Can you drill into a supervolcano to relieve pressure? (2016)

Post by gonzo41 » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 8:05 AM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #92

intpx wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very clear distillation of the absolute lack of imagination that is endemic across the National Parks Service. It is this mindset that stagnating progress in the National Parks. 105 years and there have been no major developments in Parks technologies. No waterfalls running in reverse, no water-skiing bison, no Grander Canyon. /s

When I visited Yellowstone, the only thing I wanted, literally the only thing, was for an enormous eagle to fly down and attack a bear, and then for both to fall into a hot/acid pool with a cry and dissolve. Is that too much to ask? What are my tax dollars being used for anyway?!

Post by tlamponi » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 8:56 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #102

It seems like there's a mistaken assumption here. Suppose you had a cheat code for the drill problem (starship Enterprise is in orbit, it fires its phasers and ablates a huge hole down to several kilometers). The only way to relieve the overpressure is for a sufficiently large volume of hot, liquid rock to rush up through that hole to the surface - that is to say, an eruption. Which is precisely what you were trying…

Post by dmos62 » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #24

With volcanos, the more viscous the magma, the more energy gets stored before an eruption. Supervolcanos are the most viscous type, hence the massive explosion. Think boiling water vs thick oatmeal vs boiling a pressure cooker until it explodes, but obviously worse. So "relieve pressure" in this case isn't like a pressure release valve on a water heater. You'd need to either cool the mass, remove the overburden, or c…

Post by m4rtink » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 9:49 AM UTC

db65edfc7996 wrote: post #85

ortusdux wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are going down that rabbit hole, I love the plan to create an artificial Martian magnetosphere by placing a magnetic field generating satellite between mars and the solar winds. Generating an atmosphere on mars is all well and good, but it will just blow away again without some protection. The generator would only require roughly 583.9 exajoules, or roughly the world's total energy consumption in 2020. https://…

>Generating an atmosphere on mars is all well and good, but it will just blow away again without some protection. NASA estimates the Martian atmosphere is ~2.5e16 kgs[0]. Current estimate[1] is that the Martian atmosphere loses 2-3 kg/s. Presently losing something on the order of 1e-9 percentage per day. I think if humans ever have the ability to thicken the Martian atmosphere, we can cover the loss. [0] https://nssd…

Post by tlamponi » Tue, Dec 07, 2021, 10:35 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #104

tlamponi wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference would be (very simplified) the one between poking a controlled hole with a needle in an only somewhat inflated water balloon now, causing a small but steady stream of water to push out, vs. waiting until it fills up and bursts completely, one is way more violent than the other.

Supervolcanoes generally aren't violent, though. They're just really, really big. It's the ash and gases that do the damage.