Russia May Send Spacecraft to Knock Away Asteroid

[grizz441]

You also have to keep in mind the risks of launching nuclear arsenal into space.  What if there is a launch disaster?  Even if the nukes didn't detonate over earth's soil, there would be a serious radiation problem.  If there are more effective solutions that can be used when the asteroid is far enough away then we shouldn't even consider nukes.  I bet however, if an unseen asteroid was suddenly on a collision course with us in the matter of months, we'd use nukes.

[Strip]

The idea being worked with is some kind of a solar-sail, which would divert the asteroid away. I don't understand why the heck they just simply don't:
1 Nook the thing out of the path.
2 Nook the thing down to dust.

The asteroid (or pile of rocks rather) is less than a qurtermile x quartermile. The fireball of the biggest H-bomb detonated was 5 miles across.

A nuclear weapon is mainly a thermal energy device, if the bomb did anything it would turn one object into many. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe nuking an asteroid is a very bad idea.

Strip

[fudgums]

A nuclear weapon is mainly a thermal energy device, if the bomb did anything it would turn one object into many. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe nuking an asteroid is a very bad idea.

Strip

I have an asteroid inside of me atm, I wish I had a nuke to put it in smaller pieces.

[mensa180]

I suppose, mathematically, this will be true of all matter in the universe. 

I don't think so, perhaps for objects with trajectories in space that will put each other close enough and long enough for gravity to win over inertia, but I was under the impression that our universe is still expanding at the rate it was when the 'big bang' occured, and everything is getting farther away from each other.

Multiple theories about how the universe will end, pretty neat stuff, too bad I won't be around to see what really does is .



OR WILL I?

edit:  Imagine the epic view from the ISS of 5 different countries launching a toejamload of nukes at once at some rock in space.

[Gh0stFT]

Try to nuke it in space and probably EMP the whole planet as a result. :)

Ooopps!

we dont have other choices, try mounting a sail on someting that is 28000 mph fast, not easy if not possible with our technologie.
At October 23, 2009 a fireball was seen over Indonesia, it was an asteroid asuming an estimated size of about 5-10 meters.
The blast was in the 10 to 50 kT range. Now Imagine Apophis with his 320m.
NASA estimates the energy from this particular asteroid (Apophis) to be roughly the same as if 65,000 nuclear bombs were dropped on us.
Sorry but i doubt the energie from some of our nukes would change here anything ;)

try http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ just for fun.

[Denholm]

I'm somewhat certain my assumption is incorrect, yet wouldn't the shock-wave of a nuclear explosion in space destabilize the orbit of planets and more asteroids? If so, the chance of more asteroids altering their course toward Earth could be the reason for not launching a nuclear weapon to resolve this issue.

[Strip]

A 1.4 Megaton bomb was detonated at an altitude of about 250 miles over Hawaii in a test code named Starfish Prime. High energy particles trapped by the magneto sphere knocked out approximately 1/3 of the satellites orbiting at lower altitudes. It is theorized that there is a particularly vulnerable area where nuclear weapons can create man made Van Allen Belts. It would not be unrealistic to assume a few low level detonations could wipe out most of the satellites in low earth orbits. Hawaii also fell victim to EMP, approximately 300 street lights went out, alarms set off and power surges occurred in the electrical grid.

In short, anything inside or between the Van Allen Belts could be particularly nasty, however, they would only pose a threat to material. Beyond the Van Allen Belt the effects would be rather diminished owing to the blast effects being diminished over such a vast scale. Besides almost any viable nuclear deflection shot would likely occur well outside of the moons orbit.

Strip

[grizz441]

I'm somewhat certain my assumption is incorrect, yet wouldn't the shock-wave of a nuclear explosion in space destabilize the orbit of planets and more asteroids? If so, the chance of more asteroids altering their course toward Earth could be the reason for not launching a nuclear weapon to resolve this issue.

I'd have a hard time fathoming any man made nuclear blast affecting any planetary orbits or asteroids other than the one we are focusing on.  It would be so negligible I'd compare it to the effects a fly splattering on your windshield would have on slowing your car down.

[Strip]

I'm somewhat certain my assumption is incorrect, yet wouldn't the shock-wave of a nuclear explosion in space destabilize the orbit of planets and more asteroids? If so, the chance of more asteroids altering their course toward Earth could be the reason for not launching a nuclear weapon to resolve this issue.

Even the largest nuclear weapon ever devised would be like a grain of sand impacting a skyscraper. That is detonating it on the surface, anything beyond couple hundred miles would render the blast hardly detectable except for high energy particles. Nuclear weapons are mainly thermal radiation devices, blast effects represent a relatively small portion of the total energies involved.

Strip

[Delirium]

I'd have a hard time fathoming any man made nuclear blast affecting any planetary orbits or asteroids other than the one we are focusing on. 

Even the smallest amount of deviation at the earliest possible moment would equate to a very large course change over a long period. For example, if you roll a marble down a driveway and change the course of the marble 0.5cm at the very beginning it could mean the difference of a few meters at the end (depending on the length of the driveway).

The problem is hitting a moving target with rocket designed for larger targets (like cities) is incredibly difficult. The closer the asteroid is the easier it will be hit but the deviation in course would be lessened the longer they wait.

You don't need to vaporize the asteroid, just change the course of it.

[Strip]

The problem is hitting a moving target with rocket designed for larger targets (like cities) is incredibly difficult. The closer the asteroid is the easier it will be hit but the deviation in course would be lessened the longer they wait.

Our current inventory is not designed to hit cities, they are designed to have 50% accuracy of 100 feet.

Strip

[Meatwad]

Get WOPR to calculate it


"I want to play Global Thermonuclear Asteroids"

[mensa180]

A 1.4 Megaton bomb was detonated at an altitude of about 250 miles over Hawaii in a test code named Starfish Prime. High energy particles trapped by the magneto sphere knocked out approximately 1/3 of the satellites orbiting at lower altitudes. It is theorized that there is a particularly vulnerable area where nuclear weapons can create man made Van Allen Belts. It would not be unrealistic to assume a few low level detonations could wipe out most of the satellites in low earth orbits. Hawaii also fell victim to EMP, approximately 300 street lights went out, alarms set off and power surges occurred in the electrical grid.

In short, anything inside or between the Van Allen Belts could be particularly nasty, however, they would only pose a threat to material. Beyond the Van Allen Belt the effects would be rather diminished owing to the blast effects being diminished over such a vast scale. Besides almost any viable nuclear deflection shot would likely occur well outside of the moons orbit.

Strip

I thought the space between the Van Allen Belts cleared itself of radiation naturally, speculation is due to lightning?

[Strip]

I am unsure about the exact process, even so high energy particles could damage electronics before any natural dissipation had a chance to take place.

Strip

[texasmom]

Get WOPR to calculate it
"I want to play Global Thermonuclear Asteroids"