Scientists Propose Using Cold War Era Weapons To Deflect Asteroids (blastingnews.com)

MarkWhittington writes: Many people are considering what to do if an asteroid was headed for a collision with Earth. One such collision wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Now, films such as "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact" depict what might happen if Earth were threatened with a similar event in modern times. As a result, some people are repurposing weapons that were built or envisioned during the Cold War to confront the celestial threat, from old ICBMs to space-based laser systems.

Comments

Now?

[YutakaFrog]

Yeah, if by "now" you mean 18 years ago...

Retarded Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah shoot some ICBMs at em, we certainly need more fucking orbital debris.

Meteor (1979)

[arobatino]

Meteor (1979)

Of course...

[blindseer]

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Of course...

[Applehu Akbar]

What could possibly go wrong?

The universal excuse for doing nothing about a given problem. But...having an asteroid aiming for us would tend to concentrate the collective mind.

false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

" One such collision wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. "
this is not science. that is a hypothesis. a good one but nothing more so far.

"films such as "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact" depict what might happen ..."
really? mediocre movies are the way to model future?

too much of such propaganda and hype may lead to bad decisions that will make bad use of scarce resources.
resources better used on more real problems that results in real tragedy, every day right now. for instance, there are millions without clean water( and thousands die because of that). but such things are not sexy .
not to forget, in some places whole world of people are/were destroyed by governments( especially by principal ones that fought the cold war) in ways more terrible than in any movie. but usa is not looking for practical solutions but more wars and regime changes.

Re: false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

we can do more than one thing, but there is always an opportunity cost . never heard of that ? look it up. my bad for assuming basic literacy

Re:false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

false analogy.
chance of house fire and potential damage can be calculated and insurance premium will be based on that .

Re:false premises leads to bad decisions

[Applehu Akbar]

"The chance is small but the potential damage is huge, so it's better to get some insurance to mitigate that risk. Just as how people generally get fire insurance even though there is no guarantee that their house will burn down."

After all, this is why the weapons were built in the first place.

Re:false premises leads to bad decisions

[ceoyoyo]

Hypotheses are specific predictions. The idea that an asteroid had a big part in killing the dinosaurs is the theory, and so far it's the one that checks out the best, via the hypotheses it generates.

Re:false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

my point

Re: false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

ignorance displayed by people like you should not be a surprise to anyone

Re:false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

it is not established science, and certainly not a sound basis for making decisions resulting in use of lot of resources which can be used for other better things that have no such problems of authenticity

Re: false premises leads to bad decisions

[sittingnut]

unsurprised laughter is the most rational reply to ignorance.

This shit again?

[Chas]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.

And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

A new generation of people whose ability to reason has been compromised by mass media?

Re:This shit again?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

Because there is a strong belief in the US that nukes solves every problem.
Also, we like explosions.

Re:This shit again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was generally accepted that painting an asteroid would be a good way to deflect it to a safe distance. It makes a whole lot more sense than using a nuclear weapon.

Re:This shit again?

[blindseer]

"Also, we like explosions."

Is it explosion Wednesday already?

*BOOM*

I guess it is.

Re:This shit again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when they are North Korean

Re:This shit again?

[sociocapitalist]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

So that we can modernize our weapons to have something positioned against the late growth in military power of both Russia and China without seeming overly aggressive in the hope of not further escalating global tensions, perhaps?

Re:This shit again?

[blindseer]

Maybe some good can come from this. Let the idiots spout off solutions that won't work so that the people that have the knowledge and intelligence to see how this can fail can argue for something that will work. Sort of following the idea that "there is no such thing as bad publicity" that people follow in politics and popular culture.

If we can get people to think that firing rockets carrying radioactive materials is something that might be considered acceptable then perhaps we could do something that might work where only something with a nuclear reactor is a feasible solution. I'm just tossing this out as an example, I don't know if it would work, but suppose instead of detonating a nuclear weapon on the surface we have a nuclear powered drilling machine that bores into the asteroid. The hole it creates would act as a rocket bell and the burning and evaporating material from the nuclear reactor heat acts as the propellant. This could throw the asteroid out of orbit far enough that it misses Earth.

Also, this brain dead "science" shown in movies and TV is going to get people killed. Cars don't blow up when they hit a brick wall. The rubber soles of your boots won't keep you from getting electrocuted. Car doors don't stop bullets. People could write encyclopedias on how much movies and TV get medicine wrong.

