[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Nuclear Explosions in Space Question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/9/2017 12:31:07 AM EDT
|
I'm watching "The Expanse" on amazon and they had nuclear torpedo on their ships.
Here on Earth when a nuke goes off it produces a pressure wave that destroys stuff. However, in space how would this work. Space is a vacuum and there's basically nothing to push against, so how could it even produce a pressure wave? Other than an EMP and radiation would it cause any damage to objects nearby? |
|
Good question! Also since there is no oxygen or atmosphere there is no fireball, and so the heat produced would only go out as radiation, no a giant wave of instant firey hell! I've read some things about this.
The conclusion I've come to is that basically you'd pretty much need a direction hit if you wanted to take out some big science fictiony space ship with one. Without matter to transfer all that energy into, it's just gonna put out a bright light and heavy dose of radiation. Idk how much damage the heat would put out...it's a fascinating thought. |
|
Radiant heat can cause damage, roast things inside things, and melt things, in addition to the hard radiation doing things to electronics and deading biologicals. The demolition products of the bomb itself provide quite a bit of mass to produce shockwaves and shrapnel, at least to things very close to the explosion.
Some of the more commonly-postulated advanced uses for a nuclear warhead space weapon is to fuel bomb-pumped X-ray lasers which the warhead carefully aims at the target before initiating the bomb explosion. |
 Operation Dominic I and II - Starfish Prime Part 2 1962 ^ what nukes in space look like. As for the pressure wave no, and the thermal wave would be reduced by about 85% A nuke in space combat would actually have to hit a ship (or at least come a lot closer than what we think of as "close enough" with a nuke) to do what we consider "it got nuked" levels of physical damage to it. Since there's no atmosphere the radiation output would travel further though because there isn't any air to absorb it. At least that's what I remember from my "nukes in space for sci-fi writers" research from a few years ago. |
|
I've thought about this too when my friend and I were discussing the possibilities of using our nukes to destroy or deflect giant asteroids.
Lets imagine we detonate a Tsar Bomba way way out in deep deep space. What sort of damage could it do to a target, and within what radius? |
|
Quoted:
I've thought about this too when my friend and I were discussing the possibilities of using our nukes to destroy or deflect giant asteroids. Lets imagine we detonate a Tsar Bomba way way out in deep deep space. What sort of damage could it do to a target, and within what radius? |
|
In space you get radiation.... radio, thermal, visual, gamma, and particle
If you design your warhead, you can get more of the gamma and particle (enhanced radiation weapon) which is what we designed when we built nuclear tipped ICBM interceptors. The goal was to irradiate the incoming warhead enough to fry it. That is what you want to do to the systems on an enemy ship (including the biological systems). Now a direct hit is going to be able to place enough non-ionizing radiation on the target that you can thermally disrupt or vaporize their hull. If you want to know more, I recommend the 1977 edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons |
|
Quoted:
Great question. Always bothered me  .Quoted:
Great question. Always bothered me .Only one test flight of the anti-satellite mission was carried out, making a mock attack on the Explorer 6 at an altitude of 156 miles (251 km). To record its flight path, the Bold Orion transmitted telemetry to the ground, ejected flares to aid visual tracking, and was continuously tracked by radar. The missile successfully passed within 4 miles (6.4 km) of the satellite, which would be suitable for use with a nuclear weapon, but useless for conventional warheads.[1] |
|
Quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon From what I gather a direct hit isn't needed. Just gotta get within 4 miles. |
|
The radiation flash, thermal, visible and ionizing can do a lot of damage. There is also the mass of the warhead/bus which is going to be accelerated out from the blast with a substantial velocity. If nothing else you'll roast telescopes and pump a lot of heat into radiators.
You can also just throw a fuck ton of nukes at the problem. There's no real reason not to, aside from the cost. It's not like you're going to make space a more radioactive hell hole then it already is. |
|
Space is already a huge wash of radioactivity and nuclear explosions. The SUN is a continual Fusion Nuclear Event. The US has done a huge number of nuclear weapons in outer space - and upper atmosphere - no ill effects.
