In the event of an asteriod on a collision course for earth or for any other reason, would a nuclear bomb be as affective in outer space?

Would the lack of oxygen have anything to do with it?

Peace:D

Lack of oxygen has nothing to do with it. The fact that space is a vacuum might.You woudl have to get teh bomb onto or at least very close to the asteriod as the shock wave that marks earthbound explosions would be so weak as to be nonexistant.

Originally posted by Gifted
Lack of oxygen has nothing to do with it. The fact that space is a vacuum might.You woudl have to get teh bomb onto or at least very close to the asteriod as the shock wave that marks earthbound explosions would be so weak as to be nonexistant.

true, it would be ideal if it was shot into a (small, e.g. 20 metre) tunnel at the side thus directing 100% of the force of the nuclear explosion the way you want. This provided that the tunnel then directs the blast, instead of just blowing up more rock. Just shooting it into the asteroid from our side is bogus, as slowing down the asteroid wouldn't help :D .
All depending of molecular structure of the asteroid it might not be a great idea though to hit the asteroid at all, as the shockwave that then does travel through the asteroid might break it in pieces (partly; or break it in half, all depends on size & structure and so on).

Anyway I think that like Gifted said, the lack of an atmosphere (oxygen is only 21% ey gifted :P ) wil reduce the shockwave to nothing. Furthermore, maybe the explosion will be slightly (VERY slightly, will be less than a percent) lighter as in an earth-bbased explosion the surrounding air (read: oxygen) might burn by the heat and radiation of the explosion.

well I think that was enough vague blattering from my side for now

A blu-109 is designed to penetrate 6 ft of reinforced concrete. That design is old. We could get a warhead probably 50 ft inot the asteriod. And who cares about small pieces as long as they burn up in the atmosphere.

just use one of those 'forward explosion' devices that blow a hole in the asteroid and then let the nuke enter that (kinda hard aiming but hey). The prob with pieces is that the projectory of the asteroid will still be aimed at Earth as the energy of the explosion goes into breaking up the asteroid insted of changing the direction it's moving. Depends on the size of the thing if we can manage a load of debris or not. I think (no mathematical/physical calculations, just thinking) that the absolute maximum we can take is about 50 to 100 metre (diameter of the asteroid before blowing it up with nuke(s)). That still is a LOT when you know ordinary meteors are made out of dust smaller than sand, we need a good hydrogen/neutron nuke there :p

The size of the asteroid is not really the problem, it is the energy content. Even if in less than an hour we were hit by sand that had enough mass to make an asteroid 500 Metres across we would still be in big trouble. The nuke is only usefull as a way of geting the all or part of the asteroid to miss us. Or possibly to spread the overall impact time to a VERY long time - preferably years.

i see. So it would be better to redirect or delay the incoming body rather than destroy it? Did i get that right?

why would a neutron bomb be used since they are mainly designed to be more effective on humans than objects?

You have another problem with getting the explosive to the site. We don't happen to have these kind of missiles just laying around. Nuclear tipped missiles will not do it. At least not the ones the world has scattered around the globe. Those missiles were never designed to leave the orbit of the earth. They have neither the propellent to do the job nor do they have the guidance system for the job. For a missile to be effective, it must arrive at target.

There are so many if's here that are not talked about. You need advance warning. Enough warning to build a proper missile from scratch and get it there (travel time) with enough time to be effective after the blast. That means you need months in advance to do the job. It also means there is not time for politicans to get in on the action and ya ya about it. (Something almost certainly will not happen) You need advance knowledge of the make up of the asteroid, comet, ect. to determine how much force is needed, where it is needed, and in what way to apply it.

As has been mentioned, a head on blast will not be effective. So how are you going to turn the warhead into the proper trajectory?

And weight. I have mentioned this before, a good portion of the nuclear missiles are MIRV's. Meaning that they have multiple, small, warheads. Those are not going to do the trick either.

Where all this is going is that right now, we could not do anything about a killer asteroid headed for the earth. Except watch it come.

huh, that sucks. Nothin to do execpt pull out a beach chair and watch it hit.

Enough warning to build a proper missile from scratch and get it there

Are you sure we don't already have one?

Originally posted by stef 730
i see. So it would be better to redirect or delay the incoming body rather than destroy it? Did i get that right?

Yes!