As bad as things have been in the past I do see things getting better. Outside of the super hero genre we are starting to see science being portrayed more accurately. I think that there are enough educated people out there that writers at least try to appeal to them, and people are starting to realize that real life is interesting as it is.

Of course I could be completely wrong.

Re:This shit again?

[malditaenvidia]

Michael Bay, please get out.

Re:This shit again?

[maestroX]

You're being overly negative.
Until Red Dawn nobody could imagine what would happen if North Korea invaded the US.
If an asteroid is on our path I'm sure as hell going to vote on Eastwood to blast it away.
We'd have Chuck Norris as a backup.
Just stop crying already, I told you: don't watch adult movies!

Re:This shit again?

[monkeyxpress]

And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...

Well, sure, the modified orbiter needed to be more robust, and some retro-thrusters on the Armadillos would have prevented them being blown into space, but overall it worked out fine, and Bruce would have even made it back if not for a bit of bad luck with the auto-detonator.

Re:This shit again?

[conquistadorst]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.

Well you figured that out pretty quickly. Obviously you plotted out your formula out proving its impossibility on the back of a paper napkin, right? Can you show your math before you start discrediting your fellow scientists on this idea? You can figure this out on a napkin if you want to using the formula below as a starting point and then estimating the mass, velocity, and kinetic energy of an incoming asteroid. You could calculate how much kinetic energy is needed to deflect an asteroid.

It has been estimated that a velocity change of just 3.5/t × 10^-2 ms^-1 (where t is the number of years until potential impact) is needed to successfully deflect a body on a direct collision trajectory. In addition, under certain circumstances, much smaller velocity changes are needed. wikipedia

Re:This shit again?

[dj245]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.

And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

A new generation of people whose ability to reason has been compromised by mass media?

The US is subtly sabre-rattling against China and Russia.

Re:This shit again?

[rossdee]

The problem is that asteroids are usually rotating.. Painting one side so it reflects the suns rays more isn't going to do anything.
The same thing applies to going up there and sticking a rocket motor on it. Although at least with a rocket morot you could turn it on only when its facing the right way.

Re:This shit again?

[ceoyoyo]

You could paint the whole asteroid and only the sunward side would be affected. That would produce asymmetric thrust that would change the orbit.

Re:This shit again?

[Talderas]

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

To provide a justification for nuclear disarmament by appropriating nuclear weapons for asteroid defense.

Re:This shit again?

[dcw3]

Nah, it's the same old generation who loved and keeps loving such power. Destroyer of worlds and the like... (a little more literal now, it seems)

Is that the same old generation that brought the SALT treaties, and the end of the Cold War? The same one that brought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:This shit again?

[Chas]

Thing is you have to be able to attach it to a realistic launch vehicle.

That right there automatically limits the size.

The largest nuclear explosion in history was Russia's Tsar Bomba, at 50 Megatons.
The device itself weighed in at 30 tons. That's roughly 7x the mass of some of the largest nuclear launch devices on record.

Moreover, again, we're talking about a detonation in a vacuum.

A nuclear explosion is roughly 85% kinetic and thermal, with the remaining 15% being other forms of radiation.

In space, there's no medium to propagate through. So that pretty much castrates the kinetic kill, and limits thermal transfer. Leaving the remainder to be radiation pressure.

So you're relying on a bomb to deliver large quantities of radiation pressure in the hopes of diverting. Unfortunately, such a bomb would need to be unlaunchably large.

And no, random impacts of various smaller devices won't accomplish anything.

Re:This shit again?

[bigpat]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.

And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...

So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?

A new generation of people whose ability to reason has been compromised by mass media?

The real answer is that it depends on the particular circumstances... The composition of the asteroid, the time to impact, the yield of the nuclear weapon(s). As far as I am aware the simulations have shown different outcomes depending on the scenario. In general if you have enough warning you can use something other than nuclear weapons. But with less warning you will probably need to use a nuclear weapon or many nuclear weapons.

So the bottom line is that there is no general conclusion you can make about using nuclear weapons.

In some circumstances a nuke is probably the best or only option to either destroy the asteroid or at least vaporize enough of the asteroid to reduce the damage it will cause. Because some material will vaporize and if it breaks up then more surface area of smaller pieces will cause more to material to vaporize in the atmosphere. And in some circumstances a nuke will either do no good or possibly even make the situation worse. But at some point if the situation is desperate and there is very limited time for good analysis, then lobbing a nuke (or twenty) at an incoming asteroid is probably going to at least break it up enough so less mass will make it through the atmosphere. But again, if we are talking a bout a different scenario where something that was going to cause regional destruction was going to hit in the middle of an unpopulated or less populated area and now post nuke several large pieces are going to directly hit 3 major cities, then potentially you have made the problem worse.

