- #71
Drakkith
Mentor
- 22,908
- 7,259
That is exactly what I mean. Thank you Dave.
That is not a matter what you meant.Drakkith said:That is exactly what I mean. Thank you Dave.
Joseph Chikva said:That is not a matter what you meant.
As by Morbius Dr. Dearborn who really was engaged with this problem told about explosion not near surface but at a few miles away.
So, much less than you guess.
Joseph Chikva said:That is not a matter what you meant.
As by Morbius Dr. Dearborn who really was engaged with this problem told about explosion not near surface but at a few miles away.
So, much less than you guess.
I have not any concern. Simply interesting. Thanks.Morbius said:Joe,
Why the big concern about the percentage of the bomb's energy that is delivered?
What counts is that the amount that is delivered is enough to alter the orbit.
It's not like the bomb is stretched for delivering the energy.
Dr. Dearborn is calculating using a device with a yield in the kilotons. That hardly taxes the state of the art in weapons, as some devices go into the megatons.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Sorry, I missed your comment.DaveC426913 said:If the explosion is a few miles away from an asteroid that is a few miles in diameter, then the cone that intersects the asteroid has an apex angle on the order of 60 degrees.
One would then be able to calculate the area of the base of 60 degree cone as a percent of the area of the whole sphere.
Joseph Chikva said:If we are interested the share of energy of nuke device that can be absorbed by asteroid, we have a task to calculate not area but ratio between apex angle of cone to whole apex angle of sphere (4pi).
Oh sorry. Thanks.DaveC426913 said:That's what I said. To wit:
What fraction (or percent, or, if you wish, ratio) is the area of the cone compared to the area of the entire sphere.
mheslep said:Except for the '92-93 Observer mission, all the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Timeline_of_Mars_exploration" with a successful launch arrived at Mars. I doubt the landing issues that plagued a couple of the missions are relevant to the delivery of a nuclear weapon targeted at an astronomical body with no atmosphere and negligible gravity.
DaveC426913 said:I think you're making a mistake simplifying it. We're pretty familiar with planetary probe procedures and yet we still have a high screw up rate. We have very littel experience landing on small tumbling bodies whose orbits are not nice, neat and low eccentricity and whose delta v is quite different from Earth's.
I think the ways it's more difficult outnumber the ways it's easier.
Morbius said:Joe,
Why the big concern about the percentage of the bomb's energy that is delivered?
What counts is that the amount that is delivered is enough to alter the orbit.
It's not like the bomb is stretched for delivering the energy.
Dr. Dearborn is calculating using a device with a yield in the kilotons. That hardly taxes the state of the art in weapons, as some devices go into the megatons.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
BobG said:Because you don't explain how much of that total energy is converted to kinetic energy (or how it's converted); how the energy from an electromagnetic wave can transfer momentum to the object it hits.
rc1102,rc1102 said:Would it not be more effective to hit the asteroid with serveral nukes that are synced to go off at the smae time so you can achieve a larger surface area being vaporized?