the thousands-of-kilometers-deep hole. And then you’d also have to have a solution to stop the walls from caving in before the next bomb had a chance to arrive. It’s almost as if you not only need thousands of extremely powerful (even for nukes) bombs, but also need to deliver them in a continuous stream to keep the blast pressure up and the hole open.

      I feel like, at that point, the easier strategy to accomplish your goal would be redirecting a large asteroid to impact the planet, or something like that.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Oh, I don’t care about the surface viability. An asteroid capable of altering the core would probably liquefy a significant portion of the planet though which is also not desirable.

        The goal of the thought is to give the planet a magnetosphere closer to that of earth, anywhere between would be a success. The general idea is to get the core somewhat hotter and moving much more, which probably also means it needs a more beefy moon than it has to maintain the change for any significant amount of time.

        idk it’s just an idea I like to kick around sometimes.