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

In summary, a study from Johns Hopkins University discusses the use of nuclear weapons to destroy asteroids and how this may not be effective due to the asteroid's core regenerating. This idea has been criticized in the past and the study highlights the importance of finding alternative methods to deflect the asteroid's path. The study also points out the misconception that nuking an asteroid removes its mass. The paper primarily focuses on asteroid collisions and the simulation developed can be useful in the long term. However, introducing the study as being about nukes was misleading and clickbait.
  • #1
Mlesnita Daniel
16
2
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
I guess for asteriods an appropriately timed gentle touch is better than a heavy hand.
 
  • #3
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 russ_watters
  • #4
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: 631
  • #5
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 jim mcnamara
  • #6
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. :)
 
  • #7
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...
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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 krater

1. What was the previous belief about destroying asteroids?

The previous belief was that nuking asteroids was the most effective way to destroy them and prevent them from colliding with Earth.

2. Why is nuking asteroids now considered a bad idea?

Nuking asteroids can actually make the situation worse by breaking them into smaller pieces that can still cause damage to Earth. Additionally, the nuclear fallout could also harm the environment and living beings.

3. What is the current understanding of asteroid destruction?

The current understanding is that using kinetic impactors or deflection methods are more effective and safer ways to destroy or divert asteroids from colliding with Earth.

4. Are there any other potential negative consequences of nuking asteroids?

Aside from the potential environmental and health hazards, nuking asteroids could also create a false sense of security and discourage the development of more effective and sustainable methods of asteroid defense.

5. How can we ensure the safety of Earth from potential asteroid impacts?

Continued research and development of various asteroid defense methods, as well as early detection and tracking of potentially hazardous asteroids, are crucial in ensuring the safety of Earth. International collaboration and funding for these efforts are also important in mitigating the threat of asteroid impacts.

Similar threads

B Destroying asteroids shown to be very difficult
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
Is asteroid mining the key to solving world economic problems?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
969
Good progress in my studies, bad progress in my self-esteem
    • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
7K
Admissions Help with SOPs and US admissions (Ph.D. math)
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
2K
Schools PGRE - A message to undergrads from physics grad school.
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 267)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top