Seems to make more sense to me to just make rockets that connect with the asteroids, then fire their thrusters to push the asteroids off course a bit.
Even .0000001g of chance could mean a very large miss... granted, asteroids are heavy and it'd take a lot of thrust, but it just seems more logical than trying to blow it up.
Did they take into account that there is no air in space?
"The destruction caused by nukes is mostly due to the blast (a pressure wave caused by the explosion) and thermal wave of heat. Both of these phenomena require air to propagate through. Thus a nuclear explosion will only give off electromagnetic radiation."
Physics aside, about a nuke needing area.... I am thinking this could just be a cool experiments, especially with the small possible of creating something that look like a huge flaming turd...
From my understanding modern warheads produce little lasting radiation (even old ones didn't that produce much, hence the reason Hiroshima & Nagasaki weren't abandoned). The real risk of "Radiation Poisoning" is in the initial few minutes from the flash of neutron and gamma radiation.
I'm noticing that they don't show what happens beyond a few milliseconds after detonation, he just says that it "completely mitigates" the asteroid. Also some of the graphics and some of his conversation ("Shockwave") lead me to believe that they may not be compensating for the lack of atmosphere in space. This is also the easiest type of asteroid to "disrupt"(blow up), basically a rubblepile. A solid rock or iron asteroid would be MUCH harder to destroy.
It doesn't need to be destroyed if it's detected far enough away. The vaporization of the outer surface of the asteroid would work like a giant thruster, pushing the asteroid ever-so-slightly. Given enough time even a tiny amount of thrust would be sufficient to miss the earth.
If the asteroid was close enough that that isn't an option then we will still be hit by all of the debris of an exploded asteroid.
meribianFeb 10, 2012Buried
Go away, whore.
beerhoundFeb 10, 2012Buried
I think that a surface or sub-surface detonation would definitely cause a shock wave through the solid material.
jhw539Feb 10, 2012Buried
An explosion of that energy would convert a good deal of the asteroid into "air" - or more accurately gaseous particles moving at extraordinary speed.
(Although I assume your question was a joke - the guys at Los Alamos National Labs kinda know a thing or two about space.)
dirtyfriesFeb 10, 2012Buried
He's not saying the explosion requires air, but the propagation of force through air is what gives a nuke its destructive power.
lornefsFeb 10, 2012Buried
Nuclear explosions do not require air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion
lornefsFeb 10, 2012Buried
You're right but I wouldn't discount the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, it would be converted to heat in any object nearby.
badsyntaxFeb 10, 2012Buried
Seems to make more sense to me to just make rockets that connect with the asteroids, then fire their thrusters to push the asteroids off course a bit.
Even .0000001g of chance could mean a very large miss... granted, asteroids are heavy and it'd take a lot of thrust, but it just seems more logical than trying to blow it up.
Granted, I'm not that smart tho :)
sleestakslayerFeb 11, 2012Buried
The US actually ignited a hydrogen bomb in low orbit back in the 60's.
Story and vid from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128170775
And no, this is not a Rick Ashley video.
sleestakslayerFeb 11, 2012Buried
Why do we want to blow them up? Just put thrusters on them so we can do what we do best: Mine the s**t out of them!
letsgetreal50Feb 11, 2012Buried
Reported for spam.
viralinFeb 10, 2012Buried
Did they take into account that there is no air in space?
"The destruction caused by nukes is mostly due to the blast (a pressure wave caused by the explosion) and thermal wave of heat. Both of these phenomena require air to propagate through. Thus a nuclear explosion will only give off electromagnetic radiation."
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/can-a-nuclear-bomb-explode-in-space/question-249721/
gregacFeb 10, 2012Buried
Physics aside, about a nuke needing area.... I am thinking this could just be a cool experiments, especially with the small possible of creating something that look like a huge flaming turd...
stevenwhodgeFeb 10, 2012Buried
I hope they've got a good aim!!!
lornefsFeb 10, 2012Buried
Let's not forget the 32,000 processor super computer here!
ano233Feb 10, 2012Buried
From my understanding modern warheads produce little lasting radiation (even old ones didn't that produce much, hence the reason Hiroshima & Nagasaki weren't abandoned). The real risk of "Radiation Poisoning" is in the initial few minutes from the flash of neutron and gamma radiation.
darth0Feb 11, 2012Buried
I'm sure you get more radiation from the 864,938 mile wide nuclear bomb that's been going off constantly for billions of years.
Dazza_TucieFeb 10, 2012Buried
So sending a bunch of rowdy oil riggers wasn't really a credible option after all ?
ano233Feb 10, 2012Buried
I'm noticing that they don't show what happens beyond a few milliseconds after detonation, he just says that it "completely mitigates" the asteroid. Also some of the graphics and some of his conversation ("Shockwave") lead me to believe that they may not be compensating for the lack of atmosphere in space. This is also the easiest type of asteroid to "disrupt"(blow up), basically a rubblepile. A solid rock or iron asteroid would be MUCH harder to destroy.
darth0Feb 11, 2012Buried
It doesn't need to be destroyed if it's detected far enough away. The vaporization of the outer surface of the asteroid would work like a giant thruster, pushing the asteroid ever-so-slightly. Given enough time even a tiny amount of thrust would be sufficient to miss the earth.
If the asteroid was close enough that that isn't an option then we will still be hit by all of the debris of an exploded asteroid.
cmccoolFeb 10, 2012Buried
Any risk of the radiation from the explosion raining back on earth?