Nuclear detonation in outer space

In summary, detonating a nuclear device in outer space would have minimal effects compared to detonating it in the atmosphere. There would be a bright light and some electromagnetic field, but no explosion and only a small amount of radioactive metal drifting down to earth. The explosion would not create a black hole or a self-contained ball of energy. The energy produced would be insignificant and would simply expand and dissipate into space. Any potential effects on quantum connections or celestial bodies would be insignificant as well. Overall, the repercussions would mainly be political.
  • #1
Alan J.
17
0
What would be the reprocussions of detonating a nuclear device in outer space? Would nothing happen except the explosion... would it create a black hole? Would it become a ball of energy self contained in its own atmosphere?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Rather less effect than detonating it in the atmosphere.
A bright light, a bit of electromagnetic field, no bang and a small amount of radioactive metal drifting down to earth. Depending on how big and how close it might creae a few radioactive gas ataoms in the upper atmsophere.
 
  • #3
A nuclear explosion would not create a black hole. The energy is insignificant.

The plasma would simple expand and dissipate into space. If close enough to earth, it could interact with the Earth's atmosphere are mgb_phys mentioned.
 
  • #4
Alan J. said:
What would be the reprocussions of detonating a nuclear device in outer space?

Lots of political fallout, I suspect. :smile:
 
  • #5
In quantum mechanics. There are theories in which if 2 electrons were created at the same time and one was effected by a force then the other would respond instantly. The theory goes on to say that the electrons are still connected with a force not yet determined or perceived by man. Now if this was true and the big bang theory was correct. Then everything is connected. Would a nuclear device have any effect on these connections or is a nuclear explosion in space still too primal or elementary to effect such connections?
 
  • #6
Alan J. said:
In quantum mechanics. There are theories in which if 2 electrons were created at the same time and one was effected by a force then the other would respond instantly.
Not quite - the entanglement principle says that certain properties of the particles are uncertain until you measure them, if you measure the state of one particle you know the state of the other and so in some way you have set it's value even though they are separated.
This has nothing to do with forces.

Would a nuclear device have any effect on these connections or is a nuclear explosion in space still too primal or elementary to effect such connections?
A nuclear explosion is pretty pathetic on an astronomical scale.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Ah i see. Thanks for enlightening me on that.
 
  • #8
mgb_phys said:
A nuclear explosion is pretty pathetic on an astronomical scale.
Along those lines,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
1 MT ~ 4.184×1015 J

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Solar output - 3.846×1026 J/s

Supernova (from the Wiki TNT_equivalent article) - On a much grander scale, supernova explosions give off about 1044 joules of energy, which is about ten octillion (1028) megatons of TNT.

Humanity's activities are insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. They are only significant as far as humankind is concerned.
 
  • #9
Yes certainly the total energy of a fission bomb is not that impressive. Indeed, one could load that much equivalent energy in TNT or LNG on a couple of large ships. Its the power of a nuclear weapon that is impressive. All of that 10^15 joules is put into play in under a microsecond, so in terms of power its right there with some celestial events & bodies, at least for a microsecond ;-)
 
  • #10
But 1015 J in 10-6 s is only 1021 W, still puny compare to things stellar.

On the other hand, one does not want to be in the neighborhood of a nuclear explosion.

Humans are low energy entities anyway.

Just think about how hot air is from a hair dryer at 1 to 1.5 kW.

And big electrical power plants are measured in GW.
 
  • #11
Alan J. said:
What would be the reprocussions of detonating a nuclear device in outer space? Would nothing happen except the explosion... would it create a black hole? Would it become a ball of energy self contained in its own atmosphere?

I think they (the USA) did it back in the 60's or early 70's
 
  • #12
Astronuc said:
But 1015 J in 10-6 s is only 1021 W, still puny compare to things stellar.

Ok, take a thermonuke then. 1024 W. And, guessing wildly, the nuclear portion of the detonation is complete in 100ns? ( ~ 2100 fissions) Then 1025 W. Fair to say that for a moment, a nuclear weapon radiates energy at the same rate of (small) star. No surprise really, given the lousy reaction rate of proton proton fusion. A cubic meter of stellar core wouldn't run my toaster oven.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
mheslep said:
A cubic meter of stellar core wouldn't run my toaster oven.

Hmm, with a core temperature of 15,000,000K, Stefan-Boltzmann says your cubic meter of stellar core radiates around 1e22 watts, not including energy from particles. That's a lot of toaster ovens. Nuclear bombs produce similar sorts of temperatures and densities, but over MUCH smaller volumes. Laser experiments can do the same, but over smaller volumes still.
 
  • #14
JeffKoch said:
Hmm, with a core temperature of 15,000,000K, Stefan-Boltzmann says your cubic meter of stellar core radiates around 1e22 watts, not including energy from particles. That's a lot of toaster ovens. Nuclear bombs produce similar sorts of temperatures and densities, but over MUCH smaller volumes. Laser experiments can do the same, but over smaller volumes still.

