Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Explosions in space

  • 18-08-2010 10:23am
    #1
    Xios
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,073 ✭✭✭


    And how films get it wrong, or so i think.
    Thinking about a scene in Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2, a nuclear bomb detonates in the upper atmosphere, seen by astronauts in the ISS. So the nuke goes off, and the blast wave comes along and shreds the spacemen and knocks the flying towards the camera in dramatic fashion.

    So my question is, have they got it wrong? I believe explosive damage is caused by the pressure wave coming from the blast, not by the debree or shrapnel, but in space there's no medium for a wave to travel, just the bits from the bomb. Is this why nukes won't work on astroid/comets? Or is that a mass vs. energy thing?


Comments

  • #2
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,103 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    There will be a "wave" of debris, but there won't be any precussive wave.


  • #3
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    True, the blast damage, a pressure wave, is devastating. If you ever have the opportunity to study the damage done by projectiles such as bullets, you'll be amazed at how much damage the pressure wave does as opposed to actual contact with the bullet itself.

    The problem here is the size of asteroids and comets. One nuclear bomb is devastating to life and its support systems, however, not an effective tool to destroy large celestial bodies. If there's a nuclear blast, the safest place to be is underground. Surface blasts don't cause the extent of damage underground as they do above.

    Consider Comet Shoemaker 9 Levy, that was observed to hit Jupiter. There's lots of estimates out there. However, it is safe to say that the Comet hit Jupiter with a force of over a million atomic bombs like those used at Hiroshima. Some estimates are over a billion. Others I have heard liken the force to 10,000 100 megatons. The Hiroshima bomb was not a MegaTons, but around 15 kiloTons.

    Anyway you slice this problem, we have sever order of magnitude problems. First, our Forces are WAY too small.

    Also, remember that most of these warheads are on missiles are not designed to go into orbit. Most ICBMs are exo-atmospheric and are designed to go to a country, not too the moon. In fact, they would not make it to the moon. Right now, there's nothing that could go to the moon tomorrow.

    We need to zap the body as far away as possible to ensure that we are not hit by even more large pieces that could be just as devastating. A kill shot on a body inside of the moon's orbit would be challenging to say the least.


Advertisement