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

[Mlesnita Daniel]

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.

More details here: https://releases.jhu.edu/2019/03/04...er-harder-to-destroy-than-previously-thought/

 

[jedishrfu]

I guess for asteriods an appropriately timed gentle touch is better than a heavy hand.

 

[Rive]

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

 

[Mlesnita Daniel]

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

You can see it in the simulation.

 

[phyzguy]

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.

 

[Mlesnita Daniel]

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. :)

 

[Rive]

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]

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.

 

[Rive]

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

 

[krater]

Redundant thread, see here

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.