I Nuclear Explosion in Space… How would it work? (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Did a quick search of an explosion in a vacuum and got most of what I was looking for, but on CBS Sunday morning they had a segment on restoring and reevaluating all of the immense footage of America's atmospheric nuclear testing program. They showed some amazing footage of the expansion of the fireball and then the commensurate shock wave. It is clear, that a terrestrial blast would involve both the immense nearly instantaneous EM radiation expansion, but most of the damage occurs from the 700 mph shock wave. In a vacuum I believe there would be no shock wave, but there would still be the expanding ball of radiation that would do damage, but would it still be as devastating? What kind of damage would it be? How would it dissipate?
 
177
89
Did a quick search of an explosion in a vacuum and got most of what I was looking for, but on CBS Sunday morning they had a segment on restoring and reevaluating all of the immense footage of America's atmospheric nuclear testing program. They showed some amazing footage of the expansion of the fireball and then the commensurate shock wave. It is clear, that a terrestrial blast would involve both the immense nearly instantaneous EM radiation expansion, but most of the damage occurs from the 700 mph shock wave. In a vacuum I believe there would be no shock wave, but there would still be the expanding ball of radiation that would do damage, but would it still be as devastating? What kind of damage would it be? How would it dissipate?
Standard damage breakdown for tactical-level nuclear explosion:
50% shockwave
25% instant radiation
10% heat
15% radioactive pollution

Basic rule is what damage of nuclear explosion in space is reduced by 65% (in the yield range of tactical warheads), due much reduced shock-wave and no radioactive pollution.
Residual of nuclear blast damage in space is 70% damage from penetrating radiation and 30% from heat. Larger warheads will have higher heat percentage due self-shielding. Also, space explosion do not have radiation diminishing with distance as rapidly as with terrestrial explosions.

Overall, i suspect for most cases of nuclear explosion in space the kill radius will be determined by penetrating radiation.
 
Is the penetrating radiation of same in a fusion bomb vs. fission? I know that a small fission bomb serves as the trigger for a fusion bomb, but it would have very little effect on yield. Would there be any shock wave at all since there is no medium to carry it?
 
177
89
Is the penetrating radiation of same in a fusion bomb vs. fission? I know that a small fission bomb serves as the trigger for a fusion bomb, but it would have very little effect on yield. Would there be any shock wave at all since there is no medium to carry it?
Regarding penetrating radiation, fission and fusion bomb radiation pulse differ in small details which make difference only to design of lightly shielded automatic spacecraft.
Small shockwave is still formed from the material of bomb itself, even in vacuum. It is not likely to damage assets far enough to survive an initial radiation and heat pulse. Some space war scenarios i seen use the shockwave (fireball) of nuclear explosion in space to blind radar sensors of target, for tandem-warhead style attacks against targets (spaceships) with active defenses.
 
In other words, almost all of the effect would be EM. At 50 million degrees anything solid in the bomb's construction would be reduced to plasma in a nanosecond. Without any other medium there's nothing for the energy to dissipate against. The EM would continue outward forever until absorbed by matter somewhere in the cosmos. I doubt that explosive weapons would be very effective in space for that reason. Kinetic, on the other hand would be effective.
 
1,556
185
I doubt that explosive weapons would be very effective in space for that reason. Kinetic, on the other hand would be effective.
Would it be possible to combine both concepts by using a nuclear warhead to propel projectiles?
 
503
55
Would it be possible to combine both concepts by using a nuclear warhead to propel projectiles?
Isn't that basically the same as a weaponised version of a nuclear propulsion rocket as in Project Orion?
 
1,556
185
Isn't that basically the same as a weaponised version of a nuclear propulsion rocket as in Project Orion?
Yes, that's what I had in mind. But how effective could that be with just a single pulse unit?
 
177
89
Yes, that's what I had in mind. But how effective could that be with just a single pulse unit?
Marginally effective. 10 km/s shrapnel or 80 km/s jet can be produced, with roughly 5% mass efficiency (i.e. 20-ton warhead producing 1 ton of projectiles). Make sense as weapon in very specific technological settings - large yet fragile spaceships with poor propulsion. This topic is related to "Casaba Howitzer" concept.
 

Drakkith

Armchair Scientist
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,290
4,003
Keep in mind the total energy released by the weapon is the same regardless of where it is detonated. The difference is how that energy is proportioned.
 

davenn

Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,291
4,868
Basic rule is what damage of nuclear explosion in space is reduced by 65% (in the yield range of tactical warheads), due much reduced shock-wave and no radioactive pollution.