So the answer is that it depends and you had better be ready to run some simulations and be ready with some nuclear weapons just in case.

Re:This shit again?

[painandgreed]

Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?

They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.

No they didn't. Yes it would. They have done research and while there is a better way, that is not what they found. All that kenetic transfer you are looking for would be from things vaporizing from the release of x-rays and other high energy EM radiation. In lack of an atmosphere, the same such rays would vaporize the surface of the asteroid and be ejected from it like rocket exhaust. If they could bury it somewhat in the asteroid, that would work better for trasnfer of energy and directionality of the resultant ejection. However, the plan they actually came up with was for a nuclear device built do what they wanted. The bomb itself would be shielded in an x-ray reflector, similar to how they focus the same x-rays on the hydrogen in fusion bombs, but instead focus them on an x-ray absorber that would vaporize and be sent quite near the speed of light in the direction of the target. Calcuations showed that such a design should be able to direct 95% of the energy of an atomic bomb into the target as a kinetic energy weapon.

Re:This shit again?

[BigFootApe]

Nukes, especially two stage nukes, are heavy emitters of X-ray light. Detonating the nuke at an appropriate distance allows the nuke to heat the surface matter of the object which blows off and acts as reaction mass. The efficiency of this coupling can also be improved via some design tricks for the device itself or by cratering the object with a kinetic impactor first then timing the detonation so it's directly over the resultant "rocket nozzle" on the object's surface.

Cold War-era weapons?

[Harold Halloway]

Chieftain tanks? Vulcan bombers? They won't work.

No need to worry

[blindseer]

The meteor impact will cause a nuclear winter that will cancel out the global warming.

I'm pretty sure there is a cream for that.

[dsmatthews9379]

Asteroids that is.

Scientists.

[Spazmania]

"Scientists" should understand the difference between the low earth orbit that an ICBM can almost achieve versus intercepting an object in deep space. Deflect an asteroid a fraction of a degree when it's still a month away and it's certain to miss the planet. When the same asteroid is in range of an ICBM, it's far far too late to do anything.

Re:Scientists.

[rtb61]

So pretty much if you seriously want to do anything about it, you have to be up on the moon. Not only to find them far enough away but to 6 times more effectively launch them. Especially is you launched them via a steam cannon with variable acceleration for the first stage and rocket only for final guidance. Of course you could do the same from earth the barrel would just need to be quite a few kilometres long, with an outlet as high as practicable and you would not get as much warning. Better to use that earth mounted vacuum steam cannon(s), with magnetic suspension to fire stuff at the moon on a daily basis to build a base on the moon, for earlier detection and far more effective reaction.

Re:Scientists.

[Plumpaquatsch]

"Scientists" should understand the difference between the low earth orbit that an ICBM can almost achieve versus intercepting an object in deep space.

Actually, "scientists" may not be talking about ICBMs at all (despite the article first claiming so), because when it goes to the vague details of the plan there's suddenly an additional word: "The Russians would like to test their ICBM defense system on 99942 Apophis ..."

Re:Scientists.

[MoarSauce123]

Not only that most asteroids are significantly faster than a missile, so the trajectory of both needs to be spot on. Space lasers might be an option. Would be nice to see that there is finally a use for all the stuff Reagan wasted billions on.

Re: it was purposeful

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. They're waiting for the right moment to replace our sorry-assed species with something awesome, like the dinosaurs were.

Re:Scientists?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> cold war era weapons?

I was thinking it could be a 1967 Oldsmobile Delta 88 sedan with a drunk Kennedy at the wheel.

Re: asteroid digestion

[kellymcdonald78]

No, you just flash fry the hemisphere. All that mass burning up in the atmosphere gets turned into heat, we're talking about turning the sky into an incandescent mass that radiates all that heat down to the ground. Rather have all that mass impact in one spot, bad day for that spot, but much better for the planet

Re:This is illogical

[ceoyoyo]

The probability of an individual being killed by an asteroid is quite a bit more likely than dying in a terrorist attack. It's also higher than dying to a lightning strike, and is about the same as being killed by an amusement park ride. Note also that the probability of civilization being ended by an asteroid strike is much, much higher than by any of those other causes.

