3 ms·
Asteroids are stronger, harder to destroy than previously thought
- typedef_struct 8y agoThat's why you need the best damn oil drillers in the world to plant the nuke.
- tabtab 8y agoBased on the simulations, it takes the pieces a while to re-congregate. Thus, you'd have to time the burst to have the particles as far apart as possible when they arrive. I wonder if there's a significant radiation side-effect risk? How much would the atmosphere absorb?
- opwieurposiu 8y agoFrom 1945 to 1992, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including eight underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megatons. So keep the device down to a couple megaton and we should be "OK". (for certain values of "OK") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
- tabtab 8y agoSomebody went and Made Asteroids Great Again.
- stcredzero 8y ago"Xalte ere gova da Cant!"
- tabtab 8y agoYikes, that comment did not make my Score Great Again, and it's too late to delete. Lesson: avoid any jokes even remotely related to you-know-who.
- stcredzero 8y agoThis is why gravity tractors are so great. Gravity tractors are immune to everything. (1) They are the honey badgers of asteroid deflection. (1) Except short deadlines.
- Jeff_Brown 8y agoI thought deflection was preferable to destruction, because it requires much less energy. Is destruction what's needed only if the asteroid is discovered too late to deflect it?