Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Nuclear bomb could save Earth


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#16    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,564 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:28 AM

View Postkobolds, on 16 March 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

depend on the size of asteroid and volume  . if it's as small and light as the satellite  then yes .   if it's the size of an island then NO .



You have no idea what I quoted, or why,  do you? ( on the reply you quoted of mine )

That should not have been a question by the way.............


I hate when people do not read entire topics......Just my opinion.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#17    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,694 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 04:34 AM

I think that clearly the OP article is true. 1 Megaton is big sure, but not enough to irradiate any real sizable portion of the Earth for any long amount of time. Blasting the asteroid would be the difference between being hit by a brick or a snowball. Even most large (Train sized) meteors don't make it to the ground.

What would be better still is to predict an asteroid strike ahead of time and send out a 1 Kiloton nuke to nudge it somewhere else. Or purposefully push it into the Moon.

It all really depends on the size, doesn't it?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#18    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,564 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 04:42 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 16 March 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

It all really depends on the size, doesn't it?

I was told size does not matter......

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#19    27vet

27vet

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the tropics

  • Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:49 AM

With all the cutbacks in the space program? We don't have space shuttles anymore so how are they going to get to the asteroid to set up the bomb? As depicted in Armageddon, it will probably be necessary to place the device below the surface of the asteroid.


#20    bouncer

bouncer

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 745 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. East Midlands

Posted 16 March 2012 - 11:20 AM

View Post27vet, on 16 March 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

With all the cutbacks in the space program? We don't have space shuttles anymore so how are they going to get to the asteroid to set up the bomb? As depicted in Armageddon, it will probably be necessary to place the device below the surface of the asteroid.


Im not an expert on nukes, but using the Hiroshima example, it seemed to destroy so much 'on' the earth....but not the 'earth' itself if you know what I mean? It was a heck of a bomb for sure!

Even the Bruce Willis movie...(and ok its just a movie)...but they had to drill deep into the asteroid in order to have the nukes fracture it sufficiently. so would just sending a bomb towards an asteroid actually do anything - except, maybe, (if blast waves behave in the same in space) giving it a wobble?


#21    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,622 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:42 PM

View Postbouncer, on 16 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Im not an expert on nukes, but using the Hiroshima example, it seemed to destroy so much 'on' the earth....but not the 'earth' itself if you know what I mean? It was a heck of a bomb for sure!

Even the Bruce Willis movie...(and ok its just a movie)...but they had to drill deep into the asteroid in order to have the nukes fracture it sufficiently. so would just sending a bomb towards an asteroid actually do anything - except, maybe, (if blast waves behave in the same in space) giving it a wobble?

Hiroshima was blown up over the town, not on the ground. The reason for that is that strong explosions above ground level cause a much bigger shock wave then if their energy goes partly into the ground.

And you are right, blowing up something on the surface of an asteroid is only going to shift its orbit a little... maybe even making it worse. You would need to drill a hole into it, place the bomb there and then blow the thingy up to get a lot of little pieces.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#22    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:47 PM

View Postbouncer, on 16 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Im not an expert on nukes, but using the Hiroshima example, it seemed to destroy so much 'on' the earth....but not the 'earth' itself if you know what I mean? It was a heck of a bomb for sure!

Even the Bruce Willis movie...(and ok its just a movie)...but they had to drill deep into the asteroid in order to have the nukes fracture it sufficiently. so would just sending a bomb towards an asteroid actually do anything - except, maybe, (if blast waves behave in the same in space) giving it a wobble?

At Hiroshima the bomb was detonated at about 580m (1900ft) of altitude. It surely wiped out pretty much everything on the surface but effectively, the earth itself wasen't literally blown away.

I was thinking about the same. How would a nuclear explosion behave in vaccum (space)?

The energy released comes from the blast, thermal radiation, ionizing radiations and residual radiations.

How would that all be affected by vacuum? Radiations can travel in vacuum but what about the blast? I don't think there can be a blast in space. We would perhaps have to drill a hole and put the bomb down so it has some "matter" to propagate the shockwave.

And how heat is going to affect the asteroid when thermal radiation hit it? What about the ionizing radiations (extreme UV and beyond)? Are they going to be sufficient to "destroy" the asteroid or affect it in anyway sufficiently?

Edited by JayMark, 16 March 2012 - 01:49 PM.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#23    bouncer

bouncer

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 745 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. East Midlands

Posted 16 March 2012 - 05:56 PM

View PostJayMark, on 16 March 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

At Hiroshima the bomb was detonated at about 580m (1900ft) of altitude. It surely wiped out pretty much everything on the surface but effectively, the earth itself wasen't literally blown away.

I was thinking about the same. How would a nuclear explosion behave in vaccum (space)?

The energy released comes from the blast, thermal radiation, ionizing radiations and residual radiations.

How would that all be affected by vacuum? Radiations can travel in vacuum but what about the blast? I don't think there can be a blast in space. We would perhaps have to drill a hole and put the bomb down so it has some "matter" to propagate the shockwave.

