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

Last edited by a moderator:
10,253
3,801
I guess for asteriods an appropriately timed gentle touch is better than a heavy hand.
 
1,152
549
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
 
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

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,065
1,094
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.
 
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. :)
 
1,152
549
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...
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,065
1,094
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.
 
1,152
549
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:
91
31
Redundant thread, see here
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,749
3,522
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.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Previous thoughts on destroying asteroids were wrong: Nuking them is a bad idea" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

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