Bomb Explosion in Space: What Would Happen?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter timejim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bomb Explosion Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the effects of a bomb explosion in the vacuum of space, focusing on the nature of the explosion, the potential destructive area, and the differences compared to explosions in an atmosphere. Participants examine various aspects including energy distribution, particle impact, and the absence of shockwaves.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the energy of an explosion in vacuum would be distributed over a greater volume, with solid debris, light, gas, and heat being significant contributors to the energy.
  • Others argue that while there would be no pressure wave, high-energy microscopic particles would still impact nearby objects, potentially causing damage.
  • A participant questions the concept of a "destructive area" in vacuum, prompting discussions about the intended meaning of the term.
  • Some participants propose that the destructive pattern of an explosion would diminish with distance from the blast, following an inverse square law.
  • There is a debate about whether a nuclear explosion in space would create a fireball, with some asserting that it would not due to the lack of oxygen, while others contend that the energy released would still form a significant fireball of electromagnetic radiation.
  • Concerns are raised about the effects of neutron and X-ray emissions from a nuclear explosion in space.
  • Participants discuss the absence of a shockwave in space and how energy would instead travel outward through radiation and kinetic energy of debris.
  • Some participants reference the visual representation of explosions in media, questioning the accuracy of such depictions in relation to actual physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of explosions in space, particularly concerning the existence and characteristics of a fireball, the concept of destructive area, and the implications of energy distribution. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on these points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the nature of explosions, the definitions of terms like "destructive area," and the varying interpretations of energy transfer mechanisms in the absence of an atmosphere.

timejim
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I am wondering, if a bomb exploded in the "vacuum" of space, without an atmosphere to cause a pressure wave, what would be the destructive area of the bomb, or would there be any?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The energy of an explosion in vacuum would be distributed over a greater volume, unrestricted by an atmosphere. In space the supersonic solid debris, light, gas and heat from the blast would constitute by far the majority of this resultant energy.
 
You wouldn't have a pressure wave, but you would get impacted by tons of high energy microscopic particles.

Damage would probably be higher in close proximity merely due to the increased particle flux, but I'd guess the damage would not be as great as it would be in an atmosphere.
 
"Destructive area"? In vacuum what would there be to destroy?
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
"Destructive area"? In vacuum what would there be to destroy?

It should be obvious the he meant "potentially destructive area" and is how I interpreted his question regardless of the actual words used.
 
Perhaps he intended to say something more like "cross-section."
 
I am wondering, if a bomb exploded in the "vacuum" of space, without an atmosphere to cause a pressure wave, what would be the destructive area of the bomb, or would there be any?

Got you, timejim! You're a secret agent of the Pentagon on research for the future "galaxy wars" weapons system, aren't ya? Hahaa! If you can get me a job in that project I won't tell anybody, ok?
 
As an aside to this question, whenever I see an explosion in space on TV it always has a taurus carrying the energy away. Does this really happen and if so what defines its plane?
 
Originally posted by MisterBig
As an aside to this question, whenever I see an explosion in space on TV it always has a taurus carrying the energy away. Does this really happen and if so what defines its plane?
I think you mean 'torus'; cool huh? It sure happens in movies; I guess the plane is defined by the special effects team.

Seriously, as far as we know, the preferred 'plane' for cosmic explosions - e.g. gamma ray bursts and supernovae (at least some kinds) is the rotational axis of the poor star - the burst goes through the poles.

For http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html - which may be responsible for the short duration GRBs - I guess the preferred plane of emission would be related to the magnetic field in some way.

[Edit: added link to a magnetar website]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Originally posted by Nereid
I think you mean 'torus'; cool huh? It sure happens in movies; I guess the plane is defined by the special effects team.

It does look cool, look better with a big bull rising out of the flames though! :wink:

Originally posted by Nereid
Seriously, as far as we know, the preferred 'plane' for cosmic explosions - e.g. gamma ray bursts and supernovae (at least some kinds) is the rotational axis of the poor star - the burst goes through the poles.

So they do exist then. I take it they’re made of whatever’s left of whatever exploded? Does the force of the blast travel primarily in this plane?

Originally posted by Nereid
For magnetars - which may be responsible for the short duration GRBs - I guess the preferred plane of emission would be related to the magnetic field in some way. [/B]

How about if a nuclear or chemical explosive where to be let of in space?
 
  • #11
I would think that the destructive pattern would diminish as an inverse square to the distance from the blast.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by MisterBig
How about if a nuclear or chemical explosive where to be let of in space?
AFAIK, the main difference between an explosion 'in space' and one in the atmosphere is that for the latter the air slows the matter accelerated by the explosion (gas, solid fragments). If the 'bomb' is designed to go off with preferred directions (e.g. a 'shaped' explosive), it'll do the same 'in space'. On Earth, the thing which really makes a difference is, well, the Earth!
 
