Asteroid defense ideas

[Moontanman]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Citations for any of that?

Which part exactly, we make nukes in reentry vehicles that survive "falling to the ground" as part of our weapons and the bomb outside Charlotte NC is hardly a secret.  

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Which part exactly

1. the danger was almost nonexistent 

2. A container can be easily designed that would prevent any wide spread contamination upon reentry

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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.

Why hype the danger and wring your hands while a asteroid destroys a large area, the danger of a nuke has to be tempered with the danger of a asteroid strike. The 60 meter 12 megaton Tunguska event is quite telling to me and that was an air burst, imagine the chaos that would result from a actual ground strike by a 12 megaton strike in the Atlantic ocean near the East Coast of NA or in the middle of NYC. The difference between the danger of a nuke being launched into space vs an asteroid strike has to be determined outside any unreasonable fear of a nuclear explosion. A single nuke, even a Czar Bomba, would not destroy the earth or cause any more damage than the Czar Bomba. A 250 meter asteroid would be devastating to a continent sized area if not the entire planet.

I guess it comes down to which is worse and history shows the detonation of even huge nuclear weapons is not a threat compared to the 250 meter asteroid. 

   https://www.space.com/asteroid-launcher-earth-impact-simulator

Quote

Today, astronomers are monitoring over 2,200 potentially hazardous asteroids larger than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) across, in Earth’s orbital neighborhood. Fortunately, it’s rare that any will pass close enough to pose a real threat. But that also means anybody interested in seeing what would happen if a space rock that big happened to strike our planet must settle for the dino-killing Chixculub asteroid impact 66 millions of years ago.

This site can show how much damage an asteroid could produce. 

For a 250 meter iron asteroid I get 1.90 x104 Megatons TNT

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

1. the danger was almost nonexistent 

2. A container can be easily designed that would prevent any wide spread contamination upon reentry

Again, a nuke's reentry vehicle show this has been done already. This would make the danger non existent or at the very least highly limited. The nuke outside Charlotte NC shows this, nukes hitting the ground doesn't just vaporise and spread plutonium all over the planet. 

https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/HQ-0025-HQ-FEIS-Cassini-199506.pdf

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The nuke outside Charlotte NC shows this, nukes hitting the ground doesn't just vaporise and spread plutonium all over the planet. 

Did the nuke outside Charlotte NC reenter the atmosphere at 17,000 mph? 

Nukes falling apart during reentry DO spread plutonium all over the place.

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Did the nuke outside Charlotte NC reenter the atmosphere at 17,000 mph? 

No but the fail safes of the 1960's were robust enough to stop it from exploding on impact! 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Nukes falling apart during reentry DO spread plutonium all over the place.

Citation please, I have not read of any nukes falling from orbit. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

No

Then it is not an example of surviving reentry.

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Citation please, I have not read of any nukes falling from orbit. 

I did not claim any nukes have fallen from orbit. To the best of my knowledge no nukes have ever entered orbit.

I claimed that if plutonium fell from orbit that it could hit the ground..

[Moontanman]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I claimed that if plutonium fell from orbit that it could hit the ground..

Obviously, if that plutonium wasn't encased in a reentry vehicle it would probably contaminate a few acres, the plutonium in the Cassini probe was in the form of a ceramic btw, the risk would have to be weighed against the risk of an asteroid strike. Just how dangerous do you think plutonium is, the amount in one warhead would certainly not threaten the planet significantly if 507 nukes can be detonated yet not have a significant affect and yes they leave behind plutonium.   

[Mordred]

Starfish test proved that  we get long term contamination and we can still measure radiation in our upper stratosphere today as a result of previous nuclear tests, incidence, and usage. The Star fish test was 250 km above Earths surface. It's measurable under a category called Global fallout.

 Nuclear fallout does not go away in a few years or decades 

Edited May 25 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Starfish test proved that and we can still measure radiation in our upper stratosphere today as a result of previous nuclear tests, incidence, and usage. The Star fish test was 250 km above Earths surface. It's measurable under a category called Global fallout.

 

What would be your point here? 

[Mordred]

It a clear example of aftereffects of a nuclear test done in outer space. You get fallout. You will also get radionuclides  on the asteroid reentry.  The entry burnup of the asteroid will release those radioactive components into our atmosphere . 

 

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It a clear example of aftereffects of a nuclear test done in outer space. You get fallout. You will also get radionuclides  on the asteroid reentry.  The entry burnup of the asteroid will release those radioactive components into our atmosphere . 

 

And how many people died from operation star fish? How bad was the contamination, how long did people have to stay in fallout shelters? 

