Wonder what other applications this could be used for. I hope this makes nuke use more acceptable in the future.
>Russian scientists want to modify existing intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver a nuclear warhead that will supposedly obliterate near-earth asteroids that measure up to 50 meters across. They want to test this capability against Apophis, a well known near-earth asteroid that will pass close to Earth in 2036.
I mean, what could go wrong, right?
Sabit Saitgarayev of the Kakeyev Rocket Design Bureau’s is the leading researcher on this, and recently told TASS News why an ICBM is their asteroid plinking platform of choice:
“Most rockets work on boiling fuel. Their fueling begins 10 days before the launch and, therefore, they are unfit for destroying meteorites similar to the Chelyabinsk meteorite in diameter, which are detected several hours before coming close to the Earth. For this purpose, intercontinental ballistic missiles can be used, which requires their upgrade,” the scientist said.
At least Russia is looking ahead by doing something useful with their ICBMs. Just wait, one day the US will be begging Russia to "obliterate" an incoming asteroid that would destroy a large portion of the US. Besides, we need to get this shit together if we ever want to destroy alien warships. Maybe we'll disregard the orbital ordinance treaty and just launch a shitload of satellites with a shitload of ICBMs to "destroy incoming asteroids".
Solid plan would read again 10/10
What happens to all of the pieces when the asteroid explodes?
Will the orbit of all those 100m plus wide pieces remain stable? Or will they all fly in different directions? Did anyone think this through? Apophus is a big bitch.
Serious question, my public school friend.
What do you think the Sun is?
>what if like, all the space in the universe gets set on fire
>man-made nuke can vaporize a literally chunk of iron (which is what Apophis is).
The over-hype of nuclear warheads capabilities are going to get someone killed. Nothing is going to vaporize. It will be broken apart into pieces still large enough to turn cities into cinders.
While it certainly wont "obliterate" it, it can still produce enough force to through it off course. That way next cycle it isn't a close call, they can slam a meteor down into the middle east and be done with it.
nukes are near impossible to detonate accidentally
even if you blew up a nuclear missile in mid-flight it wouldn't produce a nuclear explosion because it would require all the mechanisms to fire at the same time
>I mean, what could go wrong, right?
americans say fuck you and send a dozen or red-necked riggers to blow some shit up
Why don't we ally ourselves with the asteroids and use them as weapons?
Name a human weapon stronger than a hypersonic rock?
>up to 50m
Apophis is not a good choice then. To actually obliterate such an object, you'd need serious penetration and substantially more than the old 20MT that the soviets had. I question the ability to repurpose a regular ICBM for this purpose.
barely going to do shit even if they get the warhead near the rock
>empty vacuum of space
>some rock flying alone
>big nuclear explosion near the rock
gee where is most of the blast going to go? i'm sure it wont take the path of least resistance
now if they could launch a giant shaped charge and hit the rock they might do some damage
Maybe one of those anti-shark knives that fills the target up with gas?
Probably doesn't work on porous rocks...but then again, what short of a hammer does?
Anyways, there's no need to destroy the rock. It just needs to be deflected.
No it won't. The destructive capabilities of nukes, outside of the immediate fireball is due to the blast effect which requires an atmosphere. In space all you are going to do to the asteroid is turn an AP bullet into grapeshot so to speak. American scientists came up with a better plan. Land ion engines on the asteroid and gradually steer it to miss the earth. I have a better plan. Steer the asteroid into stable orbit and use as a spaceship! The reason we don't have space cruisers is because it is fuck expensive to bring stuff up the gravity well.
The plan seems to be designed as a last resource when you don't have time to divert asteroids with ion engines. Ion Engines are extremely efficient, but also low on thrust. Ion engines are better for long-term impacts. Nukes are for when you have no time.
Russians aren't stupid, anon. They know their physics and mathematics.
Whether they can get the necessary funds to fulfill their plans and whether current technology can make it happen is a different question
Glorious post Comrade you have made "putt-putt" Putin proud.
>They want to test this capability against Apophis
>Goa'uld confirmed for Putin's shit list
Its something we as a species should at least do a test run to make sure we can do it in case of armageddon, but in this case the test run better not fuck us all up. So help us god if Apophos gets nuked and we end up with a thousand minivan sized chunks hurtling towards earth...