Spaceborne or Cosmic radiation contributes dose to every human and thing on earth - Life on earth evolved in the oceans first sheltered from cosmic radiation. The belts of moving radiation repelled by earths magnetic field create a huge dose - why astronaught going through the belts are at risk. Radiation is everywhere in the universe - a nuke going off in space has happened both man made and natural and nothing new. |
|
Quoted:
Space is already a huge wash of radioactivity and nuclear explosions. The SUN is a continual Fusion Nuclear Event. The US has done a huge number of nuclear weapons in outer space - and upper atmosphere - no ill effects. Spaceborne or Cosmic radiation contributes dose to every human and thing on earth - Life on earth evolved in the oceans first sheltered from cosmic radiation. The belts of moving radiation repelled by earths magnetic field create a huge dose - why astronaught going through the belts are at risk. Radiation is everywhere in the universe - a nuke going off in space has happened both man made and natural and nothing new. |
|
Quoted:
It will be a tough job if the ship is designed to withstand re-entry in atmosphere . Quoted:
Quoted:
I am guessing it might work ok if the warhead was penetrated deep into the ship Astronomical. 
|
|
Quoted:
Radiant heat can cause damage, roast things inside things, and melt things, in addition to the hard radiation doing things to electronics and deading biologicals. The demolition products of the bomb itself provide quite a bit of mass to produce shockwaves and shrapnel, at least to things very close to the explosion. Some of the more commonly-postulated advanced uses for a nuclear warhead space weapon is to fuel bomb-pumped X-ray lasers which the warhead carefully aims at the target before initiating the bomb explosion. |
| A certain percentage of the yield of a nuclear weapon comes from the chain reaction of atoms in the medium which surrounds the initial reaction. There was actually some uncertainty prior to the first test blast that the chain reaction wouldn't be containable, and the entire planet would be obliterated. I don't know what percentage of the yield the test medium adds, but the vacuum of space would certainly be severely limiting. |
|
Quoted:
I've thought about this too when my friend and I were discussing the possibilities of using our nukes to destroy or deflect giant asteroids. Lets imagine we detonate a Tsar Bomba way way out in deep deep space. What sort of damage could it do to a target, and within what radius? 
|
|
Nutshell:
https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm Yeahs, they'd remain effective but in a different manner than inside the atmosphere; ie: no blast wave or thermal affect. |
|
Quoted:
Space is already a huge wash of radioactivity and nuclear explosions. The SUN is a continual Fusion Nuclear Event. The US has done a huge number of nuclear weapons in outer space - and upper atmosphere - no ill effects. Spaceborne or Cosmic radiation contributes dose to every human and thing on earth - Life on earth evolved in the oceans first sheltered from cosmic radiation. The belts of moving radiation repelled by earths magnetic field create a huge dose - why astronaught going through the belts are at risk. Radiation is everywhere in the universe - a nuke going off in space has happened both man made and natural and nothing new. Nuke's create a lot of heat and having something that is millions of degrees suddenly appear next to you is going to fry things from the thermal effects alone. |
|
Quoted:
Good question! Also since there is no oxygen or atmosphere there is no fireball, and so the heat produced would only go out as radiation, no a giant wave of instant firey hell! I've read some things about this. The conclusion I've come to is that basically you'd pretty much need a direction hit if you wanted to take out some big science fictiony space ship with one. Without matter to transfer all that energy into, it's just gonna put out a bright light and heavy dose of radiation. Idk how much damage the heat would put out...it's a fascinating thought. Fire from bombs don't rely on oxygen in the atmosphere. Using your logic rocket engines would produce no flame fronts in space.....yet they do. Amazingly we figured out how to carry our own oxidizer into space with us. 
|
|
Quoted:
Nutshell: https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm Yeahs, they'd remain effective but in a different manner than inside the atmosphere; ie: no blast wave or thermal affect. Multi-megaton weapons may have lethal dose radii of hundreds of miles and lower dosages will extend even further. |
 UHF - Stanley asks George a deep question. |
|
We have top guys on it to shoot down any threats.
