Why is nuking hazardous asteroids not a viable option? I’d rather be hit by smaller pebbles instead of an actual rock

169 views

Thanks everyone for answering

In: 9

20 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

it largely comes down to mass, what type of asteroid(pebble heep or a solid chunk) it is and to a lesser extent heating of the atmosphere. If spoted early, a small nudge that you can impart with a nuke might be enough to kick it out of a collision course, at the risk that it also shatters. if spotted to late, its better for a single large asteroid to hit, that 1000 smaller ones, as all those smaller ones will heat up on atmospheric entry; super heating it and causing wider spread devastation/fires. An alternative way to think of it is like a gun, at close range would you rather take a pistol round, or a shotgun?

Anonymous 0 Comments

it largely comes down to mass, what type of asteroid(pebble heep or a solid chunk) it is and to a lesser extent heating of the atmosphere. If spoted early, a small nudge that you can impart with a nuke might be enough to kick it out of a collision course, at the risk that it also shatters. if spotted to late, its better for a single large asteroid to hit, that 1000 smaller ones, as all those smaller ones will heat up on atmospheric entry; super heating it and causing wider spread devastation/fires. An alternative way to think of it is like a gun, at close range would you rather take a pistol round, or a shotgun?

Anonymous 0 Comments

It is worth noting that any asteroid would likely end up in the ocean. Dealing with one big tsunami might be easier than 5 medium sized ones

Anonymous 0 Comments

It is worth noting that any asteroid would likely end up in the ocean. Dealing with one big tsunami might be easier than 5 medium sized ones

Anonymous 0 Comments

As other people have mentioned, nuking an asteroid can work. It depends on the size, what it’s made of, and how far away/how fast it is moving.

It is also horribly inefficient. A lot of the destructive power from a nuclear explosion comes from the thermal energy released from the fission reaction as well as the displacement of the atmosphere from the blast.

There is no medium for the shockwave to travel through in space, no matter to excite and impace the asteroid, affecting the asteroids trajectory. Only the direct energy from the explosion will affect the asteroid and depending on the mass of the asteroid, the asteroid’s momentum could be significant to effect.

Also, the energy released is isotropic, not directed. So to do signifcant alterarions to very large asteroids, the nuke must be vacuum boosted to a very high yield, as someone above mentioned, NASA was doing simulations with 1 megaton payloads which are hyrdrogen bomb territory. These explosions have to be so big because of the vacuum and because only part of the energy released is interacting with the asteroid, while a majority of energy is uselessly dissippating in space.

With all that said, nukes are insanely powerful, and can work. But weapons grade fissile material is extremely precious, especially in the US where we dont make it currently and most of the facilities to make it have been mothballed or decomissioned. That goes doubly for hydrogen weapons that require more complex designs and materials.

Using a hydrogen bomb for only a fraction of it’s power to be used on something that can be accomplished using a small chemical rocket pushing the asteroid over a period of time is a waste of resources and should only be employed if there is no other option.

Anonymous 0 Comments

As other people have mentioned, nuking an asteroid can work. It depends on the size, what it’s made of, and how far away/how fast it is moving.

It is also horribly inefficient. A lot of the destructive power from a nuclear explosion comes from the thermal energy released from the fission reaction as well as the displacement of the atmosphere from the blast.

There is no medium for the shockwave to travel through in space, no matter to excite and impace the asteroid, affecting the asteroids trajectory. Only the direct energy from the explosion will affect the asteroid and depending on the mass of the asteroid, the asteroid’s momentum could be significant to effect.

Also, the energy released is isotropic, not directed. So to do signifcant alterarions to very large asteroids, the nuke must be vacuum boosted to a very high yield, as someone above mentioned, NASA was doing simulations with 1 megaton payloads which are hyrdrogen bomb territory. These explosions have to be so big because of the vacuum and because only part of the energy released is interacting with the asteroid, while a majority of energy is uselessly dissippating in space.

With all that said, nukes are insanely powerful, and can work. But weapons grade fissile material is extremely precious, especially in the US where we dont make it currently and most of the facilities to make it have been mothballed or decomissioned. That goes doubly for hydrogen weapons that require more complex designs and materials.

Using a hydrogen bomb for only a fraction of it’s power to be used on something that can be accomplished using a small chemical rocket pushing the asteroid over a period of time is a waste of resources and should only be employed if there is no other option.

Anonymous 0 Comments

To be honest I think it is less about the asteroid and more about getting it to the asteroid. Rockets explode on the launch pad and during launch quite often and nuclear dust in the atmosphere is very bad.

In space you do not need a huge amount of energy, all at once to move something, so for redirecting asteroids there are better options that do not have the risk of evaporating your launch facilities and poisoning the air.

Anonymous 0 Comments

To be honest I think it is less about the asteroid and more about getting it to the asteroid. Rockets explode on the launch pad and during launch quite often and nuclear dust in the atmosphere is very bad.

In space you do not need a huge amount of energy, all at once to move something, so for redirecting asteroids there are better options that do not have the risk of evaporating your launch facilities and poisoning the air.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I wouldn’t mind “you” getting hit by pebbles or else, but is our planet receiving the impact and that involves much more chances of aggravated circumstances.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I wouldn’t mind “you” getting hit by pebbles or else, but is our planet receiving the impact and that involves much more chances of aggravated circumstances.