0
$\begingroup$

As a planet's core's heat is mostly a result of nuclear decay. Would (leaving the question of how to drill to such a depth aside) adding nuclear waste to the core of a planet, such as Mars, melt the outer layers that have become dormant or would it have no effect? These outer layers are paramount to the magnetic field and keeping an atmosphere (ignoring the obvious problem in the case of Mars that its gravity is too weak).

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Vincent, Hohmannfan, Thucydides, James, JDługosz Jul 2 '16 at 3:49

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ As a planet's core's heat is mostly a result of nuclear decay. you could provide source for that statement in your question. As here : The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW) and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Jul 1 '16 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ Making Mars Bigger also has overlap in the answer. $\endgroup$ – Gary Walker Jul 1 '16 at 18:37
0
$\begingroup$

No.

This is an example of a scale error. Since spoons are used to transfer liquids between containers, can you use a teaspoon to lower the ocean sealevel?

And are you assumptions right? mostly due to decay within the core (isn't uranium in the mantle and not in the core since it doesn't mix with iron? What about residual heat and heat of crystallization as the outer core solidifies?)

Outer layers provide magnetic field?

If you melt the outer part of the core, won't it rapidly lose heat to the solid part, which is a big metal thing which conducts heat easily?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well what nucleotide is present within our core as neuclear decay does atribute to 60 percent of our planets internal heat. $\endgroup$ – Sammy Spray Jul 1 '16 at 13:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SammySpray - None. Your belief that the core produces significant heat is probably wrong. From the Wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget "For the Earth's core, geochemical studies indicate that it would not be a significant source of radiogenic heat due to an expected low concentration of radioactive elements". Heat production occurs mostly in the mantle. $\endgroup$ – WhatRoughBeast Jul 1 '16 at 20:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.