I was under the impression that we are planning on stopping the asteroid from impacting the earth and just how many nukes will it take to release enough radiation to be a realistic threat? 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

if that plutonium wasn't encased in a reentry vehicle it would probably contaminate a few acres

When the shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry the debris field covered roughly 10,000 square miles. How do you account for the plutonium being contained on only a few acres?

 

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1805/about-how-far-was-debris-scattered-from-the-columbia-incident#:~:text=Roughly 400km (250 miles) long,so this is an estimate.

 

Edited May 25 by zapatos

[Mordred]

33 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

And how many people died from operation star fish? How bad was the contamination, how long did people have to stay in fallout shelters? 

I was under the impression that we are planning on stopping the asteroid from impacting the earth and just how many nukes will it take to release enough radiation to be a realistic threat? 

If you have the means to deflect the asteroid that does not contain any radioactive material. Then you should obviously choose the Non Nuclear weapon alternative.

Using Nukes should never be our first choice. That's realistic as well as smart.  Choosing an option that has the potential for long term after effects should literally be the last option.

I'm hoping you ate aware that's nukes do not have the same kinetic energy effects as a nuke in our atmosphere ?

You don't get the Shockwave kinetic explosion you would from superheating our atmosphere. The main effect of a nuke used on an asteroid is to superheat the asteroid surface using the radiation.  This causes outgassing.

You don't have an atmosphere to work with. You would likely try to detonate the nuke on the surface but that isn't as effective as a surface discharge on a surface with an atmosphere.

[Moontanman]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

When the shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry the debris field covered roughly 10,000 square miles. How do you account for the plutonium being contained on only a few acres?

 

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1805/about-how-far-was-debris-scattered-from-the-columbia-incident#:~:text=Roughly 400km (250 miles) long,so this is an estimate.

 

Well first off the space shuttle is at least a couple orders of magnitude more debris than a single warhead would be and a single warhead is a lot stronger than the space shuttle for the same reason a Tonka truck is tougher that a real truck. The cube square law applies here, something as small as a war head would be much tougher than a space shuttle.

But the fact remains that a few kilos of plutonium spread over such a large area isn't exactly the end of the world. If you were talking about a few kilos of cobalt 60 you'd have a point but the actual impact of the space shuttle, which broke up well before it impacted the ground and spread out before impact and a warhead that is designed to survive reentry with out breaking up or spreading out cannot really be compared. Plutonium is not some sort of magical poison that kills everyone and everything exposed to it. A few kilos of nerve gas would do far more damage. 

I lost my existential dread of nuclear power decades ago, its not magic and the risks can be mitigated.   

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

If you have the means to deflect the asteroid that does not contain any radioactive material. Then you should obviously choose the Non Nuclear weapon alternative.

And again the amount of radioactive material is important here, the remnants of a nuke compared to the 507 already detonated is miniscule and would pose no realistic danger. Radioactivity is all around us and part of the natural world, the dose is important. I would like to propose that a small dose of radioactive material is far better than a large dose of asteroid.  

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

Using Nukes should never be our first choice. That's realistic as well as smart.  Choosing an option that has the potential for long term after effects should literally be the last option.

I disagree, in this case nukes are the best, easiest, and fastest method we currently have. Should we develop more than one method? Of course we should but currently I see nothing that even comes close to the potential effectiveness of a nuke. 

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

I'm hoping you ate aware that's nukes do not have the same kinetic energy effects as a nuke in our atmosphere ?

I am well aware of this, how does this change my assertion pointed out above? 

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

You don't get the Shockwave kinetic explosion you would from superheating our atmosphere. The main effect of a nuke used on an asteroid is to superheat the asteroid surface using the radiation.  This causes outgassing.

Again I am well aware of this, how does this change the assertion I have made above? 

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

You don't have an atmosphere to work with. You would likely try to detonate the nuke on the surface but that isn't as effective as a surface discharge on a surface with an atmosphere.

Still the best we currently have, what we use has to be weighed against the time we have to react, the actual size of the asteroid, and the technology we have ready to use. 

I am not saying that nukes are our only hope, I am saying that currently they are our best hope until someone plans ahead and actually creates the technology to do this without nukes. I see no reason to take nukes off the table due to some exaggerated fear of radioactivity.

If a 250 meter asteroid showed up that is going to hit within a year what would you do> Do we sit around arguing over how to do this without nukes or do we act as fast as possible to divert the asteroid away from our planet? 

How ever many nukes it takes wouldn't the goal of preventing a 10,000 megaton impact be worth the actual radioactive danger from a few nukes? 

I'm betting you guys won't like this at all! 

 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

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

Well, just to be clear ICBM's aren't designed to reach escape velocity, they run out of fuel 'wwway' before that, the when is more a matter of, oh shit... 😉

Edited May 25 by dimreepr

[Mordred]

Your right we will disagree. The easiest solution as you state using nukes. Does not mean it's the best solution.