No, that's a misapplication of Stefan-Boltzman. YOU produce more, much more heat energy than a M^3 of core. Think about it. How could 1M^3 put out 1e22 W if the entire Sun produces ~1e26 W? The actual power density is a measly 83 W/M^3 in the averaged over the core and 1/3 W/M^3 over the entire solar volume. Sorry, no toaster.

See 'Core' here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
About 3.4×10^38 protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second (out of ~8.9×10^56 total amount of free protons in the Sun), releasing energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million tonnes per second, 383 yottawatts (3.83×10^26 W) or 9.15×10^10 megatons of TNT per second. This actually corresponds to a surprisingly low rate of energy production in the Sun's core—about 0.3 µW/cm³ (microwatts per cubic cm), or about 6 µW/kg of matter. For comparison, a candela of light (roughly one candle) produces heat at the rate 1 W/cm³, and the human body at approximately the rate 1.2 W/kg—millions of times more heat production. The use of plasma with similar parameters for energy production on Earth would be completely impractical—even a modest 1 GW fusion power plant would require about 170 billion tonnes of plasma occupying almost one cubic mile. Thus, terrestrial fusion reactors utilize far higher plasma temperatures than those in Sun's interior.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
mheslep said:
No, that's a misapplication of Stefan-Boltzman.

Not at all. You have a cubic meter of 15,000,000K material (never mind how you got it, or how long it'll stay there), and you ask how much energy is radiated away assuming it's optically thick to that radiation. MKS power per unit area is then 5.67e-8 times (15,000,000)^4, and total power is 6 times this (6 square meters for the cube). Even if it's not perfectly optically thick, that's still a lot of toasters. I invite you to show me what's wrong with this calculation.

You can ask about power produced from fusion reactions in that cubic meter, and you'll get a different number.
 
  • #17
JeffKoch said:
Not at all. You have a cubic meter of 15,000,000K material (never mind how you got it, or how long it'll stay there), and you ask how much energy is radiated away assuming it's optically thick to that radiation. MKS power per unit area is then 5.67e-8 times (15,000,000)^4, and total power is 6 times this (6 square meters for the cube). Even if it's not perfectly optically thick, that's still a lot of toasters. I invite you to show me what's wrong with this calculation.
The radiator calculation is fine; my point was its not indicative of the steady state exothermic fusion reaction, the power density of which is lousy for any practical earthly purpose. The 15,000,000K (1.4keV in core) is essentially the kinetic energy required to keep our M^3 reactor ignited. Allowing all that energy to radiate away would quench the reaction, akin to leaving the door open on a furnace, and its a one time deal. I want the toaster oven to run awhile. In the sun's core, radiation loss would also be proportional to Trad^4 but its mostly blocked or reflected by the mantle. Likewise our M^3 reactor has to have some kind confinement (magnetic or other) that serves a similar purpose. Note that ITER will have 5-10keV temperatures over several M^3 of plasma. Certainly you don't expect to measure its power output from T^4.

You can ask about power produced from fusion reactions in that cubic meter, and you'll get a different number.
Yes its ~80Watts/M^3 in the core, and will be for another 5-10^9 years, i.e. steady state.
 
  • #18
The typical energy distribution of a fission warhead is usually described as:

50% blast, 35% thermal radiation, 5% prompt radiation and 10% residual radiation

However this assumes an atmospheric detonation.

Does anyone know the energy distribution (by category) for the various main warhead types (fission, regular fusion, enhanced radiation) in the vacuum of space?
 

1. Can a nuclear detonation occur in outer space?

Yes, nuclear detonations can occur in outer space. They are caused by the explosion of a nuclear weapon, which releases a huge amount of energy through a chain reaction of nuclear fission or fusion.

2. What are the effects of a nuclear detonation in outer space?

The effects of a nuclear detonation in outer space are different from those on Earth. In space, there is no atmosphere to absorb the energy and heat from the explosion, so the blast and radiation effects are much more powerful and can travel farther. This can potentially damage or destroy satellites and other objects in orbit.

3. Has a nuclear detonation ever occurred in outer space?

Yes, there have been several nuclear detonations in outer space, mostly as part of nuclear weapon testing during the Cold War. The United States and Soviet Union both conducted multiple tests in outer space, including explosions in the Earth's upper atmosphere and in orbit around the Earth.

4. Can a nuclear detonation in outer space cause a nuclear winter?

No, a nuclear detonation in outer space cannot cause a nuclear winter. A nuclear winter is caused by the large-scale burning of cities and forests on Earth, which would not occur in outer space. However, a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere could potentially lead to disruptions in the Earth's climate and environment.

5. What would happen if a nuclear detonation occurred near a planet or star?

If a nuclear detonation occurred near a planet or star, the effects would depend on the size and distance of the explosion. If it was close enough, it could potentially disrupt the planet or star's magnetic field and cause electromagnetic disturbances. However, if it was far enough away, the effects would likely be minimal and have no significant impact.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
8K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
615
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
373
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
988
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top