3 ms·
You can use a nuke in multiple ways. As a deflector (launched years or decades from impact), you can nudge the impactor out of its present orbit by gently abla
by mapt 11y ago
You can use a nuke in multiple ways.
As a deflector (launched years or decades from impact), you can nudge the impactor out of its present orbit by gently ablating one side from a distance; You can do this iteratively until the impactor's orbit changes enough to miss Earth.
Decades is sufficient for some of the continuous-thrust alternatives, though, depending on scale.
As a point defence weapon (launched weeks or months from impact), you can send the nuke in as close as possible and detonate in order to break up the body. Yes, this would cause lots of smaller impactors, but over some size ranges it's preferable because ablation is insufficient. If 99% of the smaller impactors miss Earth, we win... in some cases.
Just breaking up a large impactor (at the very last minute, launched minutes or hours before impact) doesn't help so much if everything still hits Earth, because a planet-killer turns into hundreds of city-killers randomly spread out.
On the other hand, a small impactor could be dramatically affected by a nuke, with plausible amounts of vaporization going on. There's quite a lot of risk surface in small impactors, and they would be hard to spot until very close.
---
Bong Wie is working through a NIAC grant on the problem:
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-hazards/asteroid-hitting-earth/innovative-hypervelocity-nuclear-interceptor-spacecraft-mitigating-impact-threat-asteroids/ http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-hazards/asteroid-hi...
One interim observation: a nuke which detaches from a small cratering round which hits first, digging a hole for the nuke to fit in, would multiply its effectiveness severalfold.
It's a very different problem in each different size class of impactor (as well as orbital classes). 10m, 100m, 1000m, 10000m are all of concern in unique ways; each order of magnitude increase in diameter raises mass by three orders of magnitude.
- gherkin0 11y ago> Just breaking it up (at the very last minute, launched minutes or hours before impact) doesn't help so much if everything still hits Earth, because a planet-killer turns into hundreds of city-killers randomly spread out. Wouldn't smaller objects burn up a greater proportion of their mass in the atmosphere (due to the increase surface area) and kick up less of a dust cloud once they impact? Could hundreds of city-killers leave some areas unscathed and still populated and habitable? I think it would be a great help if a planet-killer could be downgraded to a civilization-killer or even a species-killer.
- ethbro 11y agoOooh, think of the lawsuits after that one...
- mabbo 11y agoIf you can choose between one massive impact and two half-sized impacts, surely the two half-sized is better? The air can absorb more of the impact on each smaller rock, and the dust kicked into the atmosphere would be less than half for each smaller impact (right? wrong? correct me, please). Hard to say how many rocks you could break a big asteroid into, but I suspect it would still be a much more optimal outcome. Plus, we could convince the major superpowers to fire all their nuclear arsenal into space. I am all for that.