What damage would a bomb explosion cause in a vacuum?

[timejim]

I am wondering, if a bomb exploded in the "vacuum" of space, without an atmosphere to cause a pressure wave, what would be the destructive area of the bomb, or would there be any?

 

[Loren Booda]

The energy of an explosion in vacuum would be distributed over a greater volume, unrestricted by an atmosphere. In space the supersonic solid debris, light, gas and heat from the blast would constitute by far the majority of this resultant energy.

 

[enigma]

You wouldn't have a pressure wave, but you would get impacted by tons of high energy microscopic particles.

Damage would probably be higher in close proximity merely due to the increased particle flux, but I'd guess the damage would not be as great as it would be in an atmosphere.

 

[HallsofIvy]

"Destructive area"? In vacuum what would there be to destroy?

 

[pallidin]

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
"Destructive area"? In vacuum what would there be to destroy?

It should be obvious the he meant "potentially destructive area" and is how I interpreted his question regardless of the actual words used.

 

[Loren Booda]

Perhaps he intended to say something more like "cross-section."

 

[kuengb]

I am wondering, if a bomb exploded in the "vacuum" of space, without an atmosphere to cause a pressure wave, what would be the destructive area of the bomb, or would there be any?

Got you, timejim! You're a secret agent of the Pentagon on research for the future "galaxy wars" weapons system, aren't ya? Hahaa! If you can get me a job in that project I won't tell anybody, ok?

 

[MisterBig]

As an aside to this question, whenever I see an explosion in space on TV it always has a taurus carrying the energy away. Does this really happen and if so what defines its plane?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by MisterBig
As an aside to this question, whenever I see an explosion in space on TV it always has a taurus carrying the energy away. Does this really happen and if so what defines its plane?

I think you mean 'torus'; cool huh? It sure happens in movies; I guess the plane is defined by the special effects team.

Seriously, as far as we know, the preferred 'plane' for cosmic explosions - e.g. gamma ray bursts and supernovae (at least some kinds) is the rotational axis of the poor star - the burst goes through the poles.

For http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html - which may be responsible for the short duration GRBs - I guess the preferred plane of emission would be related to the magnetic field in some way.

[Edit: added link to a magnetar website]

 

[MisterBig]

Originally posted by Nereid
I think you mean 'torus'; cool huh? It sure happens in movies; I guess the plane is defined by the special effects team.

It does look cool, look better with a big bull rising out of the flames though!

Originally posted by Nereid
Seriously, as far as we know, the preferred 'plane' for cosmic explosions - e.g. gamma ray bursts and supernovae (at least some kinds) is the rotational axis of the poor star - the burst goes through the poles.

So they do exist then. I take it they’re made of whatever’s left of whatever exploded? Does the force of the blast travel primarily in this plane?

Originally posted by Nereid
For magnetars - which may be responsible for the short duration GRBs - I guess the preferred plane of emission would be related to the magnetic field in some way. [/B]

How about if a nuclear or chemical explosive where to be let of in space?

 

[Artman]

I would think that the destructive pattern would diminish as an inverse square to the distance from the blast.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by MisterBig
How about if a nuclear or chemical explosive where to be let of in space?

AFAIK, the main difference between an explosion 'in space' and one in the atmosphere is that for the latter the air slows the matter accelerated by the explosion (gas, solid fragments). If the 'bomb' is designed to go off with preferred directions (e.g. a 'shaped' explosive), it'll do the same 'in space'. On Earth, the thing which really makes a difference is, well, the Earth!

 

[Gara]

a nuke in space would be an omnidirectional blast. there would be no mushroom cloud, it would be exspanding in all directions, for far greater distance than it would on earth, but, there would also be no shockwave. greatly reducing the potential damage. also, the only damage area would be where the fireball is.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by Gara
a nuke in space would be an omnidirectional blast. there would be no mushroom cloud, it would be exspanding in all directions, for far greater distance than it would on earth, but, there would also be no shockwave. greatly reducing the potential damage. also, the only damage area would be where the fireball is.

In a space nuke explosion...I'd be more worried about the neutron and X-ray emissions.

 

[Artman]

Originally posted by Gara
also, the only damage area would be where the fireball is.

