Two wired articles

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...t-icarus-1967/
I had heard of this, but this is the first detailed write-up I've seen.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...to-tycho-1969/ and
more about some of the thoughts about a possible Tycho mission.

On 3/30/2012 2:34 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...t-icarus-1967/ I had heard of this, but this is the first
detailed write-up I've seen.


Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there may not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT
thermonuke. Not a lot of specifics on why multiple such large devices would have been needed to alter the orbit, esp. if it could
have been intercepted further out.

Cratering of the surface from the energy of the explosion is interesting in the fact that a crater can also act a bit as a nozzle,
reflecting the force of the explosion back way into space whilst thrusting the object as well. You might have gotten a better return
for the investment by exploding a device close to the surface to create a crater where you need it and then subsequent explosions
further away using the crater to "focus" the spherical explosive "wave" into a more unidirectional jet.

Dave

In David Spain writes:

On 3/30/2012 2:34 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...t-icarus-1967/ I had heard of this, but this is the first
detailed write-up I've seen.


Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there may not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT
thermonuke. Not a lot of specifics on why multiple such large devices would have been needed to alter the orbit, esp. if it could
have been intercepted further out.

They may have picked it as a nice big round number.

I'm skeptical that even with the fate of the world on the line
that nine Saturn V's could have been completed by April 1968. Was
enough of the Saturn V design finalized by ... let's say May 1967 as the
'world is doomed; do something' date, to allow for accelerated, money-no-
object completion of the launch pad, the expanded Vehicle Assembly
Building, and *nine* rockets within eleven months?

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: How To Forget The Area Of A Trapezoid http://wp.me/p1RYhY-9d
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:59:00 PM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:
Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there may not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT
thermonuke.

....IIRC, this was intended to require an international effort. We already knew that the Soviets had the Tsar Bomba, the design of which was 100MT capable. If time was -that- tight, drag the one they had in storage, stick it on a Saturn V, lob it at the target, and *hope* the damn thing works.

....Of course, 45 years later, we know that deflecting the trajectory is far more preferable than trying to blow the impactor into multiple fragments, hoping they'll all burn up in the atmosphere long before hitting the ground.. All that dust floating around screwing with the weather was something not considered by the MIT study, IIRC.

OM

Fred J. McCall used his keyboard to write :
David Spain wrote:

On 3/30/2012 2:34 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...t-icarus-1967/
I had heard of this, but this is the first detailed write-up I've seen.


Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there may
not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT thermonuke. Not a lot
of specifics on why multiple such large devices would have been needed to
alter the orbit, esp. if it could have been intercepted further out.

Cratering of the surface from the energy of the explosion is interesting in
the fact that a crater can also act a bit as a nozzle, reflecting the force
of the explosion back way into space whilst thrusting the object as well.
You might have gotten a better return for the investment by exploding a
device close to the surface to create a crater where you need it and then
subsequent explosions further away using the crater to "focus" the
spherical explosive "wave" into a more unidirectional jet.


No explosion 'wave' in space.

Uh, not even the plasma from the bomb?

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Fred J. McCall explained :
Snidely wrote:

Fred J. McCall used his keyboard to write :
David Spain wrote:

On 3/30/2012 2:34 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...t-icarus-1967/
I had heard of this, but this is the first detailed write-up I've seen.


Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there
may not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT thermonuke. Not
a lot of specifics on why multiple such large devices would have been
needed to alter the orbit, esp. if it could have been intercepted
further out.

Cratering of the surface from the energy of the explosion is interesting
in the fact that a crater can also act a bit as a nozzle, reflecting the
force of the explosion back way into space whilst thrusting the object as
well. You might have gotten a better return for the investment by
exploding a device close to the surface to create a crater where you need
it and then subsequent explosions further away using the crater to
"focus" the spherical explosive "wave" into a more unidirectional jet.


No explosion 'wave' in space.

Uh, not even the plasma from the bomb?

A one megaton weapon detonated much more than 500 meters away imparts
pretty much no impulse at all.

http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/nuke.php

But isn't there still a "wave"?

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On 3/31/2012 9:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
David wrote:
Cratering of the surface from the energy of the explosion is interesting in the fact that a crater can also act a bit as a nozzle,
reflecting the force of the explosion back way into space whilst thrusting the object as well. You might have gotten a better return
for the investment by exploding a device close to the surface to create a crater where you need it and then subsequent explosions
further away using the crater to "focus" the spherical explosive "wave" into a more unidirectional jet.


No explosion 'wave' in space.


Fred,

True, I was thinking more in terms of focusing the IR and whatever you can get from X-Rays etc to heat material on the surface which
would gas outwards. I suppose a lot of this has to do with the makeup of the asteroid itself. If you can increase the surface area
that is directly exposed to the "light" energy of the device wouldn't that help?

I guess a similar question would be would the Project Orion pusher concept have gained more momentum from a parabolic pusher plate
surface?

Dave

On 4/1/2012 3:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

A one megaton weapon detonated much more than 500 meters away imparts
pretty much no impulse at all.

http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/nuke.php


BTW, thanks for that link.

Saving that one away. Has anyone verified its accuracy?

Dave

wrote in message
news:7794839.353.1333254742487.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbex14...

On Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:59:00 PM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:
Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there
may not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT
thermonuke.

...IIRC, this was intended to require an international effort. We already
knew that the Soviets had the Tsar Bomba, the design of which was 100MT
capable. If time was -that- tight, drag the one they had in storage, stick
it on a Saturn V, lob it at the target, and *hope* the damn thing works.

...Of course, 45 years later, we know that deflecting the trajectory is far
more preferable than trying to blow the impactor into multiple fragments,
hoping they'll all burn up in the atmosphere long before hitting the
ground. All that dust floating around screwing with the weather was
something not considered by the MIT study, IIRC.

According to the article it was and the plan was to deflect the asteroid
(hence the requirement for up to 9 launches).



OM



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Fred J. McCall was thinking very hard :
Snidely wrote:

Fred J. McCall explained :
Snidely wrote:

Fred J. McCall used his keyboard to write :
David Spain wrote:

On 3/30/2012 2:34 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...t-icarus-1967/
I had heard of this, but this is the first detailed write-up I've seen.


Just a quick comment on this. Given the proposed time constraints, there
may not have been enough time to design and test a 100MT thermonuke.
Not a lot of specifics on why multiple such large devices would have
been needed to alter the orbit, esp. if it could have been
intercepted further out.

Cratering of the surface from the energy of the explosion is interesting
in the fact that a crater can also act a bit as a nozzle, reflecting
the force of the explosion back way into space whilst thrusting the
object as well. You might have gotten a better return for the
investment by exploding a device close to the surface to create a
crater where you need it and then subsequent explosions further away
using the crater to "focus" the spherical explosive "wave" into a more
unidirectional jet.


No explosion 'wave' in space.

Uh, not even the plasma from the bomb?

A one megaton weapon detonated much more than 500 meters away imparts
pretty much no impulse at all.

http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/nuke.php

But isn't there still a "wave"?


No.

Not even a wavelet?

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?