Can Particle Beams Effectively Vaporize Dangerous Asteroids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GTOM
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Asteroid
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of using particle beams or lasers to vaporize or redirect dangerous asteroids or space debris threatening a space station. Participants explore theoretical applications, potential methods, and the implications of such actions, including the effects of vaporization and propulsion mechanisms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that lasers or particle beams could be a realistic solution for neutralizing threats to space stations, questioning the credibility of power requirements mentioned in sources.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential danger of vapor or melted metal from vaporized asteroids and whether it would disperse quickly enough to avoid harm.
  • There is a discussion about the effectiveness of applying a nudge to an asteroid, noting that the size of the object significantly affects the required impulse for a successful diversion.
  • Some participants mention NASA's proposal of using gravitational pull from a spacecraft to divert hazardous bodies, emphasizing the importance of early detection.
  • Questions are posed regarding the equal and opposite reaction on the space station when using particle beams or lasers, with some arguing that the station's larger mass and cooling capabilities could mitigate this effect.
  • The possibility of using railguns to impact asteroids is introduced, suggesting that even if the asteroid is not destroyed, it could still change trajectory through kinetic energy transfer.
  • A later reply raises ethical concerns about the implications of vaporizing asteroids, referencing historical events like the Chicxulub impact and its significance to human evolution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness and implications of using particle beams or lasers, with no consensus reached on the best approach or the potential consequences of such actions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainties regarding the power requirements for effective vaporization, the specific conditions under which vapor would disperse, and the challenges associated with early detection of hazardous objects.

GTOM
Messages
982
Reaction score
68
Lets suppose a space station is threatened by a meteor or some kind of space debris, and the station couldn't be moved fast enough. Could lasers, or particle beams become a realistic solution for that situation in not so far future?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weaponIt talked about a GJ power, although i am not sure it is credible enough.

Lets suppose we have only 10 MJ. If i calculate correctly 10 MJ is enough to vaporize 1kg of titanium in vacuum.
Could be the vapor, or melted metal still dangerous, or would it disperse fast enough? Or redirect the dangerous object with steam pressure?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Liquid vs. solid doesn't make a difference for an impact, but vapor will spread out really fast and won't be a threat.
GTOM said:
Or redirect the dangerous object with steam pressure?
You get a bit of propulsion from ablating the surface, but doing that in a directed way will be very challenging.
 
All depends on how much of a nudge is needed.
A pebble is a lot different from a boulder or from a mountain, yet if one can apply the nudge early enough, a miss can be achieved even with just a small impulse.
Iirc, NASA has proposed diverting potentially hazardous bodies simply by having a diversionary spacecraft fly near it and shift the trajectory by its gravitational pull. The challenge is to find the hazardous items early enough that one can try to deal with them without dubious brute force methods.
 
GTOM said:
Lets suppose a space station is threatened by a meteor or some kind of space debris, and the station couldn't be moved fast enough. Could lasers, or particle beams become a realistic solution for that situation in not so far future?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weaponIt talked about a GJ power, although i am not sure it is credible enough.

Lets suppose we have only 10 MJ. If i calculate correctly 10 MJ is enough to vaporize 1kg of titanium in vacuum.
Could be the vapor, or melted metal still dangerous, or would it disperse fast enough? Or redirect the dangerous object with steam pressure?
What about the equal and opposite reaction on the space station?
 
tech99 said:
What about the equal and opposite reaction on the space station?

The station has bigger mass and better cooling.
 
Is it also possible to impact the asteroid with large railguns? Even the asteroid isn’t obliterated, it still passes a lot of kinetic energy to the asteroid, thus changing its trajectory.
Actually, if we can harvest the resources of the incoming asteroid, it is a mountain of precious metals and minerals, including things that are very rare on earth... in this case, we pull the asteroid to orbit around earth, and mine the resources on it. It also saves delta-V to redirect an incoming asteroid towards Earth than seeking them in deep space or asteroid belt...
 
Are you sure you want to do this? If you had vapourised the asteroid which created the Chicxulub crater 66 million years ago you would have stopped the descent of man.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K