Attached File |
|
Quoted:
A certain percentage of the yield of a nuclear weapon comes from the chain reaction of atoms in the medium which surrounds the initial reaction. There was actually some uncertainty prior to the first test blast that the chain reaction wouldn't be containable, and the entire planet would be obliterated. I don't know what percentage of the yield the test medium adds, but the vacuum of space would certainly be severely limiting. |
| I haven't seen the expanse but I'll assume the Nike is being fired at a big ass space ship from a big ass space ship. I would imagine that ass the projectile penetrated the hull of the ship it would find plenty of oxygen. The inside of that ship would become a fire storm as the flame raced through the corridors looking for the source of the O2. |
|
Quoted:
It will be a tough job if the ship is designed to withstand re-entry in atmosphere . Even if they built a ship with armor, you really have no limit to how much detonation you can have to use as an assisted projectile. Imagine a 2kt booster charge to ram a larger nuke through a large armored hull. |
|
When the gamma ray burst hits another vehicle it will drive the electrons off the surfaces of the vehicle both internally and externally.
The displaced particles will travel away and then be attracted back to the now oppositely charged vehicle. Secondary x-rays will be produced in large quantities along with charge and discharge currents from the unequal charge displacement. If a significant number of protons are released they also will cause damage to the vehicle. While satellites are designed to tolerate particle strikes the magnitude of the damage would be the equivalent of many years on orbit delivered in a short period. For the most part simple range to the explosion will determine survivability. Any fields of radiation (gamma) rays) or particles will spread out and decrease in intensity per unit area based on distance squared. An EMP type pulse is created on a struck vehicle by the movement of the charges away and back. |
|
Quoted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon From what I gather a direct hit isn't needed. Just gotta get within 4 miles. Quoted:
Quoted:
Great question. Always bothered me .Only one test flight of the anti-satellite mission was carried out, making a mock attack on the Explorer 6 at an altitude of 156 miles (251 km). To record its flight path, the Bold Orion transmitted telemetry to the ground, ejected flares to aid visual tracking, and was continuously tracked by radar. The missile successfully passed within 4 miles (6.4 km) of the satellite, which would be suitable for use with a nuclear weapon, but useless for conventional warheads.[1] |
|
Quoted:
Pretty sure a .50 cal would royally fuck up the space shuffle and it was designed for re-entry, I dont think it would be hard to shove a nuke into a spacecrafts hull. Even if they built a ship with armor, you really have no limit to how much detonation you can have to use as an assisted projectile. Imagine a 2kt booster charge to ram a larger nuke through a large armored hull. Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be a tough job if the ship is designed to withstand re-entry in atmosphere . Even if they built a ship with armor, you really have no limit to how much detonation you can have to use as an assisted projectile. Imagine a 2kt booster charge to ram a larger nuke through a large armored hull. |
|
Quoted:
The potential damage from EMPs is grossly exaggerated, by the way. I've been told I was an idiot for saying that, despite citing the results in Hawaii of Starfish Prime, detonated over the Pacific, which were: ...streetlights blew out, circuit breakers tripped, telephone service crashed, aircraft radios malfunctioned, burglar alarms sounded, and garage door openers mysteriously activated. Oh noooooo, not my garage door opener! |
|
Quoted:
Space is already a huge wash of radioactivity and nuclear explosions. The SUN is a continual Fusion Nuclear Event. The US has done a huge number of nuclear weapons in outer space - and upper atmosphere - no ill effects. |
|
There is a matter and radiation pressure wave. There are loads of different types of radiation emanating from a nuclear reaction.
A good example of seeing this in action is by observing the stars. The sun is the closest example we have of a huge thermonuclear fusion blast in space. As an added benefit it's on on the time! It expels matter and radiation and lots of different speeds and they all interact differently when they contact stuff in the solar system. |