And how heat is going to affect the asteroid when thermal radiation hit it? What about the ionizing radiations (extreme UV and beyond)? Are they going to be sufficient to "destroy" the asteroid or affect it in anyway sufficiently?


yeh got me thinking now, more so anyway, so

heres a snip:

"If we have an asteroid that is really large, and we don't have more than a few years notice, nuclear is probably all we can do," Morrison told SPACE.com. "If it's a mile or smaller and we have 10 to 20 years warning, we probably won't go nuclear."

In such cases, scientists could opt to impact the asteroid with a ballistic rocket, sending the cosmic interloper off course.

source:  http://www.space.com...-asteroids.html


and:

"On a human scale, a nuclear weapon is a very powerful thing.

But compared to things that happen all the time within just our solar system, it is like a flea on a Great Dane - completely inconsequential.

The fusion reactions in any star release, every second, billions of times the amount of energy contained in the most powerful weapon that people can create.

One of the effects of any bomb on earth is the blast wave - created by the almost instant compression of the atmosphere at the point of the blast. That pressure wave propagates outward and contains enough energy to destroy buildings. In space, there is no atmosphere, so there is no such pressure wave".

source: http://answers.yahoo...30115124AAAWJfG

Ok its yahoo answers but is seems reasonable!!

Edited by bouncer, 16 March 2012 - 05:56 PM.


#24    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:24 PM

View Postbouncer, on 16 March 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

yeh got me thinking now, more so anyway, so

heres a snip:

"If we have an asteroid that is really large, and we don't have more than a few years notice, nuclear is probably all we can do," Morrison told SPACE.com. "If it's a mile or smaller and we have 10 to 20 years warning, we probably won't go nuclear."

In such cases, scientists could opt to impact the asteroid with a ballistic rocket, sending the cosmic interloper off course.

source:  http://www.space.com...-asteroids.html


and:

"On a human scale, a nuclear weapon is a very powerful thing.

But compared to things that happen all the time within just our solar system, it is like a flea on a Great Dane - completely inconsequential.

The fusion reactions in any star release, every second, billions of times the amount of energy contained in the most powerful weapon that people can create.

One of the effects of any bomb on earth is the blast wave - created by the almost instant compression of the atmosphere at the point of the blast. That pressure wave propagates outward and contains enough energy to destroy buildings. In space, there is no atmosphere, so there is no such pressure wave".

source: http://answers.yahoo...30115124AAAWJfG

Ok its yahoo answers but is seems reasonable!!

Good. That's pretty much what I thought.

Thank you.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#25    27vet

27vet

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the tropics

  • Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:27 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 16 March 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Hiroshima was blown up over the town, not on the ground. The reason for that is that strong explosions above ground level cause a much bigger shock wave then if their energy goes partly into the ground.

And you are right, blowing up something on the surface of an asteroid is only going to shift its orbit a little... maybe even making it worse. You would need to drill a hole into it, place the bomb there and then blow the thingy up to get a lot of little pieces.

Quite correct IMHO.





#26    bouncer

bouncer

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 745 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. East Midlands

Posted 17 March 2012 - 08:50 PM

So basically then, if a real biggie comes our way, we're all screwed.

So the moral is, enjoy yourself, while you still got the time! make the best out of your life! Live every minute like its your last!


#27    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,967 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:47 PM

I wondered if attaching a device to create directional thrust could move the thing into a more harmless trajectory.  Then I realized that we'd just be buying time because we don't know that it wouldn't then strike several other boulders and send them our way.  I think we will see a huge one in the next 50-100 years.  Not a planet killer but one that will rearrange the furniture in a big way...JMO

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#28    27vet

27vet

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the tropics

  • Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:49 PM

The probability of that happening right now is low. Look at Timeline of the far future and Timeline of the near future

There is another interesting page Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale

We will more likely be wiped out by overpopulation.


#29    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,622 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:01 PM

View Post27vet, on 17 March 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

The probability of that happening right now is low. Look at Timeline of the far future and Timeline of the near future

There is another interesting page Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale

We will more likely be wiped out by overpopulation.

Or by some bug mutated through uncontrolled feeding of antibiotics in feedlots.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#30    bouncer

bouncer

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 745 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. East Midlands

Posted 18 March 2012 - 09:51 AM

View Post27vet, on 17 March 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

The probability of that happening right now is low. Look at Timeline of the far future and Timeline of the near future

There is another interesting page Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale

We will more likely be wiped out by overpopulation.


Over population? My view is that natural disasters/diseases seem to regulate things like that. Imagine if the bird-flu virus really takes off in mankind!  Various flu's have killed millions!

The 1918 flu pandemic for example! The pandemic lasted from March 1918 to June 1920  spreading to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. Between 50 and 100 million died, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history. Even using the lower estimate of 50 million people, 3% of the world's population (which was 1.86 billion at the time[9]) died of the disease. Some 500 million, or 27%, were infected.[5]

source WIKI.

Then we have air pollution which is tagged to be a massive killer in the future..

Quote:  "Air pollution 'will become a bigger global killer than dirty water"

see: http://www.guardian....st-killer-water

Then you only need some terrorist organization to release chemical weapons in a city, and that will likewise kill thousands/millions too.

Edited by bouncer, 18 March 2012 - 10:00 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users