I doubt that there would be any shockwave ... a shockwave is a mechanical wave (like a sound wave) it needs a medium to travel in
Unless it was set off in the middle of a gaseous mass aka a nebula or a planetary atmosphere, or a dense part of the asteroid belt etc, there would be no shock wave

Dave
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,318
1,367
Standard damage breakdown for tactical-level nuclear explosion:
50% shockwave
25% instant radiation
10% heat
15% radioactive pollution

Basic rule is what damage of nuclear explosion in space is reduced by 65% (in the yield range of tactical warheads), due much reduced shock-wave and no radioactive pollution.
I don't get this 65% reduction. The total released energy is still the same. So the energy that didn't go into the shock-wave, must go somewhere else, like radiation. But it cannot just disappear.
 

jrmichler

Science Advisor
620
513
The original mass of the weapon is still there, minus a small percentage that was converted to energy, but as a fast moving plasma with kinetic energy and momentum.
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,318
1,367
The original mass of the weapon is still there, minus a small percentage that was converted to energy, but as a fast moving plasma with kinetic energy and momentum.
Are you replying to my post #12?
 
177
89
The original mass of the weapon is still there, minus a small percentage that was converted to energy, but as a fast moving plasma with kinetic energy and momentum.
Shockwave of embryonic fireball in vacuum explosion is still here - it formed from outer parts of bomb itself. Being hot and fast, it carry same energy (~50% of bomb energy) as normal airburst shockwave, but at much reduced momentum, resulting in reduced damage. It is the same effect as with conventional grenade shockwave being much more damaging underwater.
Roughly, 1Mt vacuum nuclear explosion in vacuum produce 1 ton, 2.7 PJ shockwave moving at ~2400 km/s.
In near-surface nuclear airburst, secondary fireball at 50m radius weights ~700 tons with same 2.7 PJ energy, producing ~26 times more impulse which is actually doing majority of shockwave damage.
 
Last edited:
I think you answered part of what I was thinking. The case does form a plasma and that is part of the fireball. Seems to be that nukes in space would only be truly effective if the blast was close enough that EM would overwhelm the target, probably kilometers, not tens of kilometers.
 
Last edited:

davenn

Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,291
4,868
Shockwave of embryonic fireball in vacuum explosion is still here - it formed from outer parts of bomb itself. Being hot and fast, it carry same energy (~50% of bomb energy) as normal airburst shockwave
again, a shockwave needs a medium ... there isn't one in space unless in the situations I stated earlier
If you look at large explosions, nuclear or otherwise ( in the atmosphere, on the ground the shockwave is travelling very much faster
than the rest of the material expelled out from the blast
 

davenn

Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,291
4,868
Shockwave of embryonic fireball in vacuum explosion is still here - it formed from outer parts of bomb itself. Being hot and fast, it carry same energy (~50% of bomb energy) as normal airburst shockwave, but at much reduced momentum, resulting in reduced damage. It is the same effect as with conventional grenade shockwave being much more damaging underwater.
Roughly, 1Mt vacuum nuclear explosion in vacuum produce 1 ton, 2.7 PJ shockwave moving at ~2400 km/s.
In near-surface nuclear airburst, secondary fireball at 50m radius weights ~700 tons with same 2.7 PJ energy, producing ~26 times more impulse which is actually doing majority of shockwave damage.
where are you getting these figures from ??
 
177
89
where are you getting these figures from ??
Calculated right now.
again, a shockwave needs a medium ... there isn't one in space unless in the situations I stated earlier
If you look at large explosions, nuclear or otherwise ( in the atmosphere, on the ground the shockwave is travelling very much faster
than the rest of the material expelled out from the blast
You use narrow definition of shockwave (i admit it is standard sanctified by wikipedia) which i feel may be over-constrained for historical reasons. I use more broad definition of shockwave as "phenomenon exhibiting sharp and moving discontinuity of pressure, temperature and density" which do not rely on any medium.
 
Last edited:
1,556
185
This topic is related to "Casaba Howitzer" concept.
Many thanks for this key word. I wasn't aware of the Casaba Howitzer. It seems that such devices have already been experimentaly tested for the SDI program. There is a wide range of possible configuration from nuclear explosive formed projectiles to nuclear powered particle beam weapons and they would be very effective in space. Thus the answer to the OP depends on the type of the warhead. First- and second-generation nuclear weapons (non-isotropic fission or fusion bombs) are far less devastating in vacuum compared to air. Due to the missing medium in space the resulting damage would be limited to a short range. In case of Casaba Howitzer type third-generation nuclear weapons it is the other way around. In space the plasma beam would be devastating even over very large distances (depending on the design up to thousands of kilometres) but it would be almost immediately stopped in air (turning the Casaba Howitzer into a normal nuclear warhead).
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top