Asteroid defense ideas

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

ICBM's aren't designed to explode in space, let alone escape from the gravity well.

It's not as simple as nukes are the ultimate destructive power, therefore I'm protected if I unleash them.

It's like saying "rat poison, will save humanity"...

Seriously? Am ICBM warhead cannot explode in space or are you saying a nuclear warhead can only be launched on an ICBM? 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Seriously? Am ICBM warhead cannot explode in space or are you saying a nuclear warhead can only be launched on an ICBM? 

Niether, I'm saying it's not an effective defence, are you suggesting otherwise???

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Niether, I'm saying it's not an effective defence, are you suggesting otherwise???

I'm suggesting your assertion is not accurate and the reasons you appear to be giving have nothing to do with the effectiveness or lack thereof of ICBMs or more reasonably the warheads they contain. Nuclear warheads could indeed be used to deflect an asteroid or at least I see no reason they could not be used effectively. Where or not other methods would be more effective is not the issue in this case.   

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm suggesting your assertion is not accurate and the reasons you appear to be giving have nothing to do with the effectiveness or lack thereof of ICBMs or more reasonably the warheads they contain. Nuclear warheads could indeed be used to deflect an asteroid or at least I see no reason they could not be used effectively. Where or not other methods would be more effective is not the issue in this case.   

Intercontinental, seems to be a limiting factor when compared to space...

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Intercontinental, seems to be a limiting factor when compared to space...

Why would you expect a ICBM to go any further than its designed to? Its the war head that matters not the vehicle that delivers it. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moontanman said:

Why would you expect a ICBM to go any further than its designed to? Its the war head that matters not the vehicle that delivers it. 

It's more a matter of when...

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's more a matter of when...

Then that is what you should have said. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Then that is what you should have said. 

I did, on page one...

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I did, on page one...

If you did its quite vague, care to tell me which page one post said this? 

[Mordred]

Here this will help. This paper discusses the application of nuclear devices vs asteroids

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205008370/downloads/Nuclear_Devices_for_Planetary_Defense_ASCEND_2020_FINAL_2020-10-02.pdf

The idea is feasible but has its own realm of problems. The paper mentions a few of them including political issues.

 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Here this will help. This paper discusses the application of nuclear devices vs asteroids

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205008370/downloads/Nuclear_Devices_for_Planetary_Defense_ASCEND_2020_FINAL_2020-10-02.pdf

The idea is feasible but has its own realm of problems. The paper mentions a few of them including political issues.

 

Thank you but this is not what dim and me are discussing. 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If you did its quite vague, care to tell me which page one post said this? 

When is more important, than how much... 

 

[Mordred]

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Thank you but this is not what dim and me are discussing. 

Understood however using nukes is one of the three main researched options the others being high impact devices and gravity tractors.

[Moontanman]

45 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Understood however using nukes is one of the three main researched options the others being high impact devices and gravity tractors.

My main problem is with people who say nukes are dangerous because of the radioactivity involved, unless you are exploding them in near earth orbit I think that radiation is no problem at all. Much like adding a chunk of rock salt to the ocean will cause it to be significantly saltier. Space is full of radiation, exploding a nuke is not going to be a problem and nuclear energy is the most powerful tool we have. 

People have an unreasonable fear of nukes not realizing how many actual nuclear explosions have actually taken place on the Earth... 507 actually in the atmosphere or above ground. I doubt several nukes used to steer an asteroid away from the earth pose more danger than the actual impact of a sizable asteroid. 

[Mordred]

It is a consideration that shouldn't be ignored. Granted where is no or little risk due to distance etc. I would agree but one also must be able to guarantee that the entirety of the asteroid has zero potential of entering our atmosphere once the detonations contaminate the asteroid. 

[zapatos]

There is also the risk of a failure to leave orbit. We don't need nuclear weapons accidentally falling back on earth.

[Moontanman]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

There is also the risk of a failure to leave orbit. We don't need nuclear weapons accidentally falling back on earth.

Really, which is worse, a asteroid strike or a nuke falling to the ground? Falling to the ground would not mean detonation, nukes have many fail safes in place to prevent accidental detonation. Remember 507 have already been detonated and we are here alive and well. 

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It is a consideration that shouldn't be ignored. Granted where is no or little risk due to distance etc. I would agree but one also must be able to guarantee that the entirety of the asteroid has zero potential of entering our atmosphere once the detonations contaminate the asteroid. 

Again, compared to an asteroid strike how dangerous is the fallout from a few nukes even assuming all of the radiation would fall on the Earth? Remember we are currently living on a planet where 507 nukes have already been detonated above ground. 

Edited May 24 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Really, which is worse, an asteroid strike or a nuke falling to the ground? 

Remember 507 have already been detonated and we are here alive and well. 

I'm pretty sure more than 507 asteroids have struck the earth and we are still alive and well.

