pranav8875 Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 ICBMs How can long range nuclear capable Inter Continental ballistic Missiles be upgraded and improved to destroy very large meteors and asteroids high up in atmosphere at approx. 40-50 miles so as to cause minimum damage to population??
ewmon Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 You're talking about "shooting a bullet with a bullet". For that, you need to think in terms of relative speeds and distances at the end of the warheads' flights. You'd need radar on the final stage to steer the warheads, and each warhead might require its own propulsion system. And software to make it all work together. The idea of a "footprint" might need to change to that of a "gantlet", as in "running the gantlet". One of the questions is how close the warheads need to approach the object for their blasts to affect the object. I don't know how dense the air is at 40 to 50 miles altitude. If you can't make a strong enough shock wave, you'd need to get the warhead closer, perhaps much closer.
CaptainPanic Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 ICBMs How can long range nuclear capable Inter Continental ballistic Missiles be upgraded and improved to destroy very large meteors and asteroids high up in atmosphere at approx. 40-50 miles so as to cause minimum damage to population?? I do not think they can. The main problem of a very large meteor is the huge kinetic energy it contains. If you blow that up with a nuke at 40-50 miles altitude, you will still get a very large shock wave, which will still destroy a continent. Also, you would need a truly enormous nuke to actually turn a very large meteor around. And that is why everybody seems to focus on knocking such a meteor off course much earlier (we're talking a million times further: 40,000,000 miles away or so). Then you need a normal rocket, not an ICBM. Perhaps, we should be asking ourselves if an ICBM can be used/upgraded to get anything into space?
ACUV Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Perhaps, we should be asking ourselves if an ICBM can be used/upgraded to get anything into space? A burst football or an old guitar or a certain individuals ego, no not god, guess again?
CaptainPanic Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 A burst football or an old guitar or a certain individuals ego, no not god, guess again? What I meant to say is that if an ICBM can get anything into space (and keep send it on to an approaching meteor), this object - let's call it a satellite - could perform some action on that meteor at a long distance away, so that a small correction could prevent a collision. But I have no idea what you are talking about? Perhaps just a joke that I don't understand? FYI, an ICMB is essentially just a rocket. It is not necessarily for weapons, even though thus far it seems to be used as such almost exclusively.
ACUV Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 But I have no idea what you are talking about? Possible other uses for ICBM's. Perhaps just a joke that I don't understand? Perhaps just a moment of humour that you do?
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 A burst football or an old guitar or a certain individuals ego, no not god, guess again? Possible other uses for ICBM's. Perhaps just a moment of humour that you do? ! Moderator Note Be Coherent.
ACUV Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Be Coherent. I thought I was being coherent. CaptainPanic knows what I'm talking about, I think. Edited October 16, 2012 by ACUV
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 I thought I was being coherent. CaptainPanic knows what I'm talking about, I think. ! Moderator Note Then it sounds like you're trolling for an emotional response for a reason (possibly) known only to the two of you. It's one thing to violate the Etiquette Guide, quite another to break the rules by trolling and hijacking the thread. Please stop now. And don't further derail the thread by responding to modnotes. If you have a problem with them, report them or contact a member of the staff.
Spyman Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I do not think they can. The main problem of a very large meteor is the huge kinetic energy it contains. If you blow that up with a nuke at 40-50 miles altitude, you will still get a very large shock wave, which will still destroy a continent. Also, you would need a truly enormous nuke to actually turn a very large meteor around. And that is why everybody seems to focus on knocking such a meteor off course much earlier (we're talking a million times further: 40,000,000 miles away or so). Then you need a normal rocket, not an ICBM. Perhaps, we should be asking ourselves if an ICBM can be used/upgraded to get anything into space? I think it depends on the definition of "very large meteors and asteroids", what is "very large" in the context? An Earth killer with a diameter of 10 kilometers or a worldwide catastrophe bringer of 1000 meters across is certainly unstoppable if it reaches our atmosphere and blowing it up would only add to the damage its impact will cause. However an object with only the size of 100 to 150 meters across is still big enough to be considered a potentially hazardous object by our current spaceguard. A potentially hazardous object (PHO) is a near-Earth asteroid or comet with an orbit such that it has the potential to make close approaches to the Earth and is of a size large enough to cause significant regional damage in the event of impact. An object is considered a PHO if its minimum orbit intersection distance (MOID) with respect to Earth is less than 0.05 AU (7,500,000 km; 4,600,000 mi) (approximately 19.5 lunar distances) and its diameter is at least 100 to 150 meters (330-500 ft). This is big enough to cause regional devastation to human settlements unprecedented in human history in the case of a land impact, or a major tsunami in the case of an ocean impact. Such impact events occur on average around once per 10,000 years. NEOWISE data estimates that there are 4,700 ± 1,500 potentially hazardous asteroids with a diameter greater than 100 meters. As of 2012, an estimated 20 to 30 percent of these objects have been found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentially_hazardous_object The Barringer Crater in the Arizona desert was caused by an nickel-iron meteorite about 50 meters across: Aerial view of Arizona Meteor Crater, September 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater Personally when imagining the consequences of a hypothetical impact of a 50 meter object in a city, I would consider it BIG. Blowing up a 50 meter diameter object high enough up in the atmosphere such that we end up with fist sized or smaller pieces spread out over the continent instead of a full sized impact in or close to a highly populated area would probably save many many lives. The biggest benefit with a direct destructive approach is that it can be deployed with short notice when our reaction time is limited. Edited October 18, 2012 by Spyman
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now