4 ms·
I'd imagine it sounds simpler but is actually much harder. - Huge amounts of thrust required = likely multiple rocket engines - That means huge amounts of mas
by TheCapeGreek 3y ago
I'd imagine it sounds simpler but is actually much harder.
- Huge amounts of thrust required = likely multiple rocket engines
- That means huge amounts of mass and equipment
- Then the huge amounts of fuel required for all of those
Meanwhile with the nuke you can get away with much lower mass and "just" have to worry about making the bombs and detonating them at the right distance.
We invented nukes before we went to the moon, after all.
- Aardwolf 3y agoI don't know, if maybe not that much thrust is required in some scenarios, perhaps a tiny alteration of course can already be enough to avoid hitting Earth Of course as you say, if the nukes do it even cheaper, makes sense. Perhaps a bit risky to be launching them though! (sensible risk for a sure-hit asteroid, not for deflecting low-probability ones)
- biomcgary 3y agoOr, combine the ideas Project Orion style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...)