Good, there is only room for one great Goa'uld
well, if it's a toss between a mount everest punching the earth's surface at hipersonic speed and like five years of impacts equivalent to a big JDAM every few miles, it's kind of a shitty decision to make.
Not if it was detonated high enough for air currents to spread the fallout further than surface or underground nuclear tests. Nukes are detonated underground to minimize fallout and if they are detonated on the surface then weather conditions would have been carefully monitored beforehand. Detonating a nuke in the jet stream could cause severe damage to agriculture.
>vatniks incharge of nuking asteroids
were fukked lads
>humanity stops fighting and joins together in a era of peace never seen before, to roam the galaxy and plink asteroids and ayy lmaos
>gee where is most of the blast going to go? i'm sure it wont take the path of least resistance
most of it would be turned into radiation, if you are using vanilla nuke warheads purposed for atmospheric blast effects against cities and infrastructure in the vacuum of space. There is no indication they would however, they just said they would use the ICBM as the launch vehicle; people are lacking in reading comprehension skills nowadays.
>now if they could launch a giant shaped charge and hit the rock they might do some damage
You are talking about nuke-boosted shaped charges- casava howitzers. It would have to be an awfully large warhead in the megatons range and with a much wider plasma jet dispersion pattern instead of the originally envisioned multikiloton yields pushing plasma lances for vaporizing Soviet ICBMs if you want to completely vaporize the asteroid and not just poke a hole and crack it into just slightly smaller chunks. The other approach is to get one of those multi-megaton hardened warheads meant for busting Stargate Command, im sorry mount Cheyenne, get it to bury itself deep in the asteroid then bust it from the inside.
>Whether they can get the necessary funds to fulfill their plans and whether current technology can make it happen is a different question
Actually if there is one branch of the Russian military that is never short of funding its the Strategic Rocket Forces. deep space looking radars, and scopes, nuclear interceptors, all of these are living in some form in operational systems. If they ever get the need for em, the technology is there.
>Russia needs to ask for help from China.
Russia has vastly more experience and technology in space, nukes, and aerospace defence- what could China help them with? Funding is about the only thing one can conceive the Chinese can give a hand in but that is assuming the Russian economy stays in recession until 2036(hint, it most likely wouldn't)
As far as i've read, the most popular plan of action if Apophis is on a collision course, is to detonate a small charge on its surface to redirect it on a different trajectory away from earth.
I want to see this get done, I'm tired of our zombie space program sending little spy satellites. I want to see shit get BTFO in space nigga.
Does it say anywhere that detonating a nuke is part of the test?
Nukes still release a shit ton of energy, it'll just be (relatively, compared to the same warhead in atmosphere) short ranged due to inverse square law and lack of a shockwave. Thing is though, an asteroid would have a shockwave pass through it (and it would bounce around) causing damage throguh spallation, not to mention the sheer amount of heat directly from the blast through IR and a shitton of x-rays.
So the blast would cause an immediate change in velocity (and trajectory) due to ablating the rock, the shockwave through the rock would cause spallation or maybe even completely shattering it.
Very easy to fuck up though due to how short ranged nukes are. A kilometer in space is a very very short distance.
Also if there is risk of large chunks coming down....why woukd we use only one nuke? Blow up the big rock, then set off another or a dozen others to make the pieces smaller. Fuck its like people thnk you can only do smethngn once.
>Double tap that fucking asteroid.
Its like in the movies when a Soldier shoots a monster once then runs when it recovers after a few seconds. Nigga KEEP SHOOTING!
>Double tap that fucking asteroid.
Makes more sense than you think. Since the blast from a nuke will be largely wasted by just going into empty space, you use the first one to dig a crater in the asteroid. Then you pop the next one in the bottom of the crater, making the blast more efficient by providing more surface area of the rock around the sphere of the blast and by channelling the ejecta like a rocket nozzle.
They're planning to plink an ICBM against the asteroid, and snooker it away. They're not going to blow it up, that would be a waste of an ICBM.
It'll then conveniently and accidentally land in Assad's turf, and it'll be goodnight for the rebels.
Finally someone in this thread who knows what the fuck he's talking about