Fire requires fuel, oxygen, heat. I don't think there would be a fireball. It would be interesting to know what would happen.

I imagine that The debris would shred through anything close to the blast, but it would be silent and as you said no shockwave.

 

[Loren Booda]

Remember the epoch of decoupling and the resultant "fireball."

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Artman
Fire requires fuel, oxygen, heat. I don't think there would be a fireball. It would be interesting to know what would happen.

I imagine that The debris would shred through anything close to the blast, but it would be silent and as you said no shockwave.

Let's say we have 10 kg of H, maybe mixed deuterium and tritium. we compress it and heat it (all in deep space, without any other 'material' intervention) and much of it fuses to He (etc).

Now we've got ~10 kg of H and He at a temperature of (say) 100 million degrees*, surrounded by a vacuum more perfect than we can create on Earth.

What happens?

We can run the same thought experiment, with a Chinese firecracker, a hand grenade, a mortar shell, a 2000 pound bomb, (but not a MOAB).

*Anyone have a reference to the temperature of a pure H-fusion 'bomb'? It'd likely also be ~the temperature at which ITER (etc) would yield net energy.

[Edit: added * note]

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Artman,
The oxygen used for combustion in many gunpowders is contained within the powder itself, in the nitrates. (potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate) -Mike

 

[Gara]

not all "fire" needs oxygen. don't forget its a nuke we're talking about. the "fireball" is pure released energy. the same way the sun is "on fire".

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Gara,
Read first post. Where says nuke?

 

[LURCH]

A nuke in space generates a tremendous fireball. The fire is not from an O₂ reaction, but is nonetheless a huge sphere of EM radiation of all kinds. In all the footage I have seen, there has never been a torus (nor a taurus, for that matter!), and the greatest potential as a weapon is its disruptive EMP. When nuclear testing in space was first tried, the radiation from the blast interacted with the ionosphere and caused widespread power outages.

The visible shape of the blast is indeed perfectly spherical with no mushroom cloud. It looks kinda like a new Sun emerging. Very pretty.

 

[Claude Bile]

If there is no atmospheric shock wave, the energy must travel outward by some other means, I would imagine by a greater radiation flux outward from the blast and the blast 'shrapnel' - fragments of the bomb having greater kinetic energy.

In other words, the transfer from these forms of energy to a gaseous fluid such as the atmosphere that would result in the atmospheric shock wave on Earth would not occur in space.

Claude.

 

[dcl]

Originally posted by LURCH
A nuke in space generates a tremendous fireball. The fire is not from an O₂ reaction, but is nonetheless a huge sphere of EM radiation of all kinds. In all the footage I have seen, there has never been a torus (nor a taurus, for that matter!), and the greatest potential as a weapon is its disruptive EMP. When nuclear testing in space was first tried, the radiation from the blast interacted with the ionosphere and caused widespread power outages.

The visible shape of the blast is indeed perfectly spherical with no mushroom cloud. It looks kinda like a new Sun emerging. Very pretty.

Any pictures or videos of this available?

 

[Loren Booda]

LURCH,

please, more details about an actual nuclear bomb exploding in space! This must have been a "secret" project, at least I've never heard of it.

 

[LURCH]

Not a secret, you can buy the video tapes from Time Life Books. It was part of the US and USSR's race. Some of the biggest bombs ever detonated were set off in space. These projects were far from secret; the whole idea was that the other nation could not help but see it, and be impressed and frightened by the destructive force of your weapon. Also, your own citezens were to be comforted by that same knowledge. so both sides made sure everybody saw it; it was big news at the time.

 

[Nereid]

I could only find a vague reference to four upper atmosphere/space bomb tests by the USSR, pre-1964. Maybe my google search words aren't very good

I don't doubt that there were space tests, just as LURCH says; just that I can't find on-line references.

Can anyone give us some links?

 

[Gara]

it was from MisterBig

"How about if a nuclear or chemical explosive where to be let of in space?"

 

[LURCH]

Don't have a link to nay data, but there is a movei that specifically covers this topic an sale here .

 

[FZ+]

How about looking for Project Orion, the plan to power spacecraft by nuclear blasts? I don't think they could have made the proper calculations without tests.

That stuff may still be classified, though.