SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post - Artificial vs. natural illumination for space habitats

**Alex Terrell** · August 13th 06, 09:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.tech

wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

(Any thoughts on this? - how effective is 5cm
of steel, followed by 50m of vacuum followed by 4 metres of moon rock
foam, in absorbing a nuclear blast?)

That depends on whether the "blast" delivers any concussive force or
not. Nukes in space can only generate a concussive force with the mass
attached to the nuke (not much) and - if it detonates really close to
the target - what it can ablate off the target.

My assumption was that you have massive radiation exposure of the outer
shell

Otherwise, you only have radiation from the nuke to do damage, and the
radiation from the nuke won't be more penetrating than cosmic rays,
which the shielding can stop.

But in the volume radiation from a nuclear bomb, I think a large
section of the outer shield will be instantly vapourised. However, the
"instantly" will not be as "instant" as the nuclear flash. The plasma
of iron nuclei will still continue to absorb the nuclear radiation.

This plasma will then generate a concussive force, which will transfer
significant heat and momentum to the next level of the shield. How much
I don't know.

What is clear is that the multilayer design is orders of magnitude
better than a single layer shield.