Mordred

I realize it no longer exists but it does point out we can produce something of that magnitude. I'm more interested in seeing if there is any good studies of that test accessible. May give some better numbers to work with.

You might want to consider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba The yield of tsar Bomba.

Where in that link describes what you just described ? Are you positive there isn't some miscommunication here ? Let me ask you a question A nuke exploding at the surface and a nuke of the same magnitude exploding at a higher elevation. Which EMP pulse is more dangerous ? The one on the surface or the one at an elevation?

Why wouldnt Where oh where did I claim that? I described the Starfish distance of 250 miles. I also provided a link (wiki) with values related to that test as well. That link highlighted some of the resulting damage to which you asked how many deaths resulted from it I made no claim regarding 300 miles. I did an examination using a 100 megaton range at the lunar distance.

We don't delete threads or posts we can however lock the thread

That's correct at the moons orbit even using the 100 megaton value 700 joules/sec isn't a huge risk. That's why I stated you need to react at that distance minimal. Anyways let's simply chock thus up as miscommunication and move on. We all agree nukes could be used provided it's far enough away. As well as there being no chance of the debris to enter Earths atmosphere

That's a good plan however likely never happen outside of previous tests done thanks to banning nuclear tests. So we're likely going to need to rely on previous tests and using mathematics from there What's unusual you do know EMP involves Gamma rays hence photons. You get reduction of strength due to the sperically symmetric distribution described by 1/r^2. That's an idealized scenario that assumes zero directivity. It's a miniscule distance from the moon to Earth for photons.

Yes that would be correct

Sigh you can actually run the calculation regardless of size. The first calculation used 100 megatons you can run the calculations for the Starfish nuke just as easily or any value you desire.

Of course they are dangerous you can do the same calculation using just the 10^20 joules/sec value for Starfish nuke and apply that at the moons orbit and you will still get EMP hitting our atmosphere. Modern nukes are more powerful

You accused of fear mongering and setting up a scenario to support my fear mongering I responded I also responded by demonstrating a simple calculation or do you not consider my using the 1/r^2 relation for EMP valid?

Really after your accusations throughout this thread ? I'm suppose to simply ignore it ?

I have no agenda now stop with your accusations. Simply choosing a scenario of greater mass and larger asteroid than you did does not mean I have a flipping agenda or fear mongering

Yeah I already corrected that but thanks. So don't make any attempt to save mankind because you don't feel it's possible when it is provided you have early enough detection ? It doesn't take a huge change in direction if you can respond early enough and far enough away.

No it's not fear mongering it's recognizing potential risks something you don't seem to feel is important. Why would you send nukes for anything less. Think about the political implications. Oh let's send nukes to hit an asteroid that only causes superficial damage .... if you dont like the scenario I chose to examine try suggesting your own.

think what size of an asteroid will you need for an extinction level event. You know the efficiency of a nuke is space is greatly reduces. Don't get hung up on the 100 megaton value yeesh it's just a random estimate so give it a rest. I simply chose that value to simplify a rough of the envelope calculation. Try thinking of deflecting an asteroid the size that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. Do you know how many nukes it would take to deflect an object with that amount if mass? If so then share your wisdom because I certainly don't. It would certainly take one much larger than our standard size nukes. May I remind you throughout this entire thread I mentioned getting the nukes as far away as possible to reach the asteroid as early as possible. Yet in order to do that you will need to get the nukes there in the first place. So you need craft to do so.

How far away for nukes to be a safe option depends on megatons needed. The back of the envelope calculation I did earlier showed that a 100 megaton nuke can still have EMP cause Compton scattering in our upper ionsphere from detonation at the moons orbit. Though from that distance it's minor in effect The EMP itself would be low enough not to cause electronic damage As well. Now is a 100 megaton nuke excessive. Well hard to say we wouldn't be sending nukes unless the asteroid is large enough for an extinction level event.

How do you plan to get the nukes to say the orbit near Mars in time without using spacecraft ? After all the goal is to reach the asteroid as quickly as possible. Relying on the drift method aka Voyager 1 and 2 would take a good 6 months unless you have a good fuel reserve to speed up the trip. For that matter simply load up the craft cargo space with nukes. So I ask once again what's the difference ? Regardless if nukes are are used or not you still have to get to the asteroid in the first place. If the asteroid is already spinning outgassing will increase the spin rate. It will also continue until the surface cools down to the background temperature. Thermal radiation being part of the outgassing.

When I chose Universities on the west coast of Canada I had several options and acceptance at several different Universities. The criteria I chose wasn't cost but rather classroom size. I didn't want a classroom of several hundred students but instead chose a University where the average classroom size was restricted to 30. This gave me better access to the instructors. The other concern was equipment availability. At least for the field I studied. Once again providing good hands on skills.

You don't need a 180 degree course correction the further away you can induce a course correction the smaller the angle of change will be required. Nukes are fine far enough away how far that is will depend on how early you can spot the asteroid and how soon can you transport whatever correction method you use. Every method requires fuel for starters our nukes are not designed for space. So you will need some craft simply to get the nukes to location. I fail to understand why others cannot understand that simple fact. You need a spacecraft to deliver the nukes. So where is the difference between that and a gravity tractor ? Secondly outgassing is useless if the asteroid is spinning. It doesn't matter if you use nukes to generate outgassing. If the asteroid has a spin outgassing won't do any good. Spin makes zero difference nor does asteroid composition for the gravity tractor method. That isn't true for using nukes. Thirdly we already have the capability of gravity tractors all you need is a spacecraft with enough fuel and mass. We already have that. Simply have a fuel reserve in space. If you can get to the asteroid early enough a mere 1/2 a degree correction would suffice. Quite frankly simply slowing the asteroid down would also work without an angle change.

As stated citations were provided you simply had to look through them many of them included related links if you can't do math involving simple 1/r^2 relation that isn't my problem. You could have easily taked to power generated from the 1.4 megaton blast and assumed 100 percent efficiency multiplied that your new megaton value assuming linear relation and calculated that gamma rays will still hit Earths atmosphere even if detonated at the distance of the moons orbit.. Back of the envelope Calc would give roughly 800 joules/sec for a 100 megaton blast. Granted that's an extremely rough calc with several assumptions ie no directivity reflecting from the asteroid toward Earth. I plucked the 10^20 value from related research papers directly detailing Starfish explosion

Fine whatever you wish to believe try starting with 10^20 joules /s for radiated power from a 1.4 megaton blast then multiply that by whatever megaton value you think will be effective on said asteroid. Then recognize that you won't get much Compton scatterings to prevent those gamma rays from reaching Earths atmosphere and simply use the 1/r^2 relation for a spherically symmetric burst. I'm done arguing with you

You can do math correct ? You do understand you can calculate it yourself. You won't find any paper that specifically describes what can obviously be calculated.

Do you not understand that most of the destructive force from a Nuke is the result of superheating the atmosphere to generate the shock waves ? Is that something you do not understand with regards to how a nuclear explosion works ? Do you honestly require a citation for something as obvious as that ? Well here you go https://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Effects-of-Nuclear-Weapons-1977-3rd-edition-complete.pdf As for quoting the section read the introduction. There is tons of material regarding EMP let's start here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse This includes the Starfish test It certainly highlights the difference between atmospheric explosions vs one in space.

Here recall this study ???? Did you even bother looking at it ? Citations have been provided try reading them