And yet the cost of reducing those chances enormously is very small compared to the cost of, say, reducing the chance of death by terrorist. When you run the numbers, asteroid defence is a very cost effective way to reduce risk.

Who's gonna pay for it?

[braindrainbahrain]

The last time someone was serious about defending the Earth, nobody cared enough to pay for it.

Re:This is illogical

[dcw3]

But, look at the Risk/Reward. When the risk is minuscule, but the result of a single occurrence would be the destruction of the planet, then not making some logical mitigation plan is unacceptable.

Re:Not theoretically impossible

[Chas]

There are limits though.

Because, sure, we can make some million ton bomb that pops off with a couple thousand megatons of force.

But how do we get it up into space?

The lift capacity of a space shuttle is roughly 25 tons.

Tsar Bomba, a droppable or stationary bomb, the most powerful ever detonated, weighs in at 30 tons, with a 50 megaton yield.

Oh yes, and you're detonating in space, a vacuum, which robs it of most of the power you need to divert or destroy such an object.

Great science fiction, not great science

[k6mfw]

What this thread is missing is "time to call Bruce Willis" comment. OK, blowing up a threatening asteroid is common movie plot and pretty much all are great entertainment (I enjoy watching Armageddon, "I don't care if they are physically perfect, can they survive a space launch?" Physician: "I don't understand how they even survived the tests!").

An ICBM is an impressive weapon. Launch vehicle with huge flame and lots of smoke, screams through the lower atmosphere at incredible high Q. Vaults halfway around the globe, incoming warhead meteors through the atmosphere. And then BOOM, a city reduced to a smoldering flat piece of ash. Now take that same bomb and add more speed to put it into orbit. Hmmm, ain't that easy. Will need to add another stage or modify for longer burn time and reduce mass of final item to put into orbit. Darn it, Tsiolkovsky developed that equation and nobody can figure out how to violate it (it is based on conservation of momentum so lots of luck repealing that). OK let's take that ICBM that is made for orbit insertion to the next level: Getting out of earth orbit. I think this is where it gets really hard as it seems need something of really high ISP. I was reading someplace (I don't quite know how to work the Rocket Eqn so I base this on what I read), need pressure fed booster meaning turbo pump for a LH2/LOX rocket as only that fuel/oxidizer combination has ISP good enough to get something of significant mass beyond earth orbit. So all this talk about firing nukes at a rogue asteroid is bankrupt as the SSTO. But I guess that don't stop people from generating PPTs and sensationalize articles.

Hey, are we due for another pack of asteroid/meteor movies? Perhaps some new creative angles instead of the gimmick like secret USAF spaceplane to the rescue has pretty much worn its course since it was introduced in Marooned.

Neil DegrasseTyson wants to kill us all

[formfeed]

In the last few years this asteroid-doomsday-talk really took off.

Sure there is a risk, but maybe not higher than a worldwide pandemic, a nuclear war, or Odin sending a flood.
- Or do THEY know something? Like, that the risk suddenly got higher by something WE did...??!!

That's when it dawned on me:
It is the outer planets that protect us from space debris. And Neil DegrasseTyson removed Pluto!

Re:This is illogical

[KGIII]

Do you have a citation for that? As far as i know, only one person has ever died from one and one lady claims to have been hit by one - it shattered her arm.

Now, it seems to me we actually have quite a few more people that die from your other listed causes. I want to see how they butchered the numbers to come up with that.

Re:Math

[KGIII]

That's great! Now, why are you telling me that? Read the post I replied to, read my post, and then please explain why you think I don't know that.

Re:Dinosaurs

[KGIII]

The probability of an individual human being killed by an asteroid is so close to near zero that I can't even begin to calculate it. I'm well aware of the math, or I'd have not asked the question. I know how the current theory about the dinosaur extinction works. I know how the probabilities work. I know the estimates for NEO and the time-frames associated with them.

Now, provide a citation - that has the math, that shows the probability for an individual is higher than the other risks. Or stop spreading FUD. Facts are better than fear. Unfounded claims are FUD. If you're right then you should be able to show me the math. I do not see the math. I have not yet seen the math. I even went looking for the math - I found nothing even remotely close to the claim. If you absolutely need me to, and pay me for my time, I will do the math for you.

I didn't forget to write a stupid title

[ca19]

This post is spam, links to the "real" article that true to get you to "answer a survey question" to actually read it. Nice going slashdump.