Previous thoughts on destroying asteroids were wrong: Nuking them is a bad idea

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a study from Johns Hopkins University that concludes using nuclear weapons to destroy asteroids is ineffective, as a core remains intact within two hours post-detonation. Participants argue that deflecting an asteroid's path is a more feasible and effective approach than attempting to destroy it. The conversation critiques the study's focus on nuclear solutions while emphasizing the need for research on mass loss and trajectory changes during asteroid collisions. Overall, the consensus is that the notion of nuking asteroids is misguided and oversimplified.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of asteroid composition and structure
  • Familiarity with nuclear physics and its implications for asteroid impact
  • Knowledge of asteroid deflection techniques
  • Awareness of current space research methodologies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research asteroid deflection methods, focusing on kinetic impactors and gravity tractors
  • Examine the implications of the Johns Hopkins University study on asteroid collision dynamics
  • Explore the physics of nuclear detonations and their effects on large celestial bodies
  • Investigate alternative asteroid mitigation strategies beyond nuclear options
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, planetary scientists, aerospace engineers, and policymakers involved in planetary defense and asteroid impact mitigation strategies.

Mlesnita Daniel
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I guess for asteriods an appropriately timed gentle touch is better than a heavy hand.
 
The paper is about collision between asteroids, the introduction is about nukes.
I see no account for the material what will actually leave the 'core'
So far seems like just another strict study deformed to be a clickbait o_O
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
Rive said:
The paper is about collision between asteroids, the introduction is about nukes.
I see no account for the material what will actually leave the 'core'
So far seems like just another strict study deformed to be a clickbait o_O

You can see it in the simulation.

tilesstage2-1024x517.png
 

Attachments

  • tilesstage2-1024x517.png
    tilesstage2-1024x517.png
    244.2 KB · Views: 703
Mlesnita Daniel said:
This study from Johns Hopkins University shows that even if we manage to nuke an asteroid and "destroy" it, it will have a core back, in almost 2 hours.

Nuking them was a bad idea before, but now seems worse.

Who's "we"? Only Bruce Willis fans ever thought it was a good idea.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara
phyzguy said:
Who's "we"? Only Bruce Willis fans ever thought it was a good idea.

You would be surprised to see how many think that it is a good idea. :)
 
phyzguy said:
Only Bruce Willis fans ever thought it was a good idea.
I don't really know about good or bad: rather, the only one which seems to be feasible right now...
 
Rive said:
I don't really know about good or bad: rather, the only one which seems to be feasible right now...

Why do you think that? Where is the necessity to "destroy" an oncoming asteroid? Deflecting it's path so that it doesn't hit the Earth is much easier, cheaper, and more effective.
 
phyzguy said:
Deflecting it's path so that it doesn't hit the Earth is much easier, cheaper, and more effective.
The problem is, that we don't have any means to achieve that right now - unless with nukes. Nothing else can provide the necessary energy within the mass limits we can actually deliver to an asteroid (which is still distant enough to make noticeable change).

It is easy to make fun of the BW believers due their misunderstanding over nukes (blow it to pieces! That always works - in movies, at least...), but the fact is, that the matter at hand is just as frequently misunderstood by the opposite party too.

So, this study (if meant to be about nuking asteroids instead of asteroid collisions) should have been about the loss off mass and the change of course in case of various impact points, depths and yields.
But the study is about collision. A fascinating thing and the model developed will be useful at long term, but to introduce it as being about nukes made it just a sad clickbait :sorry:
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Redundant thread, see here
 
  • #11
Mlesnita Daniel said:
You would be surprised to see how many think that it is a good idea. :)
I wouldn't be surprised about the existence of any group which hold loopy and ill-informed ideas. Start with the anti-vaccine movement.
The 'nukem' belief is based on the false idea that nuking something removes its mass.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: krater

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K