5 ms·
I wonder if they used a nuclear warhead instead of a slug, would there be less material ejected due to maybe the rock being vaporized?
by kjkjadksj 3y ago
I wonder if they used a nuclear warhead instead of a slug, would there be less material ejected due to maybe the rock being vaporized?
- gremlinsinc 3y agodoes a nuke do the same damage in space, in a vacuum, with zero gravity, and no oxygen and other factors? would it do anything to a rock that's essentially as dense as earths core adjusting for size? I think it'd be a cool test for them to do though.
- mannykannot 3y agoMy guess is that the rapidly-expanding vapor and debris cloud produced by the explosion is likely to dislodge and eject more material than would result from a passive impactor capable of producing the same deflection. To get the same deflection, you need the same impulse, and in both cases, the impulse is applied as a sudden shock, but if you are using a passive impactor, all the energy is directed in the direction you want the change of the asteroid's momentum to be - so you need less energy overall?
- kjkjadksj 3y agoPerhaps the nuke could be made sufficiently large enough where all of the asteroid material would be consumed in vaporization vs a portion deflected?