2
   

Nuclear explosions in space?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2005 10:10 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I think what you are missin' is the effect of a thermonuclear blast. The first one-megaton yield thermonuclear blast occurred in 1952 at Bikini Atoll. The fireball was over a mile in diameter, and it is estimated some 80 million tons of earth, plus a similar-if-not-greater volume of water, was vaporized - not blown around, VAPORIZED. What recondensed into materially substantial - if still near-microscopic - matter fell as thousands of tons of "fallout" over tens of thousands of square miles through a period of several months. It took that long for much of it to make its way back to the surface of the planet from the upper reaches of the atmosphere, so insubstantial was it. A good bit of it still is in the upper atmosphere.

If whatever remains of the vaporized matter is ejected from the meteor at a high speed, then it simply does not matter at all whether is it big chunks of rock or has been reduced down to individual free atoms, or ions, or even elementary particles. And it certainly doesn't matter what happens to it after the explosion. Conservation of momentum can only be satisfied if the meteor's momentum changes by an equal and opposite amount.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2005 10:29 pm
Granted, Brandon, but what I'm gettin' at here is that not a lot of the asteroid would be left in any substantial, coherent state - that's what "Vaporized" is all about. An embedded, or even very-nearby - multi-megaton blast will likely go a long, long way toward preventin' any appreciable, coherent mass from gettin' anywhere followin' the blast.
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2005 11:56 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I think what you are missin' is the effect of a thermonuclear blast. The first one-megaton yield thermonuclear blast occurred in 1952 at Bikini Atoll. The fireball was over a mile in diameter, and it is estimated some 80 million tons of earth, plus a similar-if-not-greater volume of water, was vaporized - not blown around, VAPORIZED. What recondensed into materially substantial - if still near-microscopic - matter fell as thousands of tons of "fallout" over tens of thousands of square miles through a period of several months. It took that long for much of it to make its way back to the surface of the planet from the upper reaches of the atmosphere, so insubstantial was it. A good bit of it still is in the upper atmosphere.

Edit to add - for reference, a cubic meter of crushed iron ore goes about 2500kg, natural sand and gravel weighs around 1650-1800kg/cubic meter.

Oh Timber, I think I understand what is going on.

You think that "obliterating" or "VAPORING" or "destroying" something gets rid of it. Like it goes away, or becomes pretty much nothing. But, "Conservation of Mass"! Please oh please oh please look it up.

It comes out so visibly here:
"some 80 million tons of earth, plus a similar-if-not-greater volume of water, was vaporized"
That mean 160 million tons of mass (material) went up. And then ...
Quote:
"matter fell as thousands of tons of "fallout" over tens of thousands of square miles through a period of several months. It took that long for much of it to make its way back to the surface of the planet from the upper reaches of the atmosphere, so insubstantial was it. A good bit of it still is in the upper atmosphere."


That just means all that matter was distributed across a larger space. That's all.
If 160 million tons went up, but only thousands of tons down . . .
then over 159 million tons of debris is still up in the air.

Nothing disappears. You can blow it up. You can smash it. You can VAPORIZE it to smithereens ... but it's still actually there. Think: vapor means vapor. It's the same exact substance, in the same exact quantity, except now it's swirling around instead of sitting still. That's all. That's the ONLY difference when you vaporize something.

"not blown around, VAPORIZED" -- THOSE ARE SYNONYMS! A vapor is anything that keeps blowing around. The molecules don't stay in one given place.

You can't get a rope on it. You can't put a shovel onto it, or grab it with two hands. It's a vapor. It still has a mass (NOT a weight) of 159 million tons, like the massive amounts of smoke that comes from chimneys. But it's still a mass. It still has momentum. And you can still propel it at very high speed to create the same exact thrust. Solid or gas, it's still the same damn molecules.

A "coherent" state is for laser beams. Coherence doesn't matter a whit to the 159 million tons we're talking about. It's still 159 million tons of stuff that carries momentum.

It's always interesting to see how vocabulary gets in our way sometimes . . . If we can find the
right words to say it, then so much understanding comes together all at once.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:06 am
timberlandko wrote:
Granted, Brandon, but what I'm gettin' at here is that not a lot of the asteroid would be left in any substantial, coherent state - that's what "Vaporized" is all about. An embedded, or even very-nearby - multi-megaton blast will likely go a long, long way toward preventin' any appreciable, coherent mass from gettin' anywhere followin' the blast.

We get it. It doesn't matter.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:12 am
OK - for "coherent" substitute "intact", or even "reasonably intact". An asteroid of around a couple cubic miles of mass treated to a very close encounter with a few multi-dozen-megaton-yield thermonuclear explosions - even just one - will not be anywhere near even somewhat intact. Sure the mass is there, but as I said, that "THERE" would be a very large, very diffuse "THERE", with any given volume of it containin' very little matter by comparison with the volume at question. A cubic mile of rock weighin' millions of tons will do a lotta damage to a planet and its atmosphere. Spread that millions of tons into a gas-and-dust cloud a few million cubic miles in volume, and there's likely to be much much less effect on any planet that crosses its diaphanous path.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:20 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
We get it. It doesn't matter.


