Flywheel Bombs and Asteroid Propulsion: The Future of Mass Destruction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kjones000
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of flywheel bombs, exploring the potential energy density achievable and the feasibility of creating a detonating device. It raises questions about the minimum practical size for such a bomb and the possibility of developing detection systems for airports. Additionally, it discusses the increasing ease of manipulating asteroids for potential threats, emphasizing that small, fast-moving asteroids could be more dangerous than larger, slower ones. The conversation also touches on the historical context of kinetic energy bombs and the potential for low-cost asteroid manipulation through strategic planning and patience. Overall, the dialogue highlights significant concerns regarding energy weaponization and asteroid threats.
kjones000
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Here is the idea -- flywheel bombs.

Just how much energy CAN you pack into a flywheel per kg? Could it be made to "detonate"? Is there a minimum practical size for a flywheel bomb? Could detectors be created for airports to detect them? Is there an upper limit to practical size?

On a similar note, as computing power increases, it just gets easier and easier for someone to get an asteroid moving REALLY fast using dozens of planetary flybys and then sending it to earth. If you do the math, small and fast is LOTS more dangerous than big and slow. I am envisioning a asteroid propulsion system that starts with one small push followed by millions of micro course corrections. Is this how the world will end?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The asteroid thing... that would be really expensive, like trillions or quadrillions of dollars :rolleyes:
 
When the SR-71 was in development, one arnament they were considering was kinetic energy bombs: dropped from 85,000 feet, at 2,000mph, with maybe a small rocket motor, a bomb doesn't need a warhead.
 
I haven't done the math, but I suspect you are off by many orders of magnitude on that trillions of dollars statement. The key to low cost is leverage. You pick the right asteroid, you pick the right time, you pick the right flight path, you pick the right propulsion method, you steal your computing power using a virus, and you have plenty of patience. If you are willing to wait 60 years to achieve your goal, destruction becomes much easier.
 
I haven't done the math, but I suspect you are off by many orders of magnitude on that trillions of dollars statement. The key to low cost is leverage. You pick the right asteroid, you pick the right time, you pick the right flight path, you pick the right propulsion method, you steal your computing power using a virus, and you have plenty of patience. If you are willing to wait 60 years to achieve your goal, destruction becomes much easier.

...Muahahahaha Muahahahaha :devil:
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top