4 ms·

I suspect if we didn't just dart a small probe but a large thermonuclear bomb into an asteroid we'd see a much different result

• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  You'd see more energy, but no more momentum transfer. Unless one of two things happened: 1. The nuclear warhead sent the back part of the rocket backward (that is, away from the asteroid) hard enough that (with respect to the asteroid) it has negative momentum, so that the part that hits the asteroid has more momentum. 2. The energy of the radiation from the warhead ablades material from the asteroid, turning it momentarily into a rocket motor. The momentum of that material leaving the asteroid causes an equal momentum change on the asteroid itself.
  • dtx1 3y ago
    But also smaller fragments i'd assume.
  • fencepost 3y ago
    The momentum of the whole system would likely be similar, but it'd be spread over a much wider debris field - in the case of an asteroid impact, a field probably large enough that much of it would completely bypass instead of impacting. From a practical standpoint, anyone debating between nuclear and non-nuclear options would probably have to look at the risks of a more complex projectile (reliability), whether an explosion would allow use of a smaller projectile (energy cost for getting there, terminal speed, accuracy at various speeds), and of course regulatory concerns with launching nuclear vs kinetic impactors.