If you think it's acceptable to cause harm or risk of harm to our environment simply because using nukes is a simple easy solution compared to other methods that has no risk then I really don't understand how anyone can actually believe that would be the logical choice.

 Particularly since there is no quarantee that using nukes would be effective in the first place. As I mentioned nukes in space do not work the same as a nuke in an atmosphere.

Thr only useful effect from a nuke in space is the radiation and not the kinetic shock waves. That greatly reduces the effectiveness.

So now your stuck with using nukes that are significantly more powerful. Starfish was only a 1.4 megaton nuke. We now have nukes in the 50 megaton range.

The EMP from Starfish caused global problems due to its EMP. Yet you feel that you can ignore all harmful effects from  a nuke on the basis of being a simple easy solution. Great logic there.

 

 

 

Edited May 25 by Mordred

[dimreepr]

56 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I lost my existential dread of nuclear power decades ago, its not magic and the risks can be mitigated.  

Not if it land's on your head...

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, just to be clear ICBM's aren't designed to reach escape velocity, they run out of fuel 'wwway' before that, the whan is more a matter of, oh shit... 😉

I am sorry to me that is a given, I missed your point. 

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Not if it land's on your head...

Of if an asteroid lands on billions of people heads. 

[Mordred]

His point should be obvious. Using nukes and ignoring the risk is foolish

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Your right we will disagree. The easiest solution as you state using nukes. Does not mean it's the best solution.

If you think it's acceptable to cause harm or risk of harm to our environment simply because using nukes is a simple easy solution compared to other methods that has no risk then I really don't understand how anyone can actually believe that would be the logical choice.

 

Mordred, you are completely missing my point, the potential harm done by an asteroid strike is far worse than the damage that could be done by a little radiation from a nuke. A nuke or even a few nukes would not destroy life on earth or even have a significant impact on life on earth but a 10,000 megaton explosion and the dust and debris kicked up by such and iact would have a dire effect on the Earth, on our civilization, on humans in general. 

Just now, Mordred said:

His point should be obvious. Using nukes and ignoring the risk is foolish

Not as foolish as allowing an unhinged fear of nukes to allow an asteroid strike. 

[Mordred]

Oh I didn't miss any point. Nukes are a last resort not the first.

If you can divert that asteroid without nukes and still be successful it's dumb to use nukes on the basis it's an easier solution.

Using nukes is only acceptable if no other solution is viable.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I am sorry to me that is a given, I missed your point. 

OK, let's give em even more fuel and try to control that explosion (every time). 

Look your missing my point about 'when not how much' if we see it early enough then a very small push is enough to lead us to salvation, but we run into the old 'the effect drops with the square of the distance' (mind fuckery) IOW by the time we can see it from earth all of the 'so called' power of the nukes is but a leaf in the path of a train.  

Did you know, there's a 22% chance a Tesla will fall out of the sky?

22 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Of if an asteroid lands on billions of people heads. 

You won't care if the nuke land's first...😉

Edited May 25 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh I didn't miss any point. Nukes are a last resort not the first.

If you can divert that asteroid without nukes and still be successful it's dumb to use nukes on the basis it's an easier solution.

Using nukes is only acceptable if no other solution is viable.

I would have to agree since that is exactly what I have been saying, given time (in our current state I would bet we would need 20 years lead time, probably take 5 years just to make a decision) we can use whatever method is best but we don't always get much warning in fact I would say we seldom do. 

All I have said is that nukes are the best if a quick but powerful method is necessary, if you have several years lead time then you can make different choices but to immediately say no nukes due to some exaggerated fear of nukes is not rational. a nuke or even several nukes would not be an existential threat to us. A significant asteroid impact could end us or at least have a significant impact on us, far more significant than a couple nukes.  

I know people who are terrified that a rogue state might detonate a single warhead as though it would kill us all, that is not a rational fear level. 

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, let's give em even more fuel and try to control that explosion (every time). 

Look your missing my point about 'when not how much' if we see it early enough then a very small push is enough to lead us to salvation, but we run into the old the effect drops with the square of the distance IOW by the time we can see it from earth all of the 'so called' power of the nukes is but a leaf in the path of a train.  

I agree time is the deciding factor but at some point a nuke is not just the best option it would be the only option. If we had a year lead time to deflect a 250 meter asteroid what would be the best method of deflection? Expend a few megatons of nuclear explosions or allow a 10,000 megaton explosion to devastate the earth... your choice.  

Edited May 25 by Moontanman

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

I agree time is the deciding factor but at some point a nuke is not just the best option it would be the only option.

By the time society decided it's our only option, we've sailed past the event horizon... 😉

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

By the time society decided it's our only option, we've sailed past the event horizon... 😉

by the time we make a decision the impact has already occured