I think it would matter to me if I happened to be on the planet in question. Matter a lot. Laughing
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:28 am
And we don't have to vaporize the whole meteor.

Knocking 1% off of it would be WAY more than enough... if it's sent flying off at moderately high speed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:43 am
timberlandko wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
We get it. It doesn't matter.


I think it would matter to me if I happened to be on the planet in question. Matter a lot. Laughing

I said, even if it's reduced to individual atoms, even if it's converted to energy, even if it's reduced to subatomic particles, the momentum transfer works fine. What part of that don't you get?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 12:47 am
I get that, Brandon - I don't dispute it a bit. Breezin' through a cloud is gonna hurt a lot less than gettin' hit by a rock, even if both weigh exactly the same and the velocities involved are comparable - or do you disagree with that?
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 01:22 am
Why does my brain feel like a bumper car?

Laughing Is the ride over?
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 01:30 am
That ain't necessarily so

Considering that cloud you're traveling through consists of high energy particles and radiation, you'll be cooked radiologically, shedding your alimentary canal and bleeding internally. It's an acute death, but it may not be quick depending upon dose.

Personally, given the choice of death by being penetrated by high velocity rocks, and being penetrated by high energy radiation--I'd take the former.

Rap
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 01:40 am
I'm tired of this one, too. I guess its time to find a new ride Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 01:54 am
timberlandko wrote:
I get that, Brandon - I don't dispute it a bit.

You don't seem to get it at all.

timberlandko wrote:
Breezin' through a cloud is gonna hurt a lot less than gettin' hit by a rock, even if both weigh exactly the same and the velocities involved are comparable - or do you disagree with that?

It doesn't arise as a question. You bury your bombs on the meteor. When they explode, if matter is thrown off from the explosion at high speed, it doesn't matter what it's form, only it's mass and velocity. Clouds, plasma, particles, diffuse, dense, a million degrees, ten million degrees. It doesn't matter. It all works as reaction mass.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 01:55 am
raprap wrote:
That ain't necessarily so

Considering that cloud you're traveling through consists of high energy particles and radiation, you'll be cooked radiologically, shedding your alimentary canal and bleeding internally. It's an acute death, but it may not be quick depending upon dose.

Personally, given the choice of death by being penetrated by high velocity rocks, and being penetrated by high energy radiation--I'd take the former.

Rap

Actually, we were discussing whether it functioned as reaction mass in a conservation of momentum situation.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 07:12 am
Timber, quick question:

Are you saying that the vaporized matter ejected from the blast will not contribute to moving the main mass in the opposite direction?

Or are you saying that the entire asteroid, or enough of the asteroid so as to leave only insignificant bits behind, will be vaporized during the blast(s)?


As for the first, the vaporized matter certainly does propel the asteroid. If you take some gravel on the asteroid and make it go thataway then the rest of the asteroid will be pushed an equal amount in the opposite direction. Now vaporize the gravel and make it go thataway... the asteroid's still pushed an equal amount in the opposite direction.

As for the second, breaking up a asteroid into chunks, say, less than 10 cubic meters would certainly keep it from being a single large impact on the Earth.

Take a 1 km chunk of rock and hit it with a 50 mt blast and there probably won't be much left of a solid core. But the whole thing probably won't be vaporized, either. You've created millions of small, fast, randomly distributed moving masses. Better, IMO, to calculate the blasts appropriately so as to leave the mass of the asteroid intact.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 07:48 am
Brandon Wrote
Quote:
Actually, we were discussing whether it functioned as reaction mass in a conservation of momentum situation.


Yes I was speaking as if you were on the receiving end of the explosion. Besides light has pressure based upon the speed and energy of the photon, As for particles *atomic particles (alpha beta or otherwise) and expelled mass they all have a direction, mass and velocity which will contribute to the specific impulse pnm the reaction mass.

Rap
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 08:01 am
And to think I was looking for an easy answer... Laughing

You guys are amazing in explaining all of this. So much to consider!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 08:19 am
Make sure your chapeau is tin-foil lined, Squinney, just in case . . .
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 11:05 am
Check! Laughing
0 Replies
 
anastas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2005 06:46 pm
Ideally, every one of the atoms in a meteor, separated, hitting you would feel the same as if the meteor itself hit you. But there is an athmosphere; all those particles - whether they be dust, molecules, or even atoms - will go through a lot of resistance in the atmoshpere. You wouldn;t feel a thing.

As a matter of fact, molecules in the air travel at several hundred milles per hour, and there are countless billions of atoms hitting you each second. Ever wonder why you don't feel like you're being hit by a truck all the time?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 06:45:35