3 ms·

+1 - delta v is what matters, and a regular explosive would not throw a satellite off orbit significantly. But this makes me wonder - what is the minimum possi

+1 - delta v is what matters, and a regular explosive would not throw a satellite off orbit significantly. But this makes me wonder - what is the minimum possible size for a nuke? I wonder if say 1-2kg nuke would be enough to throw all the debris out of orbit...

wongarsu 6y ago
No matter how you explode it, turning one piece of debris into many pieces at even higher velocities is only making things worse.
- KMag 6y ago
  To add to this, given what we're learn about nuclear weapons in school/media, you'd think a small fission device would convert the entire mass of the satellite into a ball of mixed plasma and vapour. A lot of the non-metallic mass of the satellite would probably vaporize, but any surviving bits would have a bunch of added kinetic energy. Especially for things that reflect both infrared and soft x-rays, with pretty high melting points and pretty high thermal masses, nuclear explosions do less damage than you'd think. There was a nuclear test where they put a steel sphere about the size of a bowling ball pretty close to a device similar to Gadget / Fat Man. Spoiler alert: it survived barely scratched.[0] You could probably design a satellite with thin enough pieces of metal and add carbon black / carbon fiber to any polymers too transparent to IR/soft x-rays. You could probably also use a thermonuclear device, but the particle steams caught in the earth's magnetic field would damage satellites, and there's also the EMP to worry about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by1xpy8ob8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by1xpy8ob8E
- cyphar 6y ago
  If the added velocities of the debris were unidirectional (along the debris's orbital velocity) then increasing their velocity enough would result in them breaking free of orbit. But I doubt that you would be able to do either in reality (not to mention detonating nuclear bombs in space seems like a bad idea regardless of any other factors).
RobertoG 6y ago
>>" I wonder if say 1-2kg nuke would be enough to throw all the debris out of orbit..." I don't get it. Can you blow something only in one direction?
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Aproximately you can, if you detonate the bomb behind the object. But the depris of the bomb would still go in all directions.
T-A 6y ago
Three problems with that idea: [1] The smallest (publicly known) nuclear device ever built weighed about 23 kg. [2] Detonating a nuke in orbit would cause a potentially devastating EMP. [3] The Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits putting WMDs in space. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosio... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
Symmetry 6y ago
Probably better overall to vaporize your satellite by means of a ground based laser rather than an in-orbit nuke.

wongarsu 6y ago

No matter how you explode it, turning one piece of debris into many pieces at even higher velocities is only making things worse.

KMag 6y ago
To add to this, given what we're learn about nuclear weapons in school/media, you'd think a small fission device would convert the entire mass of the satellite into a ball of mixed plasma and vapour. A lot of the non-metallic mass of the satellite would probably vaporize, but any surviving bits would have a bunch of added kinetic energy. Especially for things that reflect both infrared and soft x-rays, with pretty high melting points and pretty high thermal masses, nuclear explosions do less damage than you'd think. There was a nuclear test where they put a steel sphere about the size of a bowling ball pretty close to a device similar to Gadget / Fat Man. Spoiler alert: it survived barely scratched.[0] You could probably design a satellite with thin enough pieces of metal and add carbon black / carbon fiber to any polymers too transparent to IR/soft x-rays. You could probably also use a thermonuclear device, but the particle steams caught in the earth's magnetic field would damage satellites, and there's also the EMP to worry about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by1xpy8ob8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by1xpy8ob8E
cyphar 6y ago
If the added velocities of the debris were unidirectional (along the debris's orbital velocity) then increasing their velocity enough would result in them breaking free of orbit. But I doubt that you would be able to do either in reality (not to mention detonating nuclear bombs in space seems like a bad idea regardless of any other factors).

RobertoG 6y ago

>>" I wonder if say 1-2kg nuke would be enough to throw all the debris out of orbit..." I don't get it. Can you blow something only in one direction?

hutzlibu 6y ago
Aproximately you can, if you detonate the bomb behind the object. But the depris of the bomb would still go in all directions.

T-A 6y ago

Three problems with that idea: [1] The smallest (publicly known) nuclear device ever built weighed about 23 kg. [2] Detonating a nuke in orbit would cause a potentially devastating EMP. [3] The Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits putting WMDs in space. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosio... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Symmetry 6y ago

Probably better overall to vaporize your satellite by means of a ground based laser rather than an in-orbit nuke.