Delaying it will allow the earth to get out of the way. Remember that the earth should get a speeding ticket for the speed it goes round the sun.

From a light year away, a fireworks rocket will have enough time. From 100,000 miles away the biggest bomb we can make will have not be big enough. Think of it like driving a boat. Just a little turn of the rudder for just a short while from 100 miles away and you miss the reef. Turn the rudder to the max from 6 feet away and you still hit.

The reason for using a neutron bomb is that this packs a bigger punch for the same weight. The more weight the harder, slower traveling and more expensive it is to get it to the rock.

Neutron bombs produce almost no explosion. Their punch is 99% radiation, which will not do anything to a million-ton asteriod. You want a very powerful hydrogen bomb.

or perhaps an anti-matter bomb..that is if we have the technology in that time =)

Originally posted by Gifted
Neutron bombs produce almost no explosion. Their punch is 99% radiation, which will not do anything to a million-ton asteriod. You want a very powerful hydrogen bomb.

Oops. What you said is what I meant. Fusion bomb aka Hydrogen bomb is better than Fission bomb. Neutron Bombs are useless for asteroids they are just people, computer and electronics killers.

I am sure that this is old hat now. However here is the link to the newest discovered asteriod. At present it has recieved the highest thread potential ever assigned to a discovered asteroid...

here (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992591)

When is that one supposed to hit? I think it's around 2019. Hope we have enough time.

Originally posted by Gifted
Neutron bombs produce almost no explosion. Their punch is 99% radiation, which will not do anything to a million-ton asteriod. You want a very powerful hydrogen bomb.

A neutron bomb produces a lot of neutrons and other types of radiation (but more neutrons than your average nuke).

If the asteroid is made up of minerals, metals, and other high Z number elements, then you'd want to go with a std fission triggered fusion device.

HOWEVER, if the object is made up of ice, hydrogen, and low Z elements, then a neutron bomb would be fine.

Reason being, low Z elements and their compounds usually have much higher neutron absorption and inelastic scatter properties. Neutrons go through high Z materials like lead like they're not even there.

In any case, the radiation pressure from a nuclear device would be a substantial push on an asteroid and still plenty destructive from inside.

As for anti-matter bombs... we have the technology and the know-how to do that, we just can't figure out a way to make anti-matter quickly and reliably. There's a reason it's the most expensive thing we can produce.

Yeah, you can build the equivalent of a 500-lb bomb in a couple of decades, the stuff is better used in research.

Originally posted by Emfuser

As for anti-matter bombs... we have the technology and the know-how to do that, we just can't figure out a way to make anti-matter quickly and reliably. There's a reason it's the most expensive thing we can produce.

Isn't positron still the only anti-matter we can produce? It can hardly be used as anything.

Originally posted by Joeman


Isn't positron still the only anti-matter we can produce? It can hardly be used as anything.

Positrons are naturally occuring. There are several nuclides that emit them.

We have created small, short lived environments where we have created anti-protons. Scientists somewhere even went to the trouble of getting a positron and an anti-proton together to create anti-hydrogen.

I can't think of much off the top of my head for uses of anti-matter. The annilhation of an anti-proton yields two gamma photons of almost 1 GeV, so there's some possible use there.

In a vacuum a nuke is really just an intense burst of electromagnetic energy. However, close to a asteroid this would be flash vapourising rock, and that would create a shockwave in the asteroid, and alot of rock turned to gas and plasma blasting out into the vacuum.

The best way would be to set a nuke off beside the asteroid, the evaporating rock on one side would give it a nudge.

A better way would to be just nudge the asteroid with kinetic projectiles. It would be simpler and more 'green' to send up lumps of heavy stuff in a orbit that crosses the asteroids orbit from 90 degrees. Giving it a sideways nudge off course. Each projectile could be small enough not to disturb and break up the asteroid.
Ten 1 ton trucks dropped on your head hurts more than one ten ton trucks

launching lumps of heavy stuff is more expensive than launchig explosives. it is safer though. it might be best to psuh lumps of heavy stuff already orbiting the earth out of their orbit to hit the target, that seems to me to be cheapest

we could just paint the bloody thing;)

WHat's "green" got to do with it? Unless you think the penetrator wouldn't stand the heat of reentry and spewing a few Kgs of plutonium over the planet is a worse fate than getting hit by a mile-wide asteriod.