Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brusion t1_iqx2q6z wrote

Reply to comment by D3ATHfromAB0V3x in After DART: Using the first full-scale test of a kinetic impactor to inform a future planetary defense mission by EricFromOuterSpace

A nuke in space would do less than you think. A nuke itself doesn't cause much impulse in a vacuum. It has inconsequential mass by itself, it just releases an immense amount of energy.

On Earth, we see a giant blast wave from a nuke. This is because it heats up matter(the atmosphere and ground around it), and that matter expands very quickly.

In a vacuum, you don't get that. It would heat up one side of the asteroid, which do to outgassing could alter it's course, and there is photon pressure. It's certainly been discussed. But I think at this point, especially with falling costs of mass to orbit, and kinetic impactor is a more viable option.

19

HikeEveryMountain t1_iqx5syg wrote

And you can always do a series of kinetic impactors for increased power, like a train of StarLink satellites, slowly but systematically smashing it off course

10

Apostastrophe t1_iqx8m93 wrote

With the advent of a super heavy launch vehicle that can be refilled in orbit like Starship, we could also just make a gravity tractor.

A fully expendable, fully refilled SS could get a beast of a gravity tractor out there.

2

thxpk t1_iqxxvwy wrote

Not true, simulations already show it would be very effective

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/science/asteroid-nuclear-bomb.html

2

Brusion t1_iqy42h0 wrote

I never said it wouldn't be effective. I am saying there is no shockwave from a nuke in space. That it doesn't behave like people might think.

I literally said in my post the ways it would affect an asteroid's motion.

4

WhalesVirginia t1_iqz45t0 wrote

You would absolutely sink a nuke to the right depth so that it does have maximum impulse.

2

jawshoeaw t1_iqyq4wx wrote

Right you would have to tunnel into the middle of it

−1

karlzhao314 t1_iqz59ih wrote

No you wouldn't. The most realistic option for a nuclear avoidance strategy is to use a surface standoff detonation some tens or hundreds of meters above the surface.

−2