Asteroid defense ideas

[Mordred]

 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.

 

 

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

27 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 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.

 

 

You made he claim that a nuke detonated inside the the moons orbit would cause a damaging EMP pulse on the earth, then you equivacated and said it would have to be a 100 megaton nuke which no one has ever detonated much less currently have. 

I suggested a 250 meter asteroid, Apophis is over 300 meters if memory serves me. 

The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs was several kilometers in diameter if such a asteroid threatened us now days we would be screwed AFAIK there is no way to deflect such an asteroid in any reasonable time frame so why do you try to use it as an example? 

More fear mongering? 

Why? 

Edited May 26 by Moontanman

[Mordred]

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.

 

 

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[TheVat]

 

Nota bene:

Only eleven percent of the US arsenal are warheads of yield greater than a megaton - those are the B83s, at 1.2 MT each.   The Russians largest are 800 KT.  Just pointing this out, in response to the talk of 50 MT warheads - such do not exist.  

 

[Mordred]

Yeah I already corrected that but thanks.

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs was several kilometers in diameter if such a asteroid threatened us now days we would be screwed AFAIK there is no way to deflect such an asteroid in any reasonable time frame so why do you try to use it as an example? 

More fear mongering? 

Why? 

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.

 

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No it's not fear mongering it's recognizing potential risks something you don't seem to feel is important.

You are exaggerating the risks to further your agenda, I simply seek to mitigate the actual risk potential to further the safety of the human species. 

Your assertions about the EMP near the moon I think confirm my suspicions. Your example of the Chicxulub impact just shows you are not interested in an actual discussion. 

[Mordred]

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

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have no agenda now stop with your accusations

One thing you don't have for sure is the desire to discuss this in a non emotional way. 

[Mordred]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have no agenda now stop with your accusations

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

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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

You are quoting yourself now? 

I've not done anything but ask you to support your wilder assertions, everyone is supposed to to do this, why is asking for this an accusation? 

Edited May 26 by Moontanman

[Mordred]

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?

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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?

No, you used the EMP thing as an example of how dangerous the nukes were, in that context you were not being accurate and in fact deceptive so no your assertion was not valid. 

In fact your idea of stopping the asteroid as it hits the atmosphere with a 100 megaton warhead is not valid, can you use physics and math to understand why? 

Your exaggerated assertions about the danger of fall out from the detonation of a nuke were not valid.

You go be you dude... I'll stick with arguing reality. 

[Mordred]

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 

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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 

Now which is it, a 100 megaton nuke at the  moon's orbit is dangerous or is it just a detectable effect?

And again modern nukes fall far short of 100 megatons and why is the moderness of the nukes important?  

Edited May 26 by Moontanman

[Airbrush]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why don't we have time? Is there some asteroid we're about to collide with that I'm unaware of?

This brings up a major concern of mine; how far away is safe enough to use nukes? 

Despite the talk of 'fine tuning' the use of nukes in this thread, I don't believe the words 'fine tuning' and 'nuclear weapons' go together. With a gravity tractor you have a pretty good idea how the asteroid will move, and it will all move in the same direction. If you use a nuclear weapon I feel like you run the risk of pieces of the asteroid moving in unanticipated ways. Perhaps if far enough away the risk is low enough, but if a gravity tractor would work, why introduce the risk of breaking the asteroid apart?

There are 3 things necessary to intercept an asteroid:   find them early, find them early, and find them early.  We don't know when, so we need to think of a method than can be put into action sooner than gravity tractors can.

How far away CAN we send nukes to intercept?  As far as you can send them.  So again, you need to find them early so you have time.

Also work on gravity tractors, in case we have hundreds of years to prepare, but they will take a lot longer to be ready for action, and we may not have that much time.  If you break it apart far away, the pieces will fly apart, but I am wondering if a nuclear blast, at the correct distance, would melt and fuse loose material together, and it would not break apart a rubble pile.

Edited May 26 by Airbrush

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Airbrush said:

There are 3 things necessary to intercept an asteroid:   find them early, find them early, and find them early.  We don't know when, so we need to think of a method than can be put into action sooner than gravity tractors can.

How far away can send nukes to intercept?  As far as you can go.  So again, you need to find them early so you have time.

Also work on gravity tractors, but they will take a lot longer to be ready for action, and we may not have that much time.  If you break it apart far away, the pieces will fly apart, but I am wondering if a nuclear blast, at the correct distance, would fuse loose material together, and it would not break apart, even a rubble pile.

I've wondered the same thing, since the blast effects would be minimal would the radiated energy be enough to fuse the surface? 

[Airbrush]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I've wondered the same thing, since the blast effects would be minimal would the radiated energy be enough to fuse the surface? 

There would not be a shock wave.  It would be just an intense, short pulse of heat.

ChatGPT says:

"The distance of the explosion from the asteroid and the yield of the nuclear device would be crucial. For rock fusion to occur, the heat and energy must be sufficient to melt the surface material. If the explosion is too far or the yield is too low, the energy might dissipate without causing significant melting."

"In theory, a nuclear explosion could cause surface melting and outgassing, potentially pushing a "rubble pile" asteroid. However, the practical implementation of such a strategy would require precise control over the explosion's distance and yield, careful consideration of the asteroid's composition and structure, and strategies to mitigate the risk of fragmentation. More research and testing would be necessary to evaluate the feasibility and safety of such an approach."

Edited May 26 by Airbrush

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

There would not be a shock wave.  It would be just an intense, short pulse of heat.

I understand that but if that heat pulse can vaporise the surface then it should be able to fuse it as well. 

[Mordred]

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Now which is it, a 100 megaton nuke at the  moon's orbit is dangerous or is it just a detectable effect?

And again modern nukes fall far short of 100 megatons and why is the moderness of the nukes important?  

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. 

 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

There would not be a shock wave.  It would be just an intense, short pulse of heat.

Possibly we should try this experimentally to get a handle on just how effective nuke could be? Choose a small asteroid and see what the effect of a nuke is exactly? 

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I understand that but if that heat pulse can vaporise the surface then it should be able to fuse it as well. 

Yes that would be correct 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

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. 

 

Again how do you justify the deceptive nature of your assertion? I'm not questioning your math I'm questioning how you used it to support your deceptive assertion!

[Airbrush]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Possibly we should try this experimentally to get a handle on just how effective nuke could be? Choose a small asteroid and see what the effect of a nuke is exactly? 

Yes, find a rubble pile out in the asteroid belt and experiment fusing them with nukes.  That is far enough away.  People will complain about launching such a rocket.  Would there be any risk of it accidentally exploding and scattering radioactive material in the atmosphere?  It would not be an accidental nuclear explosion, right?

Edited May 26 by Airbrush

[Mordred]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Possibly we should try this experimentally to get a handle on just how effective nuke could be? Choose a small asteroid and see what the effect of a nuke is exactly? 

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

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Again how do you justify the deceptive nature of your assertion? I'm not questioning your math I'm questioning how you used it to support your deceptive assertion!

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.

Edited May 26 by Mordred

[Airbrush]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Again how do you justify the deceptive nature of your assertion? I'm not questioning your math I'm questioning how you used it to support your deceptive assertion!

Obviously, humanity would use the nukes that are available, which already exist, and are plenty powerful and numerous.  Nobody will try to create a 100-megaton nuke for this project.