Additionally, are my only options a nuke falling or an asteroid strike? Can't we substitute some other option besides launching nuclear weapons to avert an asteroid strike?

[Moontanman]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm pretty sure more than 507 asteroids have struck the earth and we are still alive and well.

Additionally, are my only options a nuke falling or an asteroid strike? Can't we substitute some other option besides launching nuclear weapons to avert an asteroid strike?

Ok, lets up the ante, how big an asteroid would justify using nukes?

I agree if there is a viable option to a particular situation I would look for an option other than nukes but how far out would you have to intercept a 250 meter asteroid with various methods to effectively intercept it?

From what I understand our current detection methods can give us very little time to decide.  Should we just allow it to hit or should we prepare a possible nuclear strike and plan to use other means if we detect it early enough.

The most powerful tool we currently have would have to be a nuclear strike, the fastest response we currently have would have to be a nuclear strike, where would you draw the line? As far as I know a 1/4 kilometer asteroid has never stuck the earth in modern times but 507 nukes have. 

You said a nuke falling, are you assuming a nuke falling would detonate? As far as I know no nuke has ever accidentally fallen the earth and detonated, while several have done this none have detonated accidentally.

There is one several megaton nuke still burned deep in the ground outside Charlotte  NC to this day. 

Edited May 24 by Moontanman
Grammer

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Ok, lets up the ante, how big an asteroid would justify using nukes?

 

I don't know. How big do you think it should be?

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

but how far out would you have to intercept a 250 meter asteroid with various methods to effectively intercept it?

Again, I am not well versed enough on the subject to say.

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Should we just allow it to hit or should we prepare a possible nuclear strike and plan to use other means if we detect it early enough.

I think we need a lot more information in order to decide. I'm unsure if we even have the capability to strike with a nuclear weapon that may hit us in the near term, or know the consequences if we did so. I also don't know that we are prepared to use other means if we detect an asteroid that would not strike us for quite a while.

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You said a nuke falling, are you assuming a nuke falling would detonate?

No.

[Moontanman]

Just now, zapatos said:

I don't know. How big do you think it should be?

???

Just now, zapatos said:

Again, I am not well versed enough on the subject to say.

Neither am I

Just now, zapatos said:

I think we need a lot more information in order to decide. I'm unsure if we even have the capability to strike with a nuclear weapon that may hit us in the near term, or know the consequences if we did so. I also don't know that we are prepared to use other means if we detect an asteroid that would not strike us for quite a while.

Again, a nuke falling from space wouldn't detonate, but even if it did the approximately 60 meter asteroid that produced the Tunguska event in 1908 was equal to about 12 megatons the biggest nuke in the arsenal of the US is supposed to be less than 3 megatons. 

Just now, zapatos said:

No.

So why fear it at all?

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So why fear it at all?

Because of the risk of widespread distribution of plutonium in the event of a catastrophic failure.

This is related to the Cassini launch in 1997...

Quote

Critics say they fear a potential accident, particularly during the lift-off and as the spacecraft flies by the Earth 2 years after launch to pick up speed on its journey to Sat­ urn. They say that an accident could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, rather than NASA's estimate of 120 deaths in a worst-case scenario. Critics also charge that Apollo 13 and the Challenger disaster show that serious mistakes can happen, and that even if the Cassini mission is perfect, another accident could happen eventually.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/97EO00257

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because of the risk of widespread distribution of plutonium in the event of a catastrophic failure.

This is related to the Cassini launch in 1997...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/97EO00257

I understand that but the threat was mostly anti nuclear hype, the danger was almost nonexistent due to the fact that such a accident was anticipated and the nuclear material wouldn't been a threat for the same reason the nuke buried outside Charlotte NC is not a threat. A container can be easily designed that would prevent any wide spread contamination upon reentry.  

[zapatos]

Just now, Moontanman said:

I understand that but the threat was mostly anti nuclear hype, the danger was almost nonexistent due to the fact that such a accident was anticipated and the nuclear material wouldn't been a threat for the same reason the nuke buried outside Charlotte NC is not a threat. A container can be easily designed that would prevent any wide spread contamination upon reentry.  

Citations for any of that?

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Again, compared to an asteroid strike how dangerous is the fallout from a few nukes even assuming all of the radiation would fall on the Earth? Remember we are currently living on a planet where 507 nukes have already been detonated above ground. 

Doesn't mean we should ignore the risk  that's simply foolishness. Why compound the idiocy that has occurred in the past with previous tests, and destinations?

That's just plain dumb...

We know better I would like to think mankind can actually learn from its mistakes.

 However let's not ignore the political implications. Let's say for example the States attempts to divert some asteroid using nukes. Then have the debris land in number other Countries sat Iran, China, Japan etc.

So those Countries now have to deal with the radiated along with the damage from the asteroid.

What then happens politically ?

Edited May 24 by Mordred