|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Two wired articles
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? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Easterbrook article in Wired | Howard | History | 3 | May 31st 07 03:36 PM |
Kranz: Wired | Terrell Miller | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 17th 05 03:47 PM |
Wired Magazine, December '04 - Pgs 36-37 | Davoud | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 24th 04 12:25 AM |
Dumbya speaks wired? | Tamas Feher | Policy | 7 | October 14th 04 12:39 AM |