  • #13
a nuke in space would be an omnidirectional blast. there would be no mushroom cloud, it would be exspanding in all directions, for far greater distance than it would on earth, but, there would also be no shockwave. greatly reducing the potential damage. also, the only damage area would be where the fireball is.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Gara
a nuke in space would be an omnidirectional blast. there would be no mushroom cloud, it would be exspanding in all directions, for far greater distance than it would on earth, but, there would also be no shockwave. greatly reducing the potential damage. also, the only damage area would be where the fireball is.


In a space nuke explosion...I'd be more worried about the neutron and X-ray emissions.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Gara
also, the only damage area would be where the fireball is.

Fire requires fuel, oxygen, heat. I don't think there would be a fireball. It would be interesting to know what would happen.

I imagine that The debris would shred through anything close to the blast, but it would be silent and as you said no shockwave.
 
  • #16
Remember the epoch of decoupling and the resultant "fireball."
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Artman
Fire requires fuel, oxygen, heat. I don't think there would be a fireball. It would be interesting to know what would happen.

I imagine that The debris would shred through anything close to the blast, but it would be silent and as you said no shockwave.
Let's say we have 10 kg of H, maybe mixed deuterium and tritium. we compress it and heat it (all in deep space, without any other 'material' intervention) and much of it fuses to He (etc).

Now we've got ~10 kg of H and He at a temperature of (say) 100 million degrees*, surrounded by a vacuum more perfect than we can create on Earth.

What happens?

We can run the same thought experiment, with a Chinese firecracker, a hand grenade, a mortar shell, a 2000 pound bomb, (but not a MOAB).

*Anyone have a reference to the temperature of a pure H-fusion 'bomb'? It'd likely also be ~the temperature at which ITER (etc) would yield net energy.

[Edit: added * note]
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Artman,
The oxygen used for combustion in many gunpowders is contained within the powder itself, in the nitrates. (potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate) -Mike
 
  • #19
not all "fire" needs oxygen. don't forget its a nuke we're talking about. the "fireball" is pure released energy. the same way the sun is "on fire".
 
  • #20
Gara,
Read first post. Where says nuke?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
A nuke in space generates a tremendous fireball. The fire is not from an O2 reaction, but is nonetheless a huge sphere of EM radiation of all kinds. In all the footage I have seen, there has never been a torus (nor a taurus, for that matter!), and the greatest potential as a weapon is its disruptive EMP. When nuclear testing in space was first tried, the radiation from the blast interacted with the ionosphere and caused widespread power outages.

The visible shape of the blast is indeed perfectly spherical with no mushroom cloud. It looks kinda like a new Sun emerging. Very pretty.
 
  • #22
If there is no atmospheric shock wave, the energy must travel outward by some other means, I would imagine by a greater radiation flux outward from the blast and the blast 'shrapnel' - fragments of the bomb having greater kinetic energy.

In other words, the transfer from these forms of energy to a gaseous fluid such as the atmosphere that would result in the atmospheric shock wave on Earth would not occur in space.

Claude.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by LURCH
A nuke in space generates a tremendous fireball. The fire is not from an O2 reaction, but is nonetheless a huge sphere of EM radiation of all kinds. In all the footage I have seen, there has never been a torus (nor a taurus, for that matter!), and the greatest potential as a weapon is its disruptive EMP. When nuclear testing in space was first tried, the radiation from the blast interacted with the ionosphere and caused widespread power outages.

The visible shape of the blast is indeed perfectly spherical with no mushroom cloud. It looks kinda like a new Sun emerging. Very pretty.
Any pictures or videos of this available?
 
  • #24
LURCH,

please, more details about an actual nuclear bomb exploding in space! This must have been a "secret" project, at least I've never heard of it.
 
  • #25
Not a secret, you can buy the video tapes from Time Life Books. It was part of the US and USSR's race. Some of the biggest bombs ever detonated were set off in space. These projects were far from secret; the whole idea was that the other nation could not help but see it, and be impressed and frightened by the destructive force of your weapon. Also, your own citezens were to be comforted by that same knowledge. so both sides made sure everybody saw it; it was big news at the time.
 
  • #26
I could only find a vague reference to four upper atmosphere/space bomb tests by the USSR, pre-1964. Maybe my google search words aren't very good :frown:

I don't doubt that there were space tests, just as LURCH says; just that I can't find on-line references.

Can anyone give us some links?
 
  • #27
it was from MisterBig

"How about if a nuclear or chemical explosive where to be let of in space?"
 
  • #28
Don't have a link to nay data, but there is a movei that specifically covers this topic an sale here .
 
  • #29
How about looking for Project Orion, the plan to power spacecraft by nuclear blasts? I don't think they could have made the proper calculations without tests.

That stuff may still be classified, though.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What Size Space Bombs Would Detonate in Midair Based on Their Composition?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School MIRV vs very high-yield bomb effectiveness
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
High School What is the “Unknown physics” of the new Kilonovae explosion?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
High School Does the bomb experiment do a measurement?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester in multi-world interpretation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Are There Sci-Fi Movies Similar to Oppenheimer?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Undergrad What happens when an explosion occurs on the surface of the moon?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate What can AI do and not do in physics currently?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School What are the various types of cosmic explosions?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School How Do Radars in Space Prevent Signal Dispersion and Maintain Target Accuracy?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K